Court claim received - Help!!

Superbimmie18

Sorry Coupon-mad, what do you mean by adding in the usual thing about claimant not being able to rely on POFA schedule 4?

System

I am going to disagree with IamEmanresu on this one and say, do not forego the protection of saying there can be no keeper liability, because this Claimant does not use the POFA and cannot hold a registered keeper liable under any applicable rule of law.

I take your point though it can be a problem if it goes to court. Remember that CEL are now doing court rather than dropping out as before. Worth doing it though to get them to drop the case early.

Coupon-mad

Superbimmie18 wrote: »

Sorry Coupon-mad, what do you mean by adding in the usual thing about claimant not being able to rely on POFA schedule 4?

As per other CEL threads that talk about no keeper liability.

Superbimmie18

I'm not sure if I am missing something here or if CEL have changed their ways but I have read through the whole of POFA schedule 4 and the other threads on here and from what I can see the CEL Parking Charge Notice (NTK) is in line with the conditions set out in the schedule to be compliant. Is this just a delay tactic to put in or did CEL previously not include the correct wording? I don't want to be adding something into my defence that is not accurate/true?


If the witness statement is going to include that the driver in the car and had not parked in the car park since the new enforcements were in place and that they exited the car park as soon as they realised they we not able to park would this not contradict the POFA 4? Just want to make sure as don't want a contradiction between the defence and WS to cause us to lose?