Received a letter from court.

TM74

I also cannot find the new template by @Coupon-mad call it brain fog because I've been reading this for over 7 hours now !

Can someone point me in the right direction looked on top of this site but ca t see it as there are a few and I don't know the new one edited in March 22'

Coupon-mad

Top of the forum, permanently pinned there.  An Announcement thread called Template Defence, edited March 2022.

This makes no sense, wrong use of the word 'vicissitudes'.  It's just not grammatical:

 It is also known that there were vicissitudes with Vehicle registration number xxxxxxxx 

 The Defendant argues that due to vicissitudes surrounding the event 

It's a really quirky word and is, IMHO, really only best if you directly quote from Jopson and not try to use it in your own sentence.

Not sure why you've decided to bin the POFA and admit to driving? 

That wasn't advised on your thread and never has been, on any Highview thread you'll have searched for and read.  We have hundreds and no-one would admit to driving at this early stage and bin the POFA argument.

KeithP

TM74 said:

I also cannot find the new template by @Coupon-mad call it brain fog because I've been reading this for over 7 hours now !

Can someone point me in the right direction looked on top of this site but ca t see it as there are a few and I don't know the new one edited in March 22'

It's the Announcement thread entitled...
Template defence to adapt for all parking cases where they add false admin costs - edited March 2022

TM74

CM really getting confused I thought I HAD to admit I was keeper AND driver or do I just leave it as Keeper? 

What if they ask me who the driver is ? 

Coupon-mad

That comes later. I am not telling you to DENY it.

You need to read more Highview threads.  There are hundreds.

TM74

Yeah unfortunately I've sort of ran out of time because this has to be sent tomorrow by 16.00, still time I know but with work etc.

I just wish I could be guided to the correct thread to look at because it's so time consuming trying to judge whether one is correct over another.

So do you think I should keep out the driver bit ? But just state I was keeper ? 

Then sort of admit it at WS ? 

Sorry really struggling to understand here.

Coupon-mad

Why not just read the other Highview one right next to yours tonight?

TM74

The facts as known to the Defendant:

2. It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle xxxxxxx but liability is denied. The Defendant is unable to recall if they were the driver on that day due to multiple drivers being insured and the event taking place almost 6 years ago.

3. The Defendant was only aware of this parking charge after being sent multiple debt recovery letters at some point in 2017. Prior to the debt recovery letters the Defendant received no PCN or other communication from Highview Parking Limited. The Defendant as the registered keeper of the vehicle in question at the time, notes that they cannot be held liable due to the Claimant not complying with the ‘keeper liability’ requirements set out in the Protection of Freedom Act 2012 ("POFA"), Schedule 4.

4. Where it is noted that the Claimant has elected not to comply with the 'keeper liability' requirements set out in Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA), Claimant has included a clear falsehood in their POC which were signed under a statement of truth by the Claimant's legal representative who should know, (as the Claimant undoubtedly does), that it is untrue to state that the Defendant is 'liable as keeper'. This can never be the case with a Highview Parking Limited claim because this parking firm, same as any Group Nexus company, have never used the POFA 2012 wording, of their own volition. Not only does the POC include this misleading untruth, but the Claimant has also added an unidentified sum in false 'damages' to enhance the claims. So sparse is their statement of case, that the Claimant has failed to even state any facts about the alleged breach or the amount of the parking charge that was on the signage, because it cannot have been over £100. Which then leads to the question of how they arrive at the Amount Claimed for a Total of £296.76 (The Defendant has included the £35 Court Fee & £50 Legal representative's costs for the purposes of this defence point).

TM74

Apologies I'm having major issues with this site I'm using a phone that has latest update but this platform seems ultra sensitive 

Jenni_D

This board simply doesn't work very well on a mobile device - use a proper PC if you can.