Missed all the early stages of appeal and now heading to court

harmonicapapa

Here's the updates WS

harmonicapapa

additional questions... the WS from the Claimant makes these two assertions which I am considering whether I should respond to.

1. 'It is noted that the Defendant has filed a copy and past template Defence which is readily available on the internet.  The same does not fall specific to the facts of this case and therefore I submit that the same has not correctly been pleaded.'  

2. 'The Defendant was issued with a notice to driver and was provided with the opportunity to appeal or transfer liability.  Therefore, had the Defendant not been the driver it was at this stage that he ought to have provided information as to who was.'

Is it worth me addressing these... or is it best just to let them slide?

nosferatu1001

1) You know the answer from every other thread where that copy and paste nonsense has come up. No need to address it in the WS, just IF ASKED you can point ou tthat of course, as a lay person, you have read up on this using resources such as a the internet, and you find it ironic that the Claimant is complaining of copy and paste when clearly their own copy and pasted WS, signed under the (wrong?! have you even checked this version is the april 2020 version?) statement of truth, is full of glaring errors such as ... whcih indicates it is NOT a true WS. 

2) Why should the D "ought to have"? THe D is under no obligation to do so, and the CLaimant knows this. THey are trying to make it mislead the court into thinking there is such a duty - none exists. Parliament could have made this a requirement when enacting POFA2012, but chose not to. 

Le_Kirk

harmonicapapa said:

additional questions... the WS from the Claimant makes these two assertions which I am considering whether I should respond to.

1. 'It is noted that the Defendant has filed a copy and past template Defence which is readily available on the internet.  The same does not fall specific to the facts of this case and therefore I submit that the same has not correctly been pleaded.'  

2. 'The Defendant was issued with a notice to driver and was provided with the opportunity to appeal or transfer liability.  Therefore, had the Defendant not been the driver it was at this stage that he ought to have provided information as to who was.'

Is it worth me addressing these... or is it best just to let them slide?

1.  Just because something has been used before (it's on t'Internet) doesn't make it invalid!  A point of law is a point of law.  If what they are saying is true, no defence could EVER be allowed as it had been used before ............. and that's before we turn to the issue of their own C&P WSs.
2.  There is no law that says anybody has to tell any PPC who was driving.  POFA states that keepers can be "invited" to give the driver's name.  Anyway if they issued a NtD, one assumes they know the driver or did they mean NtK?

Umkomaas

Le_Kirk said:

harmonicapapa said:

additional questions... the WS from the Claimant makes these two assertions which I am considering whether I should respond to.

1. 'It is noted that the Defendant has filed a copy and past template Defence which is readily available on the internet.  The same does not fall specific to the facts of this case and therefore I submit that the same has not correctly been pleaded.'  

2. 'The Defendant was issued with a notice to driver and was provided with the opportunity to appeal or transfer liability.  Therefore, had the Defendant not been the driver it was at this stage that he ought to have provided information as to who was.'

Is it worth me addressing these... or is it best just to let them slide?

1.  Just because something has been used before (it's on t'Internet) doesn't make it invalid!  A point of law is a point of law.  If what they are saying is true, no defence could EVER be allowed as it had been used before ............. and that's before we turn to the issue of their own C&P WSs.

1. 'It is noted that the Defendant has filed a copy and past template Defence which is readily available on the internet.

Which begs the question, 'Why is it so readily available on the internet?'  😩

harmonicapapa

2.  There is no law that says anybody has to tell any PPC who was driving.  POFA states that keepers can be "invited" to give the driver's name.  Anyway if they issued a NtD, one assumes they know the driver or did they mean NtK?

They actually issued a Notice to Owner to me, which I am not as I leased the vehicle. I never actually received anything that said Notice To Keeper.  Does that make much of a difference? 

Umkomaas

harmonicapapa said:

2.  There is no law that says anybody has to tell any PPC who was driving.  POFA states that keepers can be "invited" to give the driver's name.  Anyway if they issued a NtD, one assumes they know the driver or did they mean NtK?

They actually issued a Notice to Owner to me, which I am not as I leased the vehicle. I never actually received anything that said Notice To Keeper.  Does that make much of a difference? 

Did they actually use that term?  Can we see a redacted copy (if you haven't previously uploaded here - just point me to the date of posting it if you have). That's a statutory authority notice term - possibly a breach of the BPA Code of Practice. 

Redx

If it's leased you would receive a notice to hirer (as lessee) , not a notice to Owner , because you were never the owner , the owner is unknown and nobody keeps a record of owners , there may well be an owner , like Toyota finance or Barclays Bank etc

The terms are

Owner (never involved)

Registered keeper (the lease or hire company in this case)

Initially they obtain RK details from the DVLA and send them the NTK , not you

They are informed of lessee or hirer details by the RK under POFA by the leasing company

They send that lessee person an NTH (you) , usually omitting the hire of lease paperwork required by POFA and thereby failing to comply with POFA

The recipient appeals as lessee , or as hirer , or as day to day keeper

Lastly , there is the Driver , normally an unknown person unless somebody blabs about it

Notice to Owner is flawed under the above so is incorrect and is a flaw that should be exploited

As a lessee , you would never receive an official NTK , the lease company receive it , not you

All companies would love to know who was driving , same as the police when chasing vehicles !!! 

harmonicapapa

So here are the only two letters I received directly from Smart Parking.  

I lease the vehicle, and I was NOT the driver.  So I am neither the Owner or the Driver.  

I notice that the wording on the NTO says, 'If you were not the driver of the vehicle and you wish to provide the driver's details...' But I guess I would say, I did not wish to provide the driver's details.  

Redx

So owner is incorrect

Registered keeper is also incorrect

Complain to the BPA AOS team about misleading wording , attaching copies of those letters

Point out that you were the lessee under a leasing agreement , similar to a hirer under a hire agreement , not the Owner , not the Registered keeper , they did not obtain your details from the DVLA at all , plus you were not even the Driver either !! , Ask them to ensure that Steve Clark sees this complaint

Put a copy in your Exhibits bundle , to show that you have complained , pointing out the misleading paperwork by the claimant