POFA '12 not valid?

Coupon-mad

You can say ''as far as I know, I was not the driver on the day in question because...what...?  E.G.

it's a shopping car park I've never used, to my knowledge /  I would have been at work / there were several possible drivers in the family and I have no recollection of this alleged event. 

Whatever is true. 

DON'T SAY THIS, IF UNSURE:

 I was not the driver on the day in question.

Lockable

Coupon-mad said:

You can say ''as far as I know, I was not the driver on the day in question because...what...?  E.G.

Revised version including the pointers received here: 
---

2.  It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle in question but liability is denied. 

3. This incident is alleged to have taken place on the 3/11/15 at  XXX. The defendant maintains that as far as she knows she was not the driver on the day in question. Several friends live in that area & at the time a family member & worked nearby. She also has no personal recollection of this event occurring. As this case has taken a bizarrely long time to arrive at court no hard evidence of whereabouts can be presented by the defendant, however by searching thru social media the defendant found a photograph, dating from the 4/11/15, the day after the alleged incident, of her mother receiving chemotherapy. The photo was taken by the defendant & the treatment was delivered at a hospital in Nottingham where her mother lived. The photo strongly indicates that she was with her mother during a stressful time and not in the area of the alleged parking incident.

On the 4/3/16 the defendant received, by post, a 'Notice to Keeper' regarding this incident. No appeal process was made available & no option to communicate with the PPC, other than to give them money, was offered.

After some research on this matter the defendant discovered the 'Protection of Freedoms Act 2012'. Within the act are parameters for pursuing the registered keeper of a vehicle in the event of a parking incident such as the one alleged by the claimant. It swiftly became obvious to the her that the claimant hadn't abided by these parameters & indeed didn't seem to be familiar with POFA '12 & that the claim had no merit whatsoever. The NTK had arrived 122 days after the 'incident' not with 56 days as laid out under POFA '12.

The first claim letter was received from 'B.W Legal' on April 11th 2016. This letter made an inflated claim for an amount they say was the 'balance due'. The letter didn't mention POFA '12, but made threats about a possible CCJ for non-payment.

The defendant responded to this letter on 17th April pointing out that as far as she knew she was not the driver on the day of the alleged incident & that the PPC had failed with regard to POFA '12 to follow the correct procedure, therefore would not be able to pursue her as the registered keeper.

The defendant received no acknowledgement from either 'B.W Legal' or Conkai Security ltd. to the response letter.

At regular intervals for the next 5 years similar threatening, false claim letters with varying degrees of coherence arrived until the 'case' appears to have been taken up by CST 'Law' who have added their own amount to the initial charge.

The defendant responded to each letter informing them that as the former registered keeper, she cannot be held liable due to the Claimant not complying with the ‘keeper liability’ requirements set out in the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4.

---

Coupon-mad

Looks OK, except every paragraph needs a number.

Fruitcake

A few suggestions. See what others think.

3. This incident is alleged to have taken place on the 3/11/15 at  XXX. The defendant maintains that as far as she knows she was not the driver on the day in question. Several friends live in that area and & at the time a family member & worked nearby. She The defendant also has no personal recollection of this event occurring  . As this case has taken a bizarrely long time to arrive at court no hard evidence of whereabouts can be presented by the defendant, however by searching thru social media the defendant found a photograph, dating from the 4/11/15, the day after the alleged incident, of her mother receiving chemotherapy. The photo was taken by the defendant & the treatment was delivered at a hospital in Nottingham where her mother lived. The photo strongly indicates that  but believes she was with her mother during a stressful time and not in the area of the alleged parking incident.

On the 4/3/16 the defendant received, by post, a 'Notice to Keeper' (NTK) regarding this incident. This NTK did not specify whether a Notice to Driver had been given, nor whether the NTK had been issued in accordance with either paragraph 8 or 9 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA '12). No appeal process was made available and   &  no option to communicate with the PPC claimant, Conkai Security other than to give them money, was offered.

After some research on this matter the defendant discovered the 'Protection of Freedoms Act 2012'. Within the act are parameters for pursuing the registered keeper of a vehicle in the event of a parking incident such as the one alleged by the claimant. It swiftly became obvious to the her that the claimant hadn't abided by these parameters & indeed didn't seem to be familiar with POFA '12 & that the claim had no merit whatsoever. The NTK had arrived 122 days after the alleged incident, not within the strict timeframes specified by paragraphs 8 and 9 of the POFA '12.

The first claim letter was received from 'B.W Legal' on April 11th 2016. This letter made an inflated claim for an amount they say was allegedly the 'balance due'. The letter didn't mention POFA '12, but made threats about a possible CCJ for non-payment.

The defendant responded to this letter on 17th April pointing out that as far as she knew she was not the driver on the day of the alleged incident & that the PPC had failed with regard to POFA '12 to follow the correct procedure, therefore would not be able to pursue her as the registered keeper.

The defendant received no acknowledgement from either 'B.W Legal' or the claimant Conkai Security ltd to the response letter.

At regular intervals for the next 5 years similar threatening, false claim letters with varying degrees of coherence arrived until the 'case' appears to have been taken up by CST 'Law' who have added their own amount to the initial charge.

The defendant responded to each letter informing them that as the former registered keeper, she cannot be held liable due to the Claimant not complying with the ‘keeper liability’ requirements set out in the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4.

Save the narrative for your witness statement.

Le_Kirk

3. This incident is alleged to have taken place on the 3/11/15 at  XXX. The defendant maintains that as far as she knows she was not the driver on the day in question. Several friends live in that area & at the time a family member & worked nearby. She also has no personal recollection of this event occurring. As this case has taken a bizarrely long time to arrive at court no hard evidence of whereabouts can be presented by the defendant, however by searching thru social media the defendant found a photograph, 

Couple more suggestions: -

3. This incident is alleged to have taken place on the 3/11/15 at  XXX. The defendant maintains that as far as she knows she was not the driver on the day in question. Several friends live in that area & and at the time a family member & worked nearby. She The defendant also has no personal recollection of this event occurring. As this case has taken a bizarrely long time to arrive at court no hard evidence of whereabouts can be presented by the defendant, however by searching thru through social media the defendant found a photograph, 

Notwithstanding what @Fruitcake has suggested and you may wish to adjust it based on those ideas.

Lockable

Good morning all, I've received a trial date for Jan. provided the claimant coughs up a fee before the 10th of this month. I've had no further communication with regard to what I should or might need for any court date with regard to my defence. Having filed defence particulars at an earlier date, ( modified version of the template from newbies thread ) will this be what I rely on, on the day, or should I be preparing anything else?

Le_Kirk

If you have received a "hearing" date, you must have (or I hope you have) submitted a defence to CCBC via e-mail.  What does it say on your notice of allocation?  It should give a date or a number of days before the hearing date by which you must submit anything which you wish to rely on at the hearing.  Do not miss that deadline.  Anyway, all this is in the NEWBIE sticky and after 14 pages, you must/ should know where that is!

Lockable

Le_Kirk said:

If you have received a "hearing" date, you must have (or I hope you have) submitted a defence to CCBC via e-mail.  

Yes, that's what I mean by "Having filed defence particulars at an earlier date"

The Notice of Trail Date I'm looking at seems primarily aimed t the claimant & their responsibilities, ie: pay the fee before the 10th of this month for a trial date on 7/1/22. The rest of the letter is primarily concerned with covid protocols.

Le_Kirk

Lockable said:

Le_Kirk said:

If you have received a "hearing" date, you must have (or I hope you have) submitted a defence to CCBC via e-mail.  

Yes, that's what I mean by "Having filed defence particulars at an earlier date"

The Notice of Trail Date I'm looking at seems primarily aimed t the claimant & their responsibilities, ie: pay the fee before the 10th of this month for a trial date on 7/1/22. The rest of the letter is primarily concerned with covid protocols.

Are you sure there is nothing about having to serve and file "anything which you wish to rely on at the hearing" maybe on page 2 or on the reverse?  For a hearing in January it is most unusual not to ask you and the claimant to serve and file your witness statement, evidence and costs assessment "at least 14 days" before the hearing date or by a specific date..

Lockable

Le_Kirk said:

Are you sure there is nothing about having to serve and file "anything which you wish to rely on at the hearing" maybe on page 2 or on the reverse?  For a hearing in January it is most unusual not to ask you and the claimant to serve and file your witness statement, evidence and costs assessment "at least 14 days" before the hearing date or by a specific date..

There's nothing with that specific wording or similar. That's what I was expecting to see myself. 
I've sent my amended defence particulars at an earlier date, after that nothing until this arrived recently. 
Should I expect to be asked for anything else and therefore should I work up whatever that might be in preparation for sending it electronically in the near future? 

I also read elsewhere on the forum that VCS are prone to abandoning at a late stage.