Received PCN - I'm not the driver nor the keeper of the vehicle

KeithP

Have you looked at any of the concise Defence examples written by bargepole linked from post #2 of the NEWBIES thread?

One of those would be a good foundation to build upon.

tati

Yes, I had a look at all of them before asking for help.



I will pick out whatever is relevant and add information that pertains to my case specifically. I assume the passive form is to be maintained.


Thank you

nosferatu1001

You have been specifically told, and the examples repeat this, that you are "the defendant" throughout the defence.
Later, when you write a witness statement - that deals with the facts of the day, unlike the defence which deals with the LEGAL ARGUMENTS why you are not liable - you will switch to "I".

Le_Kirk

It just has to be written in the third person, as you state, the DEFENDANT (did) this, the other. This happened to the DEFENDANT.

The_Deep

I absolutely cannot understand why would they decide to take the matter to court

Because they issue thiousands of claims and do not have the staff to assess their merit or lack of it. If they lose a case they lose it, they win most of them because people are reluctant to go against a solicitore in court. These claims are called roboclaims.

https://www.parkingcowboys.co.uk/gladstones-solicitors/

The_Deep

It just has to be written in the third person, as you state, the DEFENDANT (did) this, the other. This happened to the DEFENDANT.

What a lot of bovine excrement.

I am wondering why such arcane language is required. If I were to write to Her Majesty I would not dream of using court language. Why do I have to use such convoluted language when defending myself against a scam in a small claims court? Is the judge going to throw the case out?

Le_Kirk

I wish there was a Sarcastic Thanks button. This forum has been advising this approach since I became involved. If it is wrong maybe someone (TD) can explain why. In the meantime I refer m'learned friend to the defences written by Bargepole.

nosferatu1001

Its done that way because "I" is relative, "defendant" is absolute
Makes sense when you think about it, as you are left in no doubt as to who is writing the sentence and their position.
It is not arcane, it is actually entirely sensible.

tati

Thank you all for your replies. It is basically as if a representative (e.g. a solicitor or somebody uninvolved) described the case to the judge. It does make more sense now.


I'll get on with the writing..

The_Deep

This forum has been advising this approach since I became involved.

It has indeed, but I refer the honourable gentleman to Mr Speaker's recent justification of his change to precedent.

How can this be sensible when TMOTCO is confused by it.