Highview parking claim

catrat

And I will of course keep forum up to date as I understand there is an interest in following Highview parking claims and trends at present.

Fruitcake

I suggest para 2 is amended to say ... keeper, but liability is denied. The identity of the driver is not known.

In my opinion they shouldn't be saying they might have been, or probably were, or might not have been if they do not know for certain.
If there is doubt, then that doubt should be stated, and put the claimant to strict proof that they are pursuing the correct person, and it will be up to the court to decide on the balance of probabilities whether the defendant was or was not the driver.
Don't go looking for evidence that they may have been the driver.
Do go looking for evidence that they may not have been. For example, other persons named on the vehicle's insurance policy, family members with permission to drive on their own insurance.

catrat

This Is a very important detail for us. She knows the car park relatively well and why she didn’t really understand the restrictions but has not to date acknowledged being the driver. She is not sure whether this lack of knowledge will be held against her should it go to court though and the defence or indeed the SAR that we are yet to see he she clearly is.

Fruitcake

If the defendant knows they were driving, they should say so.
If the defendant knows they were not driving, they should say so.
If the defendant does not know whether or not they were driving, they should say so, and make the claimant prove they were.

The defendant should not do the claimant's job for them.

Coupon-mad

catrat said:

This Is a very important detail for us. She knows the car park relatively well and why she didn’t really understand the restrictions but has not to date acknowledged being the driver. She is not sure whether this lack of knowledge will be held against her should it go to court though and the defence or indeed the SAR that we are yet to see he she clearly is.

Why not just copy another Highview defence about the POFA and lack of keeper liability? We have dozens. Search & find & copy!

Why has the Defendant put all this. which says they were driving? When it seems clear from your posts that they don't know who was driving:

The Defendant at the point of the alleged breach of contract had not noticed any signage upon entering the car park. The Defendant was not aware that they were entering a contract 

catrat

Hi Coupon Mad, I think they are concerned that the SAR will show they were driving. It won’t be back until after defence is filed as she’s only just started acknowledging this is happening

Coupon-mad

Overthinking it. They just use any Highview defence for now and say they've seen no evidence as to who was driving.  Standard stuff at this stage. Loads already written this year, all the same.

If the SAR photos make it clear it was the Defendant (unlikely) they just adjust what they say at WS stage and drop the 'no keeper liability' POFA argument then.

catrat

Thank you so much. We will get on this today. Remarkable public service provided here.

catrat

Right, here goes:

2. 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 £280 (inclusive of £35 Court Fee & £50 Legal representative's costs). Through research the Defendant has come to understand the PCN(s) relates to a PCN(s) that was issued against the Defendant’s vehicle XXX, on XX October 2020 at Epping Forest Retail Park, Essex.

 

3. It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle in question but liability is denied. The identity of the driver at the material time is unknown to the defendant. Epping Forest retail park is a car park regularly used by the Defendant and their family, including other users of this vehicle, to buy a weekly food shop and spend money in the various other establishments within the retail park. As noted, the Defendant was not the only insured driver of the vehicle in question and is unable to recall who was driving on that unremarkable day almost two years ago.

 

4. The Defendant notes that on other occasions in which they have entered the car park, they were not aware that they were entering into a contract with the Claimant. The sign by the entrance, which is currently in place, is not clearly visible when contending with busy traffic on the other side of the road, pedestrians crossing and more prominent, clearer signage showing the speed limit in the area. The Defendant also contends that because they, and any other driver of the vehicle would need to cross the traffic flowing in the opposite direction, it would not be possible to stop and read the sign even if noticed and that to read the sign whilst moving would endanger other users of the road and pedestrians. In addition to this, the signage within the car park itself is not adequate in volume or clarity of terms to cover such a large car park.

 

5. In the Particulars of Claim ('POC') it is stated that the Defendant is liable as the driver or keeper but the Claimant has failed to provide any evidence that Defendant was also the driver. The Defendant cannot be held liable for the charges as the keeper of the vehicle. The Claimant did not properly serve a compliant notice to keeper in strict accordance with Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA).

 

6. Following on from [4] & [5] (in PoFA), where it is noted that the Claimant has elected not to comply with the 'keeper liability' requirements set out in 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, how does the Claimant arrive at the Amount Claimed for a Total of £195. The Defendant has excluded the £35 Court Fee & £50 Legal representative's costs from the Total amount for the purposes of this defence point.

 

7. The Parking and Traffic Appeals Service (PATAS) and Parking on Private Land Appeals (POPLA) Lead Adjudicator and barrister, Henry Michael Greenslade, clarified that with regards to keeper liability, “There is no ‘reasonable presumption’ in law that the registered keeper of a vehicle is the driver and the operators should never suggest anything of the sort” (POPLA report 2015).

 

8. The facts in this defence come from the Defendant's own knowledge and honest belief.  To pre-empt the usual template responses from this serial litigator: the court process is outside of the Defendant's life experience and they cannot be criticised for adapting some pre-written wording from a reliable advice resource. The Claimant is urged not to patronise the Defendant with (ironically template) unfounded accusations of not understanding their defence. 

Coupon-mad

Yep that'll do, plus the rest of the template.