District Enforcement Court Papers Received

4consumerrights

da_rule wrote: »

4CR - Quick query if I may. As DE are claiming driver liability (for want of a better phrase) and bringing the claim is the burden of proof not on them to prove who was driving? Rather than the OP trying to prove they weren't driving is it not better to !!!! the burden to make them prove that the OP was?

No not really - unlike criminal courts - the civil route and small claims rely on the balance of probabilities - many times the rk is also the driver.

So the OP states he was not the driver - if this can be verified somehow independently so much the better.

da_rule

4consumerrights wrote: »

No not really - unlike criminal courts - the civil route and small claims rely on the balance of probabilities - many times the rk is also the driver.

So the OP states he was not the driver - if this can be verified somehow independently so much the better.

Thanks for that. And I suppose there's a difference between proving you were not the driver and actually revealing who was.

4consumerrights

da_rule wrote: »

Thanks for that. And I suppose there's a difference between proving you were not the driver and actually revealing who was.

Absolutely

There is no legal requirement under POFA 2012 for the RK to name the driver.

DE/Gladstones are purporting POFA doesn't apply as a contractual charge but are still issuing the claim to the RK - whereas that is not the case as a parking charge however described is cited.

However DE's NtK is not compliant under POFA to pursue the RK due to not including all info etc.

Court papers issued to RK
RK not driver for the parking event.

If RK can prove elsewhere at time parking charge issued - then cannot be pursued. Does not have to mention anything else or name driver - simply state he is not.

Coupon-mad

4consumerrights wrote: »

If you can show that you understand the defence etc and do some reading - I am sure that coupon and/or myself can help with a defence off forum..... as DE monitor this like hawks -

Yep, happy to help with a defence and if the NTK wasn't received in time (added to the fact IMHO their NTK letter is not POFA 2012 compliant) then there is no keeper liability for you if you were not driving. Sounds simple but it won't be, not with DE.

I have written a DE defence for someone recently and have another one to help with as well - but 4CR and myself will only write a defence once the poster has read the relevant stuff about small claims and is up for the task. This will NOT be a walk in the park. This is NOT about 'no GPEOL'. pm me once you've red all the links (everything) in post #5 of the NEWBIES thread about small claims and understand the defence needed, and the process, a bit better.

Might not be Staffs Uni, some other car parks have let this bunch in as well, surprisingly. AVOID LIKE THE PLAGUE. STAFFS UNI SHOULD BE ASHAMED.




Hello Graeme!

nigelbb

Their claim is on just the same basis as pre-Oct 2012 when POFA did not exist. In most cases of course it is highly likely that the RK was the driver & the proof required in civil court is on the balance if probabilities not beyond all reasonable doubt. A simple statement that the RK was not the driver should suffice as lying to a court is very serious & people get sent to prison for perjury. Proof that the RK was elsewhere at the time submitted as the defence should encourage them to drop a case that they have no prospect if winning.

The_Deep

Proof that the RK was elsewhere at the time submitted as the defence should encourage them to drop a case that they have no prospect if winning.

But proving such might be difficult. On two occasions, (before POFA,) my wife collected PCNs, I was the RK. It would have been be very difficult to prove that I was not the driver, and the Judge would have had to decide, on the balance of probabilities who was driving. We probably could have swung it as I would have produced my Queen's Commission, in which Her Maj describes me as "Trusty and Well-Beloved", but not everyone has such an exalted endorsement.

Guys_Dad

The_Deep wrote: »

Proof that the RK was elsewhere at the time submitted as the defence should encourage them to drop a case that they have no prospect if winning.

But proving such might be difficult. On two occasions, (before POFA,) my wife collected PCNs, I was the RK. It would have been be very difficult to prove that I was not the driver, and the Judge would have had to decide, on the balance of probabilities who was driving. We probably could have swung it as I would have produced my Queen's Commission, in which Her Maj describes me as "Trusty and Well-Beloved", but not everyone has such an exalted endorsement.

You are not Geoff H***ne are you?

Umkomaas

The_Deep wrote: »

Proof that the RK was elsewhere at the time submitted as the defence should encourage them to drop a case that they have no prospect if winning.

But proving such might be difficult. On two occasions, (before POFA,) my wife collected PCNs, I was the RK. It would have been be very difficult to prove that I was not the driver, and the Judge would have had to decide, on the balance of probabilities who was driving. We probably could have swung it as I would have produced my Queen's Commission, in which Her Maj describes me as "Trusty and Well-Beloved", but not everyone has such an exalted endorsement.

Hold on, there's been quite a few

Jimmy Savile OBE
Stuart Hall OBE
Vicky Pryce CB
Sir Fred Goodwin
Lester Piggott OBE

:rotfl:

da_rule

There would be no need to prove you are of 'good standing'. If I assert that I was not the driver then the onus is on the other side to rebut that assumption, especially if I can provide evidence (witness statements etc). If they try to argue that I or the witnesses are dishonest then they would have to provide proof of such dishonesty.

HO87

By way of update I can confirm that DE withdrew the case after a defence was filed and they were subject of a Part 18 request.