PCN Westway Cross Shopping Park

RT73

RT73 said:

2. It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper, but denies being the driver of the vehicle, also the liability is denied.

Thank you, so is the above ok for para 2?

My wife will work on para 3 using what you have said in your last reply.

Coupon-mad

Yes that's fine, as she wasn't driving.

Umkomaas

I thought I'd draw your attention to this fairly recent thread which you might have missed. You must keep going through all the necessary court procedure phases, but the hope is that your case will follow the same pattern of all those detailed in the thread. 

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6377263/dcb-legal-record-of-private-parking-court-claim-discontinuations/p1

RT73

 Then of course she must add as para 4, the obvious 100% winning point: HIGHVIEW DON'T USE THE POFA.  They cannot hold a registered keeper liable if they were not driving!

Where do we place the above in para 4? Sorry just want to make sure we get this right.

RT73

Also wanted to make sure this was ok for para 3

3. The Defendant has spoken to the driver of the vehicle.

The Driver entered Westway Cross Shopping Park on 30/11/2016 at 06:21, to gain access to Paradise Fields car park on the right-hand side of McDonalds through the side entrance and parked there. This parking area had signs stating this site is managed by Capita Symonds and the signs only stated ‘The landlord accepts no liability for loss or damage to vehicles or contents within this car park. Vehicles parked at owners risk.’ There was no mention of any restrictions in terms of parking. The Driver then left on 30/11/2016 at 13:59, at no point did the driver park the car in the parking area managed by Highview Parking.

Coupon-mad

Looks OK.

As for para 4 (about the 'non-POFA NTK and lack of keeper liability) I wasn't saying you add stuff within the template's existing para 4. I intended the D to create a new para 4:

 Then of course she must add as para 4, the obvious 100% winning point: HIGHVIEW DON'T USE THE POFA.  They cannot hold a registered keeper liable if they were not driving!

Obviously then renumber the rest of the template defence below the added para 4.  Just like you see on the hundreds of other Highview defence threads.

Including the exact match Highview thread that is right next to your thread right now because I've just replied on it.

Just copy what other posters have already done.  So much easier for you to read other exact match Highview threads that are already ahead of you.

RT73

Thanks for all your help, much appreciated.

RT73

Good afternoon,

We got a reply from DCB legal with an attachment of a directions questionnaire stating that their client intends to proceed on the 27th October but we are still waiting to hear back from the court.

Just wondered if this was normal.

Thanks.

KeithP

RT73 said:

Good afternoon,

We got a reply from DCB legal with an attachment of a directions questionnaire stating that their client intends to proceed on the 27th October but we are still waiting to hear back from the court.

Just wondered if this was normal.

Thanks.

You seem to have abandoned that checklist you were following when you filed a Defence.

Item 7 on that list addresses your query.

Items 8, 9 and 10 on that list are well worth reading again too.

RT73

Sorry for the question and yes I have just gone back to the defence checklist and it does say wait. But I also read that if you don't receive the DQ within a week contact the court?