Highview Parking Court Claim - out of the blue

digitaljeff

Thanks again... I think I've amended as per your comments

2. It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle and driver in question but liability is denied.

3.  The Defendant was issued with a Claim Form by DCB Legal acting on behalf of the Claimant Highview Parking Limited for a Total amount of £329.40 (inclusive of £35 Court Fee & £50 Legal representative's costs). This relates to a PCN that was issued for the alleged offence over five and a half years ago on xxxxx at xxxxx Retail Park.

4. The defendant was a customer of Halfords at the retail park, and even though these events occurred over five and a half years ago the defendant recalls clearly that the car park was free to those attending the retail park.

5. The defendant was awaiting a fitting service to the car and having been asked to wait by Halfords staff under the doctrine of promissory estoppel, the Claimant has no standing, or cause of action, to litigate in this matter.

6. This was not a single parking event, the car was there to have some mechanical attention and fitting. The car was not parked in a bay the whole time.  For at least 20/30 minutes it was being fitted by Halfords. This cannot be counted as part of a single period of parking.

Fruitcake

It is not an offence.

Where you use initials you need to spell them out; so Parking Charge Notice (PCN) the first time your use the term, then PCN thereafter. The same applies for any and all abbreviations.

digitaljeff

3.  The Defendant was issued with a Claim Form by DCB Legal acting on behalf of the Claimant Highview Parking Limited for a Total amount of £329.40 (inclusive of £35 Court Fee & £50 Legal representative's costs). This relates to a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) that was issued  for the alleged offence  over five and a half years ago on 09/09/2016 at Silkbridge Retail Park.

Is that what you mean?

1505grandad

"2. It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle and driver in question on an unremarkable date over 5 and a half years ago but liability is denied."

I think the above should read  -  ".................was the registered keeper and driver of the vehicle in question on an ............"

Fruitcake

digitaljeff said:

3.  The Defendant was issued with a Claim Form by DCB Legal acting on behalf of the Claimant Highview Parking Limited for a Total amount of £329.40 (inclusive of £35 Court Fee & £50 Legal representative's costs). This relates to a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) that was issued  for the alleged offence  over five and a half years ago on 09/09/2016 at Silkbridge Retail Park.

Is that what you mean?

Yes, that's okay.

digitaljeff

1505grandad said:

"2. It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle and driver in question on an unremarkable date over 5 and a half years ago but liability is denied."

I think the above should read  -  ".................was the registered keeper and driver of the vehicle in question on an ............"

Thanks, I have changed that to... 

2. It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper and driver of the vehicle in question but liability is denied.

however @Not_A_Hope said above I should delete the follow 'on an unremarkable date over 5 and a half years ago' 

He said 'You don't need to state 5.5 years ago three times. I would delete from para 2.'

Coupon-mad

Agree with all of that.

Coupon-mad

All apart from the word 'offence'.  It was not a criminal matter. Alleged breach of contract.

digitaljeff

So as it stands... 

2. It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper and driver of the vehicle in question but liability is denied.

3.  The Defendant was issued with a Claim Form by DCB Legal acting on behalf of the Claimant Highview Parking Limited for a Total amount of £329.40 (inclusive of £35 Court Fee & £50 Legal representative's costs). This relates to a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) that was issued over five and a half years ago on 09/09/2016 at Silkbridge Retail Park.

4. The defendant was a customer of Halfords at the retail park, and even though these events occurred over five and a half years ago the defendant recalls clearly that the car park was free to those attending the retail park.

5. The defendant was awaiting a fitting service to the car and having been asked to wait by Halfords staff under the doctrine of promissory estoppel, the Claimant has no standing, or cause of action, to litigate in this matter.

6. This was not a single parking event, the car was there to have some mechanical attention and fitting. The car was not parked in a bay the whole time.  For at least 20/30 minutes it was being fitted by Halfords. This cannot be counted as part of a single period of parking.

If I get the thumbs up I'll submit it

Coupon-mad

You still have 5.5 years ago, twice.  Remove one.