Delayed issue of PCN

nosferatu1001

If you say 
 2.       It is admitted that the Defendant was the driver and is the registered keeper of the vehicle in question but liability is denied.
Then obviously any discussion of POFA is useless. 

johnedit

Hi, Nosferatu. Thanks for your reply.

Forgive my igrorance but as there was no interaction on the day, the only way they acquired my details was by way of the DVLA. Subsequently a PCN/NTK was sent  to my address as they had only identified the vehicle's Keeper. Surely, therefore the PoFA rules applied to the process up to this point? Indeed, any subsequent Witness Statement will aslo serve to identify me as the Driver.

Are you suggesting that at this stage - the Defence Document - I only state that I am the Registered Keeper of the vehicle?

Your time and recommendation is much appreciated.

nosferatu1001

No, "POFA" is optional as you have been repeatedly told
They are neever ever compelled to use POFA. Ever. Hopefully that si clear
Obviously if you identify yourself as the driver, then POFA scehdule 4, whcih is about transferring liability to the keeperwhen the driver is unknown, cannot possibly be of any use to you.

Fruitcake

As you have previously been told, you cannot rely on the PoFA as a defence if you reveal the driver's identity.

You also have to decide what you are going to say if the judge asks you, who was driving, or were you driving. Again, you have already been told the options.

If you were not driving, you say you were not driving.
If you don't know who was driving, you say you don't know who was driving.
If you were driving, you do not tell us, but have to answer truthfully if asked by the judge. If that happens, then PoFA no longer applies and can no longer be used as a defence point.
If you are asked by the judge and you say, I son't want to answer that question, then the judge may assume that in the balance of probabilities that you were driving.

If you are asked by the opposition who was diving, you could ask why they are pursuing the keeper if they don't know the identity of the driver. It shoots down their assumption that the keeper was the driver because by asking the question, they have admitted that they don't know, or are unsure, therefore their assumption is incorrect.
The problem with this approach is that or may prompt the judge to ask you, and you have to answer truthfully.

The two best defence points regarding PoFA are, 
I was not driving
I do not know who was driving, (and explain how it could have been any number of other people.)

johnedit

Thanks, Fruitcake for taking the time and effort to post such a detailed response.

As I mentioned before, the Witness Statement to be submitted later in the proceedings will identify me as being the Driver. However, please enlighten me (and, no doubt, others too) as I fail to see where anything associated with  the identity of the actual Driver comes in to play upto the date of my receiving the PCN/NTK.

As the PC did not know the Driver's identity and no Ticket was issued, affixed to the vehicle or given
to the Driver, their only option was to apply for details from the DVLA and send their PCN/NTK to the Registered Keeper.

As a Member of the IPC and agreeing to abide by their Code of Practice, this states that they must follow the PoFA rules and timescales when intending to send a PCN/NTK to the Registered Keeper.

Naturally, I can only assume they complied with their Code of Practice and, as they did not know the details of the Driver, they would of applied to the DVLA for details of the Registered Keeper under the provisions and rules of the PoFA.

However, as their PCN/NTK was issed 113 days after the Contravention Date, they have fallen foul of the timescale detailed in the PoFA for service of their PCN/NTK to the Registered Keeper.

Naturally I am keen to submit accurate details in my Defence Document and your help is much appreciated.

nosferatu1001

"As a Member of the IPC and agreeing to abide by their Code of Practice, this states that they must follow the PoFA rules and timescales when intending to send a PCN/NTK to the Registered Keeper."
No, it does not require that

"they would of applied to the DVLA for details of the Registered Keeper under the provisions and rules of the PoFA."
POFA is not mandatory. I do not know how often this can be stated, before you listen.
"However, as their PCN/NTK was issed 113 days after the Contravention Date, they have fallen foul of the timescale detailed in the PoFA for service of their PCN/NTK to the Registered Keeper."
Agreed. But, and again because you do not seem to get this, pofa is optional, all this means is that they cannot hold the keeper liable.  But given you are telling them you are ther driver, that is completely and utterly irrelevant

Your argument has no legs. WE have been through every iteration of this in the last 8 years, and nothing you are stating is novel. Nothing., 

Coupon-mad

Code of Practice, this states that they must follow the PoFA rules and timescales when intending to send a PCN/NTK to the Registered Keeper

I agree with @nosferatu1001. The Code of Practice says nothing of the sort, because there are two types of NTK, one is non-POFA and that's allowable.

Fruitcake

You have two choices.
Use non PoFA compliant NTK as one of your defence points, and not name the driver
Name the driver and use all the other points available.

As soon as the driver's identity is revealed, PoFA goes out the window. It doesn't matter if this is at the WS stage, or during the hearing. As soon as the driver is identified, PoFA no longer applies, even if it applied before.

johnedit

Hi, Thanks to Nosferatu1001, Coupon-mad and Fruitcake for your replies.

Apologies if I annoy you (and others) this is my first - and hopefully only - time of going through this process. We novices all read alot of information and try to include facts and information that (we believe) serve to substantiate/indicate 'errors' by the PC that are pertinent to our individual case.

It appears you are saying there is no mileage to be gained by pointing out that they have agreed to abide by a Code Of Conduct but have then totally ignored it - even though the Code says they MUST follow certain protocols, Acts of Parliament and timescales?

If so, in my Draft Defence document listed earleir in the thread, are you suggesting that I should leave Point 2 'as is' and delete Point 3? Coupon-mad has already suggested that I delete Point 4.

Fruitcake has suggested that I 'use all the other points available' - do you mean just those that are already detailed in my Draft Defence (as suplied by Coupon-mad's Template) or include some additional ones such as:-
1.  They have breached the IPC Code of Conduct which states that a Notice to Keeper must be 'received by the keeper within 14 days beginning the day after the specified period of parking.'.
and/or
2. The Driver must be given sufficient time to read and accept the terms or leave the property.
Believe me, your help over the hurdles is greatly appreciated.

KeithP

johnedit said:

1.  They have breached the IPC Code of Conduct which states that a Notice to Keeper must be 'received by the keeper within 14 days beginning the day after the specified period of parking.'.

As has been said more than once, there is nothing in the IPC's Code of Conduct (or Code of Practice) that says a Notice to Keeper must be received by the keeper within that timescale.

Why do you keep repeating this?