Lba

Curly_girly

Many thanks for all your responses. I've read the thread and I'm unsure now whether to respond with the rebuttal. If the RK is denying do they not have to provide the drivers details?

Redx

there is no legal reason for the RK to tell anyone who was driving and you should edit your posts above so nobody knows who was driving (tell them nothing)

PPC,s and solicitors monitor public forums like this one

alll that is needed is a rebuttal , denying the debt , to gladstones , in writing , from the RK

as I said , they wont read it anyway, so you should start preppping for a court case because they will issue an MCOL within the next few weeks

so gen up on defending a court claim (MCOL), gen up on POFA2012 , plus read defences in other threads about court cases

there is no magic bullet for this, these are roboclaims issued by the hundred

waamo

Curly_girly wrote: »

Many thanks for all your responses. I've read the thread and I'm unsure now whether to respond with the rebuttal. If the RK is denying do they not have to provide the drivers details?

There is no law that says you have to tell them anything. They will claim that they are acting on the reasonable assumption the RK is the driver.

They will also claim the case of Elliot vs Loake states that it can be assumed the RK is the driver. Only problem is in that case the only person insured to drive the car was the RK and the police had forensic evidence to show it was him. They present this at court and judges tear them a new one for it.

Curly_girly

So the RK could potentially end up in court?

Redx

yes, that has always been the case

you need to learn that these sc@mmers have found a way to scare people into parting with large sums of money by hooking them into parking, catching them out with "rules" etc and then using the court system to extort money from them

and the government does nothing about it

since the day the first PCN arrived the threat of civil court has been there , it has always been an option and always will be (but that law came in during 1973 , so nothing new)

POFA2012 and the later BEAVIS case loss is what has ramped up the court claims from a trickle to a deluge

Curly_girly

So what is the point in the RK claiming they weren't the driver? Would it not be more beneficial under the circumstances to refute the LBA's compliance as per previous threads?

Coupon-mad

Curly_girly wrote: »

So what is the point in the RK claiming they weren't the driver?

Because the keeper is in a far stronger defence position than an admitted driver, because they can rely on the POFA. A driver has no law to hang their hat on, at all.

Would it not be more beneficial under the circumstances to refute the LBA's compliance as per previous threads?

No, those versions talking about Annex A of the Practice Direction are old, and IMHO pointless. Better to respond with a series of questions from the keeper, asking for their evidence photos, for example, and pointing out that he wasn't driving and is not liable, and that it's believed that the signage is diabolical.

There is likely to be a small claim but this will bring it to an end at last, the scam will be over. No effect on credit rating as long as your husband doesn't miss any court paperwork deadline - it's all over this forum what to do, not just in the NEWBIES thread.

Look at the threads, every 5th or 6th one is a winning (or potentially winning) court defence. we even know of a case the other month where the person made a counter-claim and got a nice £900 payout!

We are good at this, we know what we are doing. Read the NEWBIES thread post #2, and other defence thread, please don't stay in isolation here asking questions one by one that are already clearly covered in the NEWBIES thread (e.g. POFA, e.g. the fact the Defendant named on a claim form or LBCCC has to respond, not some other person in the family, and certainly NOT the driver dropping themselves in it!).