Defence advice

welshy_2002

welshy_2002

Coupon-mad

Also states the driver being liable. I was not the driver at the time, so as elluded to in the start of this thread, is that not a good standing to use as primary defence?

Yes that should be stated in #2 of the template, then explain in #3 that the NTK was not sent in accordance with the POFA 2012 because it was in the same envelope as the second letter and thus, received too late.  Therefore the keeper cannot be held liable - quote Henry Greenslade of POPLA (search the forum).

welshy_2002

Coupon-mad said:

Also states the driver being liable. I was not the driver at the time, so as elluded to in the start of this thread, is that not a good standing to use as primary defence?

Yes that should be stated in #2 of the template, then explain in #3 that the NTK was not sent in accordance with the POFA 2012 because it was in the same envelope as the second letter and thus, received too late.  Therefore the keeper cannot be held liable - quote Henry Greenslade of POPLA (search the forum).

Fantastic. Thank you so much coupon. Will edit my defense and post tomorrow before e-mailing it off.

Le_Kirk

welshy_2002 said:

Coupon-mad said:

Also states the driver being liable. I was not the driver at the time, so as elluded to in the start of this thread, is that not a good standing to use as primary defence?

Yes that should be stated in #2 of the template, then explain in #3 that the NTK was not sent in accordance with the POFA 2012 because it was in the same envelope as the second letter and thus, received too late.  Therefore the keeper cannot be held liable - quote Henry Greenslade of POPLA (search the forum).

Fantastic. Thank you so much coupon. Will edit my defense and post tomorrow before e-mailing it off.

I hope you will edit your defence!

welshy_2002

Le_Kirk said:

welshy_2002 said:

Coupon-mad said:

Also states the driver being liable. I was not the driver at the time, so as elluded to in the start of this thread, is that not a good standing to use as primary defence?

Yes that should be stated in #2 of the template, then explain in #3 that the NTK was not sent in accordance with the POFA 2012 because it was in the same envelope as the second letter and thus, received too late.  Therefore the keeper cannot be held liable - quote Henry Greenslade of POPLA (search the forum).

Fantastic. Thank you so much coupon. Will edit my defense and post tomorrow before e-mailing it off.

I hope you will edit your defence!

I'm struggling to get this in on time. I can't find any decent Henry Greenslade quote in countless searches

welshy_2002

only thing I can find its this

I have researched this matter, after receiving this exorbitant claim. CP Plus NTKs are (and always have been) non-POFA ‘driver only’ documents, most easily seen due to the omission of the required wording in para 9 of Schedule 4 of the POFA, included but not limited to 9(2)f. They say that ”on the balance of probabilities, it is submitted that if the Registered Keeper was not the driver, they would explain that or nominate”, however Henry Greenslade’s section about Keeper Liability, from the POPLA Annual Report 2015 (Exhibit XX) establishes that a Keeper can’t be pursued, nor assumed to be the driver, nor can any adverse inference be drawn by someone not naming the driver(s). If NTK’s are non-POFA ‘driver only’ documents there is no requirement to supply the Drivers’s details.

Coupon-mad

That's fine as long as you remove the bold bit about an exhibit, because nothing is attached to a defence. And remove this chunk:

 CP Plus NTKs are (and always have been) non-POFA ‘driver only’ documents, most easily seen due to the omission of the required wording in para 9 of Schedule 4 of the POFA, included but not limited to 9(2)f. They say that ”on the balance of probabilities, it is submitted that if the Registered Keeper was not the driver, they would explain that or nominate”, however 

We assume when you read that, you then opened a tab and Googled and read the words...you know it's from the POPLA Annual Report 2015 because that wording tells you.

welshy_2002

Coupon-mad said:

That's fine as long as you remove the bold bit about an exhibit, because nothing is attached to a defence. And remove this chunk:

 CP Plus NTKs are (and always have been) non-POFA ‘driver only’ documents, most easily seen due to the omission of the required wording in para 9 of Schedule 4 of the POFA, included but not limited to 9(2)f. They say that ”on the balance of probabilities, it is submitted that if the Registered Keeper was not the driver, they would explain that or nominate”, however 

We assume when you read that, you then opened a tab and Googled and read the words...you know it's from the POPLA Annual Report 2015 because that wording tells you.

Thanks Coupon, I did read the report. Defence sent, fingers crossed.

Many thanks to you and the helpful souls on this forum. Will report back and let you know re any updates.

Have a good weekend

Le_Kirk

welshy_2002 said:

Le_Kirk said:

welshy_2002 said:

Coupon-mad said:

Also states the driver being liable. I was not the driver at the time, so as elluded to in the start of this thread, is that not a good standing to use as primary defence?

Yes that should be stated in #2 of the template, then explain in #3 that the NTK was not sent in accordance with the POFA 2012 because it was in the same envelope as the second letter and thus, received too late.  Therefore the keeper cannot be held liable - quote Henry Greenslade of POPLA (search the forum).

Fantastic. Thank you so much coupon. Will edit my defense and post tomorrow before e-mailing it off.

I hope you will edit your defence!

I'm struggling to get this in on time. I can't find any decent Henry Greenslade quote in countless searches

One search produced this: -

Liability can only be transferred lawfully by strictly following Schedule 4, Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (Ex1) which was enacted into statute to prevent this very issue and ensure lawful transfer of liability for private landowners. VCS Ltd chose not to utilise this statute and therefore attempts to transfer liability unlawfully. Mr Henry Greenslade comments on this within the 2015 POPLA Annual Report: “The only presumption that anyone else is liable for such a charge is under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012”
15 The Claimant states in para #31 of their witness statement that ‘the Claimant may pursue the claim outside of POFA’; however there is no other legislation that can be used in this instance.
16 In support of this I would like to draw attention to Ex2, Henry Greenslade's words as Lead Adjudicator in the POPLA (Parking on Private Land Appeals) Annual Report 2015 'Understanding Keeper Liability', which make it clear that a keeper is not required to name the driver and that in the absence of evidence of that party, the only way for a parking firm to hold a keeper liable is by full compliance with the POFA.