Received a N1SDT Form from County Court Business Centre - for parking at my own home on private land

nosferatu1001

Indeed, KISS principle. Dont mix up topics in the same para. 
Not being the only driver - one topic
Having leaseholder rights over the space - a different topic.  Point out you are the landholder and the claimant was reuqired to contract with you, not anyone else. 

Umkomaas

mattp87 said:

Le_Kirk said:

I would keep the comments about the leaseholder's rights in the same paragraph, say # 18 and have # 17 for the "not the driver" issue, however there are more words around that already written in @Coupon-mad 's template.

Thank you - please could you point me towards the comments from @Coupon-mad's comments? I've boxed off number 18, regarding number 17, I am the registered keeper and in theory was "the driver" - albeit it abroad at the time!   

You've surely been using it already if you're constructing paras 17 and 18. It's in the same place, it hasn't moved. One of the first 5 threads in the thread list - they're marked off as 'Announcements'

Redx

mattp87 said:

Le_Kirk said:

I would keep the comments about the leaseholder's rights in the same paragraph, say # 18 and have # 17 for the "not the driver" issue, however there are more words around that already written in @Coupon-mad 's template.

regarding number 17, I am the registered keeper and in theory was "the driver" - albeit it abroad at the time!   

 If you were abroad at the time then you were NOT the driver !!! Not at all

Do not lie on a legal document , the stakes for perjury are higher as your statement of truth clearly mentions

mattp87

Hi all.

1.     The Defendant is 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. It is not established thus far, whether there was a single parking event, or whether the vehicle was caught by predatory ticketing and/or by using unsynchronised timings and camera evidence to suggest a contravention. 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.

 

2.     The Defendant is not the only driver of this vehicle but is a leaseholder and owner of number 8 Waterside, of which I am entitled by right of being a leaseholder and granted access to park on the private grounds. The title deeds of the property stipulate access to park a fully licensed and tax vehicle on the premises. The defendant’s documents relating to ownership override any ‘contract’ made by a third-party firm to require a parking pass inside a vehicle. This includes a lease and title deeds.   The claimant had nothing to offer the defendant and no contract could ever be formed and the alleged lack of permit – displayed purely as a courtesy does not mean any contract was breached and the claimants own photos were taken in such a way as to obscure this.  The Defendant denies any wrongdoing in the matter.

I have kept the first paragraph, it seems to fit the bill. 
(again, I just want to say thank you for the help on this)

Castle

Redx said:

mattp87 said:

Le_Kirk said:

I would keep the comments about the leaseholder's rights in the same paragraph, say # 18 and have # 17 for the "not the driver" issue, however there are more words around that already written in @Coupon-mad 's template.

regarding number 17, I am the registered keeper and in theory was "the driver" - albeit it abroad at the time!   

 If you were abroad at the time then you were NOT the driver !!! Not at all

Do not lie on a legal document , the stakes for perjury are higher as your statement of truth clearly mentions

And probably not the "Keeper" either.

nosferatu1001

What the OP could mean is they were potentially the last person to drive the car. 
OP - you do realise this website is public? SO if you disclose the drivers identity here, you have to assume the claimant will know. 

mattp87

nosferatu1001 said:

What the OP could mean is they were potentially the last person to drive the car. 
OP - you do realise this website is public? SO if you disclose the drivers identity here, you have to assume the claimant will know. 

I understand - I have probably said to much information. But regardless, these rogues shouldn't be trying to pin a parking charge on me for parking at my own house. My rights should overrule them. 

nosferatu1001

Indeed. But the point Im making i that if you admit to being the driver here, you may as well do so in the defence. Makes writing the WS a lot easier on you, you can directly talk about it, etc .
Make a choice.

Le_Kirk

mattp87 said:

Hi all.

1.     The Defendant is 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. It is not established thus far, whether there was a single parking event, or whether the vehicle was caught by predatory ticketing and/or by using unsynchronised timings and camera evidence to suggest a contravention. 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.

 2.     The Defendant is not the only driver of this vehicle but is a leaseholder and owner of number 8 Waterside, of which I am and is entitled by right of being a leaseholder and granted access to park on the private grounds. The title deeds of the property stipulate access to park a fully licensed and taxed vehicle on the premises. The defendant’s documents relating to ownership override any ‘contract’ made by a third-party firm to require a parking pass permit to be displayed inside a vehicle. This includes a lease and title deeds.   The claimant had nothing to offer the defendant and no contract could ever be formed and the alleged lack of permit – displayed purely as a courtesy - does not mean any contract was breached and the claimants own photos were taken in such a way as to obscure this.  The Defendant denies any wrongdoing in the matter.

You kept the first paragraph # 17 but then repeated the first sentence in the second paragraph # 18.  Some suggestions for you.  also you need to sort out "section 8 or 9 (as the case may be) of the POFA"  Ask Auntie Google about PoFA and read section 8 and 9 to see which relates to your case.  It is to do with whether or not a NTD was issued followed by a NTK or straight to NTK.  It can be a tad confusing to get your head around at first particularly as section 8 starts off by referring to section 6 but keep at it and you will get it.

Redx

Be sure what your rights are , if you were abroad then it's impossible to be the driver sat in the driving seat when the incident occurred , as this is a legal case and as sworn document of truth , it should be that , so if you were not the driver , say so

If you were the driver , it's either no comment and defend as keeper , or if you were the driver , then that is the other choice

But it must be the truth , or no comment , so not a driver that was abroad at the time , that is a blatant lie , but you could be the last person to have driven the vehicle , parked it in your own space and gone on holiday