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

benjward

KeithP said:

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.

Thanks KeithP. That makes sense. 

However I fear if this is the case I have identified myself as the 'driver' in previous correspondence. I haven't explicitly said 'I was the driver' but I have used phrases such as 'PCN attached to my car' 'I was parked in the correct bay' 'I had a residents parking permit displayed' etc.

What should I do?

nosferatu1001

Para 17 stays 
para 17 stays
You amend it to match YOUR situation. But it stays in. 
Para 18 needs rewriting so there is NO IMPLICATION AT ALL abou tthe driver. Never ever give any hint as to the drivers identity in all of this. Never. Certainly not in a document signed under a statement of truth, and thus has more "weight" than an earlier document. 

Umkomaas

benjward said:

KeithP said:

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.

Thanks KeithP. That makes sense. 

However I fear if this is the case I have identified myself as the 'driver' in previous correspondence. I haven't explicitly said 'I was the driver' but I have used phrases such as 'PCN attached to my car' 'I was parked in the correct bay' 'I had a residents parking permit displayed' etc.

What should I do?

On who the driver was, the Claimant won't need to push too hard on a Judge with that in their hand. 

benjward

nosferatu1001 said:

Para 17 stays 
para 17 stays
You amend it to match YOUR situation. But it stays in. 
Para 18 needs rewriting so there is NO IMPLICATION AT ALL abou tthe driver. Never ever give any hint as to the drivers identity in all of this. Never. Certainly not in a document signed under a statement of truth, and thus has more "weight" than an earlier document. 

Understood. 
Is this better?:

The driver had a valid permit for a specific bay in the car park and was under the reasonable impression that the car was in fact in the correct parking bay. The painted number that identified the parking bay was worn away to the extent of making it misleading, as can be seen by photographic evidence. In particular, the 160 bay paint marking was worn away to look like 161. The car had and was correctly displaying a permit for the bay 161, as can also be seen from photographic evidence. The driver cannot be expected to read worn away paint, and cannot be held liable for any alleged contravention. Furthermore, in subsequent correspondence, the Claimant has failed to explain why they think it reasonable to expect the driver to be able to read worn paint. The Claimant must know that their claim is unenforceable, and to continue to press their claim can be considered intimidation by the threats of a barrage of debt demands and the possibility of facing court, and the demand for payment of a legally unrecoverable sum to make it go away.  Such conduct has no proper function in the recovery of alleged consumer debt.

benjward

Umkomaas said:

benjward said:

KeithP said:

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.

Thanks KeithP. That makes sense. 

However I fear if this is the case I have identified myself as the 'driver' in previous correspondence. I haven't explicitly said 'I was the driver' but I have used phrases such as 'PCN attached to my car' 'I was parked in the correct bay' 'I had a residents parking permit displayed' etc.

What should I do?

On who the driver was, the Claimant won't need to push too hard on a Judge with that in their hand. 

I think so too, so what to do?  
Will section 18, along with photographic evidence of the worn away and misleading parking bay signs not be enough? 

nosferatu1001

If the driver has been given away, then there is no point talking about POFA at all. 
Of course it MIGHT be enough
However
bay 160 and 161 may be worn, what about 162? could the driver not work out, using a logical sequence of numbers, what bay was what?
Its an obvious question to ask. 

benjward

@nosferatu1001 The bay was at the end of a section, and I didn't see any other markings. Should I go down the line that I WAS in bay 161 (as evident in the photo) and get them to prove otherwise?

nosferatu1001

Wheres bay 161
That looks like a partial 0 to me. 

benjward

@nosferatu1001 'If the driver has been given away, then there is no point talking about POFA at all.'
Sorry, I don't understand again. 

So should I edit section 17 to say:
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

benjward

nosferatu1001 said:

Wheres bay 161
That looks like a partial 0 to me. 

So can a partial 0 reasonably be expected to be read as an 0?