HELP! Can you check my defence for me? (Steps after Claim Form?)

KeithP

benjward said:

@KeithP That thread you linked to earlier stated:

FIRST THING TO DO - BUT NOT SOONER THAN DAY FIVE FROM THE 'ISSUE DATE':
Acknowledging service of a claim

Whoops! I realised that when I started reading. Good job I did. I was about to send a quickly typed defence through the portal before I found this forum!

But the bit you didn't see was NOT SOONER THAN DAY FIVE FROM THE 'ISSUE DATE'

You have reduced the time available for filing a Defence.

With a Claim Issue Date of 2nd June, and having filed an Acknowledgment of Service on 3rd June, you have until 4pm on Wednesday 1st July 2020 to file your Defence.

That's four weeks away. Plenty of time to produce a Defence, but please don't leave it to the last minute.

Keep following the guidance in that thread you were reading earlier for details on how to file your Defence.

Le_Kirk

benjward said:

@KeithP - So which is it - paragraph 8 or paragraph 9? It depends on whether or not there was a Notice to Driver.
I'm not entirely sure. I didn't receive a notice to owner, (I think because, at the time, I responded directly to the ticket put on my car.) 

There is no such thing as a notice to owner, probably you mean notice to keeper, however, if you responded to the ticket on the car that counts as a notice to Driver (NtD) and you can now therefore pick the correct paragraph from the PoFA.

1505grandad

Does the wording suggested in para 18 - implies D is driver - make the non-compliant NTK statement suggested in para 17 irrelevant?.

Umkomaas

benjward said:

Umkomaas said:

benjward said:

@Umkomaas - no it was a parking bay allocated to a residence that I was visiting. (It was an AirBnb, so I don't know the owner, but I had a valid permit at the time. I just parked in the wrong bay because the paint was worn away.)

OK - understood. A long shot ...... do you have any photos?

Yes!! I have everything. All photos, the PCN, all my communications. Kept in a draw in anticipation for this day!

That's good. Keep those for the Witness Statement stage, evidence isn't submitted with a Defence. 

You certainly seem to have got your ducks in a row! 😊

nosferatu1001

Although Im going to guess, given theyve identified the driver in para 17, that POFA wont be any use. 
OP - did you, in your appeal to the Notice to Driver (NEVER a notice to owner, that is for council PCNs only), reveal the drivers identity?
Yes or No. No umming or aaahing, a yes or no
If you did, then you cannot use POFa *at all*

benjward

nosferatu1001 said:

Although Im going to guess, given theyve identified the driver in para 17, that POFA wont be any use. 
OP - did you, in your appeal to the Notice to Driver (NEVER a notice to owner, that is for council PCNs only), reveal the drivers identity?
Yes or No. No umming or aaahing, a yes or no
If you did, then you cannot use POFa *at all*

No

I called it 'my car' repeatedly throughout my back-and-forth letter correspondence with them (which I still have) And at no point did I say explicitly I was the driver. But I guess it could be assumed?

I edited section 17 as such:

The Defendant was not the only driver of this vehicle and the Particulars of Claim offer little to shed light on the alleged breach, which relates to an unremarkable date some time ago. A compliant Notice to Keeper (‘NTK’) was not properly served in strict accordance with section 8 or 9 (as the case may be) of the POFA.

Because I wasn't the only driver of the car (ie. other people were on the insurance) and I didn't receive a Notice to Keeper, because I responded to their (handwritten) PCN.

Should I just remove section 17? I'm not sure what relevance it has to my case. I'm assuming section 18, along with everything else will be enough?

nosferatu1001

NO, youve been instructed not to remove it
It means they have to prove they complied with POFA, or have some other way of holding YOU liable AS KEEPER. They have no way to do so. 

nosferatu1001

I can tell from para 18 exactly who is likely to have driven the car. 
Read it back to yoruself, and realise what youre saying. 

KeithP

1505grandad said:

Does the wording suggested in para 18 - implies D is driver - make the non-compliant NTK statement suggested in para 17 irrelevant?.

Yes it does.

Easily resolved by replacing the word Defendant with driver in para 18.

benjward

@nosferatu1001 Thanks, but I'm not sure I understand.
I think that I have implied I was the driver (in para 18, and in my previous correspondence which takes a similar argument) 
So if this is the case what should I do? 
'NO, you've been instructed not to remove it' - Are you talking about para 17 here? So should I amend it?
Thanks again for all the help.