Vehicle Control / BW Legal Court Case

Woo-Ha

Thanks for your advice.

I have reviewed the notice to keeper and unfortunately it seems pretty robust.
My argument against paying the charge has always been the totally inadequate signage at the site which should make it difficult for BW Legal to argue that a contract could have been formed.

My preference is to go with the signage defence as the primary concern and answer honestly if asked who was the driver. I will probably also include a witness statement from H about the evening as well as a number of photos of the site taken a short time afterwards which demonstrate the signs at the entrance were inadequate / not visible. I will probably also do a little map.

Thanks again for you advice, is there anything else that you think I need to consider?

Redx

I doubt that a VCS ntk follows POFA2012 in the manner you describe and several people in this thread think the same, including one solicitor

I have seen posts that they changed the wording recently (or Excel did , or both did) but I dont believe this was the case last year so I dont think their NTK would have complied with POFA2012 and probably not within 14 days if it was an ANPR ticket either

Coupon-mad

Read keepswimming's court report on his thread tonight; he suggests (rightly) that if a keeper defendant wasn't driving, then their defence should explicitly state this fact.

Redx

and/or cordsandcag `s court report

Loadsofchildren123

In cordsandcag's case he was vague about it and didn't expressly deny being the driver. Then when he got to court the judge asked him if he was driving. He said he wasn't. The judge then asked him who was. He said he didn't have to id the driver, the judge said he did if he asked him.
cords had his wits about him and said "a family member" and that satisfied the judge.
Bearing in mind this recent experience in court, I would perhaps not bother with a statement from your H saying how rubbish the signs were. It won't add anything to your own evidence and it outs him as driver. Just rely on all that yourself. If asked who was driving, say a family member was.

Loadsofchildren123

Only trouble then is the court may infer you were driving - it's only H outing himself that proves this is not the case.
Maybe he should come with you and loiter outside and you can see how the land lies? I wouldn't take him in - it makes him look bad if he sits there listening while you are refusing to id the driver....

System

If asked who was driving, say a family member was.

How about: I can neither confirm or deny who was driving. On the balance of probabilities, it would have been a family member.

The issue with the definitive it was a family member may lead the judge in a direction you do not want him to go - someone obstructing the course of justice. Far better to be less specific and use the NCND/BoP option. This is simply anticipating the judge's own use of the BoP which may be used against the defendant.

Coupon-mad

IamEmanresu wrote: »

How about: I can neither confirm or deny who was driving. On the balance of probabilities, it would have been a family member.

Good advice IamEmanresu.

yotmon

As long as you have the correct ammunition to throw back at vcs to show that they cannot hold you responsible as keeper under pofa, ask the court to place you under oath, so that you can deny any involvement in parking the vehicle in question.

The judge then has two options to consider - you are telling the truth, or you're lying. If he believes you, then vsc are on the back foot and now have to prove 'keeper liability', which they have always struggled with.

The judge should remain impartial and I would consider it unfair of him/her to ask you who was the driver. Vcs have already asked you to name the driver when they sent the NTK. You declined their request (quite rightly, as you had no obligation to do so), but accepted that they would/could pursue yourself as either driver or keeper. Vcs are no longer pursuing or even interested in a third party, they have their sights firmly set on you, so why involve your husband ?

Woo-Ha

Thanks again all,

After reading the posts again I think I understand better the requirements of POFA relating to the NTK and liability. The reason i didn't want to use this as the primary point was that i thought the signage issue was stronger. To some extent this is still the case however I have amended the defence to include keeper liability and have photos of the NTK relevant to this claim for review.

Unfortunately as a newbie i can't seem to post a link. How do i get around this?

It is also nearly time for me to submit the defence. At this stage do i need to include evidence such as photos and a copy of the NTK or will the basic arguments suffice.

Thanks again,