Reply To Defence - E S Parking Enforcement - Manchester

nosferatu1001

As above
Of course, IF it goes to court and IF you are asked who the driver was - do not tell us - you have to answer truthfully
If the truthful answer is "not me", or "could have but there are also at lerast 1 one other reguoalr driver of the vehicle" then you should be ok
the final case has obvious implications. 

Cryptjitsuu

Great so looks like my grammatical error with the defence has actually done me good by not saying who the driver was. 
A couple of questions: 
Does my defence and that I can't explain the technicalities of it affect the case? 
Where in the process should I mention the Non-compliant POFA NTK?

Cryptjitsuu

Can they also not use this statement: 

"At the time of parking the Defendant did not see the affixed sign. This is due to the sign being affixed below eye level, not being lit or reflective and being extremely small as is clear from the attached evidence. The location the defendant parked was also directly in front of the sign meaning it would be impossible for anyone else parking in the area to see the sign also. At the time of parking the defendant was also a resident of the building that the parking area is set directly next to and believed he was parking in an area that was covered by the leasehold of the building, entitling it for use of it’s residents."

As an admission of the defendant also being the driver at the time?

nosferatu1001

1) Well you have plenty of timme to understand it! You cant just shrug your shoulders if youre asked what you mean
2) By "mention" you prove it by your witness statement. Have you read the Newbies to know what happens and when? Do so. Have you read other threadss so you can see how people have approached court? Do so.
3) Yes they probably can. To be honest a keeper/driver is often better admitting as such,m because you can be way more direct. 

Fruitcake

Cryptjitsuu said:

Can they also not use this statement: 

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

As an admission of the defendant also being the driver at the time?

That does rather give the game away about the driver's identity. As advised above, sometimes it is better for the driver to be identified because they were a witness at the time of the alleged event and can say whether the signs were or were not adequate etcetera.

Cryptjitsuu

nosferatu1001 said:

1) Well you have plenty of timme to understand it! You cant just shrug your shoulders if youre asked what you mean
2) By "mention" you prove it by your witness statement. Have you read the Newbies to know what happens and when? Do so. Have you read other threadss so you can see how people have approached court? Do so.
3) Yes they probably can. To be honest a keeper/driver is often better admitting as such,m because you can be way more direct. 

1) Ok thanks 
2) Yes apologies just wanted to be clear that this should be in my WS. 
3) In relation to your point "If the truthful answer is "not me", or "could have but there are also at least 1 one other regular driver of the vehicle" then you should be ok" if the other driver/drivers were to have lived in the same residential building as the defendant is the admission of the defendant being the driver arguable or is the point not worth arguing and better off just using the sign visibility and non-compliant pofa NTK as the key direction to win the case if it is to go to court.

Le_Kirk

Generally, if it is a residential case, you are better off defending as keeper/driver because then you are your own best witness.  If you have a good defence due to living there and having primacy of contract, there is little to be gained by using POFA and "keeper not liable for driver actions".

nosferatu1001

If you know you were the driver, and get asked, you must truthfully respond. That is all I can say on the ,matter. 

Umkomaas

PoFA only really helps if the RK was definitely not the driver and has some evidence to back that up. Trying to furtively hide behind it simply encourages the question from the Judge, or the claimant's representative, 'Were you the driver on the day in question?'.  Trying to find weasel words to avoid answering exposes the defendant to the risk of the Judge questioning their reliability.  Could scupper an otherwise winnable case. 

Cryptjitsuu

Update: 


"Dear Mr    We act for the Claimant.    In accordance with CPR 27.9 our Client hereby gives notice that it will not be attending the hearing on 06/05/2021. We confirm the court has been informed and that we have asked the Court to decide the claim in our Client's absence based on the evidence submitted.  

Regards"


So.... Do I win by default?