Sorry about the schoolboy errors (should be schoolgirl errors). I have looked on the PPC Successes forum suggested by honeybee13 and this was helpful. The successful outcomes do not appear to have reached court.

Believe me, I have really tried to read up on the PCN claimform threads. I click on "Motoring on the red bar, then Private Land Parking Enforcement and then I am reading the threads. I haven't seen any so far that relate to an actual court case. Where am I going wrong?

I'm getting worried now! Forgot to mention I never received any of the documentation I requested from Highview. I sent the request recorded delivery. I was feeling quite positive that I wouldn't be going to Court when I read the following comments in November "The Notice to Keeper that they sent you a few days after you parked in Bradfield Road car park is not PoFA compliant. Very strange that there is absolutely no mention that you would be liable as the keeper if the driver did not pay the PCN within the 28 day limit. That means that you must be careful not to reveal who was driving and they are now going to have an uphill struggle since they have to prove that you were the driver on that day. Given that anyone with their own car insurance can drive your car plus you may have named drivers on your policy and the fact that Court do not assume that the driver and the keeper are the same person , Highview have their work cut out." "That is good news for you. They cannot take you to Court as the keeper since they have lost that facility now. They can still pursue you as the driver but now very difficult for them to prove you were the driver as there are so many combinations of drivers it could be and the Court will not allow the robbers to assume that the keeper is the driver" .

Thanks again. Sorry to be a pain.

Sorry Dx. I thought you had said don't complete anything without asking on this forum first. I have tried to view directions questionnaires on the link you posted and on other links over the last few weeks but they seem to be locked as no one has commented recently, or the ones that aren't are for mediation. You said omit signature - The last box states: You must sign this form. Should I sign or not?

Hi again. I have now received 'Notice of Proposed Allocation to the Small Claims Track' A questionnaire is attached with the first section "A" Settlement/Mediation - suggesting each party negotiate a settlement rather than taking the case to Court. "A1" - Do you agree to this case being referred to the Small Claims Mediation Service? YES / NO "B" - Contact Details: "C" - Track. "C1" - Do you agree that the small claims track is the appropriate track for this case? YES / NO If no, say why not and state the track to which you believe it should be allocated. "D" - Hearing venue "D1" At which County Court hearing centre would you prefer the small claims hearing to take place and why? "D2" - Expert Evidence - Are you asking for the court's permission to use the written evidence of an expert? YES / NO "D3" - Witnesses - How man witnesses, including yourself, will give evidence on your behalf at the hearing? ............. "D4" - Hearing - Are there any days within the next 6 months when you, an expert or a witness will not be able to attend court for the hearing? (box to fill in with dates not available). "Will you be using an interpreter at the hearing either for yourself or a witness? Yes / No "Signature" ................................. Most of the details requested are self explanatory but I thought I would ask your advice regarding whether Mediation or Small Claims Track should be selected. There are no witnesses as I don't know who was actually driving on this particular day. Your advice would be greatly appreciated.

Wow thank you for that information. I honestly don't know who was driving, could have been my husband, either of my 2 sons or me. Honestly can't remember.

This is the reply I received from my local Council when I requested confirmation that HIGHVIEW PARKING had received planning permission for erecting poles, signs and cameras. ”Hi There is no record of planning permission having been submitted. They may not however require permission as certain structures can be erected under the general permitted development order. Regards

Hi I have copied and pasted my defence on the MCOL site. Just a couple of questions - do I click "No" to Do you want to issue a counterclaim? Also, do I fill in my phone no. and email address on the "My Defence - Service Details " page? Thank you.

Thank you. Am I just looking at general private parking threads or specific to Bradfield Road Sheffield? What is the best way to view these? Hi I have copied and pasted my defence on the MCOL site. Just a couple of questions - do I click "No" to Do you want to issue a counterclaim? Also, do I fill in my phone no. and email address on the "My Defence - Service Details " page?

Thank you for your help. Do you recommend I prepare it now and post on MCOL site tomorrow

Thank you. Is the defence ok, do i need to attach any documentation or just file this on the MCOL site.

Yes, I will delete my reg. number

The summons was dated 28 December 2018

Is this ok for my defence? Do I have to attach the letters I have received since December 2018 The Defendant contends that the particulars of claim are vague and generic in nature which fails to comply with CPR 16.4. The Defendant accordingly sets out its case below and relies on CPR r 16.5 (3) in relation to any particular allegation to which a specific response has not been made. 1. The Defendant is the recorded keeper of [removed - HB] 2. It is denied that the Defendant entered into a contract with the Claimant. 3. As held by the Upper Tax Tribunal in Vehicle Control Services Limited v HMRC [2012] UKUT 129 (TCC), any contract requires offer and acceptance. The Claimant was simply contracted by the landowner to provide car-park management services and is not capable of entering into a contract with the Defendant on its own account, as the car park is owned by and the terms of entry set by the landowner. Accordingly, it is denied that the Claimant has authority to bring this claim. 4. In any case it is denied that the Defendant broke the terms of a contract with the Claimant. 5. The Claimant is attempting double recovery by adding an additional sum not included in the original offer. 6. The Particulars of Claim is denied in its entirety. It is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief at all. Do I need to mention that I no longer own that car. I replaced it on 17 January 2019, but kept my number plate.