POFA '12 not valid?

Lockable

nosferatu1001 said:

if you can provide al this info, what happened when you said you weren't the driver? Did they comment at all? It would help to know if they ignored you - that won't look good in court ! - or something else. 

The first contact they made was the NTK, after that it was pointed out that they could not rely on POFA to taker this further. At no point was it admitted who the driver might have been. After this there have been semi regular threat letters from BW Legal & most recently CST Law. at least 7 letters all in the same vain, 'Give us money or go to court!'. Each letter was responded to with the same message that POFA won't apply. No attempt from them to engage. Now we're at the small claims stage. 

nosferatu1001

I maybe didn't make myself clear. 

Did they ever respond DIRECTLY to your statement that you were not the driver? Yes or no. Simple answer. I know where you are now. I'm wanting you to answer just this question. 

Because think about it. If you state you're not the driver, and at no point do they acknowledge this, that makes them look terrible in court! You make a big deal out of it! And if they did respond to it, but carried in chasing you, it makes them look even worse!

Lockable

nosferatu1001 said:

I maybe didn't make myself clear. 

Did they ever respond DIRECTLY to your statement that you were not the driver? Yes or no. Simple answer. I know where you are now. I'm wanting you to answer just this question. 

Because think about it. If you state you're not the driver, and at no point do they acknowledge this, that makes them look terrible in court! You make a big deal out of it! And if they did respond to it, but carried in chasing you, it makes them look even worse!

OK, I thought I was fairly clear. No, they have never addressed the issue of who was driving & haven't responded to anything I've written to them except to say that I haven't given them any money yet. They haven't acknowledge POFA 12 or their non adherence to it's protocols, every response to their letters is utterly deaf to anything I say. There claim is that I owned this car & I owe them cash for some infringement. Which of course I deny.  It's merely harassment at this point as far as I can see.

nosferatu1001

Ok. 

So your WS points out that they do not deny you weren't the driver. They failed pofa because... 

Lockable

nosferatu1001 said:

 They failed pofa because... 

...because the NTK isn't pofa compliant in any way whatsoever, it doesn't invoke pofa and at no point since have they attempted to invoke pofa as a way in which they can claim keeper liability. They merely insist that money is owed by me to them for ....reasons which are best known to them.
Each letter seems to have piled on greater sums of cash, they haven't made clear what mechanism they think their claim stands on.

Coupon-mad

Yup, that sums up this industry.

Fruitcake

Lockable said:

nosferatu1001 said:

 They failed pofa because... 

...because the NTK isn't pofa compliant in any way whatsoever, it doesn't invoke pofa and at no point since have they attempted to invoke pofa as a way in which they can claim keeper liability. They merely insist that money is owed by me to them for ....reasons which are best known to them.
Each letter seems to have piled on greater sums of cash, they haven't made clear what mechanism they think their claim stands on.

When you put this into your WS you will need to be more specific.
They have failed PoFA 2012 because ... (Select all that apply)

The NTK arrived too late for keeper liability to apply
The NTK failed to mention the wording in para 9 2 (f) ... followed by the words quoted from the PoFA
Etcetera

Lockable

OK, so I posted this to the CST thread but here's the original thread for this case & this showstopping letter arrived yesterday. 
The court is demanding that the PPC remake their case & highlight how it satisfies certain criteria to be heard relating to signage & POFA '12 compliance, something that can't realistically be done.
This should result in it being struck out if they fail but if they carry on it allows me to remake a defence !!
This seems to me to be a way of weeding out vexatious cases that clog up the court system. Judge Devlin at Oxford is behind this & has some previous in this area, ie: sending out a letter.
I found this from a little over a year ago:
 https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/76791848#Comment_76791848

The judge has shown little patience in the past for badly made claims & spurious charges being applied. They seem to understand well the minutiae that PPC's can't be arsed with.
Fingers crossed for a strike out but if not the game is back on & this letter seems to outline a new defence for me. :-)

Lockable

Thinking about this further, the existence of this letter implies that whatever they have filed so far in terms of their claim, the judge doesn't believe it contains anything that would stand up in court. 

Umkomaas

I bet there's some Conkai, boss-eyed, spittle-dripping goon, trying to work all that lot out!  I suspect they'll cave, but I really would like to see how they deal with that loaded gun of questions!  Wouldn't it be great if this series of questions was handed to every PPC claimant to answer, it would perhaps apply a bit of brake to the roboclaim nature of current activity?

Please keep us updated.