Paintbrush vs DCB Legal - Writing Defence

nosferatu1001

If you getr asked who the driver was, you must truthfully answer. 
IF you can answer "I was not the driver", OR "There were multiple possible drivers on an otherwise unremarkable date. I cannot recall who the driver was" then I would stick with POFA and you would state as such in 2
there is an obvious third answer, and an obvious route if that is the answer you would give

Paintbrush123

nosferatu1001 said:

If you getr asked who the driver was, you must truthfully answer. 
IF you can answer "I was not the driver", OR "There were multiple possible drivers on an otherwise unremarkable date. I cannot recall who the driver was" then I would stick with POFA and you would state as such in 2
there is an obvious third answer, and an obvious route if that is the answer you would give

Thanks very much Nosferatu, I have added that statement to point 2. Is there any benefit in holding off submitting my defence closer to the deadline or shall I just get it done? 

Coupon-mad

Get it done.

nosferatu1001

Which of the three have you given? You didnt say

Paintbrush123

nosferatu1001 said:

Which of the three have you given? You didnt say

2. It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle in question, but due to the Claimants complete disregard for Protection of Freedoms Act of 2012, liability is denied. There were multiple possible drivers on an otherwise unremarkable date. I cannot recall who the driver was.

3. The driver has not been identified by the Claimant and although there is a provision in law under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act of 2012 to recover unpaid parking charges from the vehicle’s keeper, the Claimant has made little to no effort to comply with the requirements of this act. Most notably, they failed to deliver any notice within the NTK that the keeper would become liable. (Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 9, paragraph 2, subparagraph f. As such, the Defendant has no liability in law.

nosferatu1001

Use POFA2012 once you've defined it. Shorter. 

Paintbrush123

Thank you everyone! I shall get it submitted today

2. It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle in question, but due to the Claimants complete disregard for Protection of Freedoms Act of 2012, liability is denied. There were multiple possible drivers on an otherwise unremarkable date. I cannot recall who the driver was.

3. The driver has not been identified by the Claimant and although there is a provision in law under Schedule 4 of the POFA2012 to recover unpaid parking charges from the vehicle’s keeper, the Claimant has made little to no effort to comply with the requirements of this act. Most notably, they failed to deliver any notice within the NTK that the keeper would become liable. (POFA2012, Schedule 9, paragraph 2, subparagraph f). As such, the Defendant has no liability in law.

nosferatu1001

no "of". POFA 2012. 

Le_Kirk

Paintbrush123 said:

Thank you everyone! I shall get it submitted today

2. It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle in question, but due to the Claimants complete disregard for Protection of Freedoms Act of 2012, liability is denied. There were multiple possible drivers on an otherwise unremarkable date. I cannot recall who the driver was.

3. The driver has not been identified by the Claimant and although there is a provision in law under Schedule 4 of the POFA2012 to recover unpaid parking charges from the vehicle’s keeper, the Claimant has made little to no effort to comply with the requirements of this act. Most notably, they failed to deliver any notice within the NTK that the keeper would become liable. (POFA2012, Schedule 9, paragraph 2, subparagraph f). As such, the Defendant has no liability in law.

Defences are written in third person, no "I" but "the Defendant" also #2 is just a re-working of #1.

Paintbrush123

I wont be giving up my day job for Defence writing that's for sure! Thank you all once again, another try: 

2. It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle in question, but liability is denied. There were multiple possible drivers on an otherwise unremarkable date. The Defendant cannot recall who the driver was.

3. The driver has not been identified by the Claimant and although there is a provision in law under Schedule 4 the POFA2012 to recover unpaid parking charges from the vehicle’s keeper, the Claimant has made little to no effort to comply with the requirements of this act. Most notably, they failed to deliver any notice within the NTK that the keeper would become liable. (POFA2012, Schedule 9, paragraph 2, subparagraph f). As such, the Defendant has no liability in law.