Contract Statement of Authority signed and dates

D_P_Dance

If they have submitted a false witness statement imo a judge would have no option but to award unreasonable behaviour costs 

nosferatu1001

Its only your opinion and despite being shown "wrong" WS before judges seem quite relaxed
OP - they dont have to keep proof of postage - its presumed delivered
What youneed to comment on is theyre clearly unrealibale.
Either 
- they lied when they said there was no NtK, in answer to your SAR
OR
- they ARE lying when they say there was a NtK, they just dont have a copy of it. 
Either way, theyre hardly reliable witnesses even to their own documents...

[Deleted User]

The 'presumption of good service' refers to the postal service, theres a presumption that IF sent.. it is delivered. 
There is no presumption that any company actually sent the notice to keeper, and there is no 'presumption of good faith' in English law. Therefore I'm arguing they must prove they sent it, in order for it to assumed to be delivered. 

This is why when sending court documents, you only need proof of postage and not proof of delivery - it's assumed if you posted it, it was delivered... but it's not automatically assumed you sent it in the first place.

I believe this could be a bigggg hole in all notice to keepers ever sent.

But yes, I will be arguing they are either grossly unreliable, or that they lied. 

KeithP

But remember, the balance of probabilities comes into play.

If the sender can convince the court that it is more likely than not that the thing was sent, then it can of course be assumed that it was delivered.

nosferatu1001

No, but they state, under penalty of perjury that they sent it
Its not a big hole at all. Its not any hole
It is, as ever, a question of CREDIBILITY of evidence. You give evidence, they do the same, and the jhudge works out whats more likely than not the truth of tyhe matter. 

[Deleted User]

Agreed. But there is an onus of proof on the claimant to show that, on the balance of probabilities, they are right or in this case, that they have sent it. The party bearing the burden of proof must prove that her case is more probable than not. There is no assumptions, there must be evidence.

This is the same reason why non-POFA complaint cases require the PPC to prove who the driver was. If there is no proof, the PPC can't simply go after the keeper (as I found in my last case with VCS).

We'll see what the judge says but if the judge agrees with my point then PPCs will have to go out their way to get proof of postage for every NTK or expect them to be ignored. 

nosferatu1001

Yes, and the proof is their written or oral evidence, same as any case. 
You appear to be unawares of what an assumption is. They are not making an assumption. They are stating, under a statement of truth, that they sent you a NTK on... 
This is evidence. It is not an assumption  Same as your WS is evidence. 
This is NOTHING LIKE the same reason as non-POFA cases requiring them to provide evidence of the driver. There, they *cannot* state who the driver IS, only who they *assume* they are. Which is of course completely different. 
Youre wrong. Sorry. You seem to have  a flawed idea that evidence is only documentary. It isnt. 

KeithP

BenjaminAlv said:

We'll see what the judge says but if the judge agrees with my point then PPCs will have to go out their way to get proof of postage for every NTK or expect them to be ignored. 

You seem to be suggesting here that if your judge agrees with you then this creates some sort of precedent. It doesn't.

D_P_Dance

IMO you are overthinking this OP. 

Fruitcake

You won't be the first to aver a document was never sent, and I doubt you will be the last. It is of minor consequence either way so don't spend much time on. Whilst they might have no proof it was ever sent, you have no proof it wasn't. It works both ways. 

Far more important is the fact that the claimant has not shown they had a contract with the landowner at the time of the alleged event.
Starting a claim under those circumstances could be considered vexatious, and that should be the main thrust of your defence and your claim for unreasonable costs. It should also result in the complaints I suggested earlier.
I would think a complaint to the SRA might also be in order because the scamlicitors have a duty to ensure the case has merit. A court claim where the claimant has no standing would certainly be unreasonable behaviour.

Even if the judge agrees with you that the scammers never sent a NTK, it cannot be read across to any other case at small claims court level. If it was agreed by a judge in an appeal court then it could be considered persuasive, but to become case law it would need to be proven in a higher court.