Letter before claim from ELMS Legal

1505grandad

"(as the case may be)" is a note to YOU to state the relevant POFA paragraph  i.e. 8 if windscreen notice  9 if - usually - anpr used.

SayNoToPCN

It is para 8 or para 9 of schedule 4 of the POFA2012
As you have not defined POFA yet, you MUST do so. You can say in full Protection of.... ("POFA2012") or Protection of... ("The Act") but you cvannot incllude initialisms without having first defined them.

I would say
"was the Rk but was not the driver..."
Saves space and is more natural

Coupon-mad

Apart from that, it looks ready to go.

Motty2014

Coupon-mad said:

Apart from that, it looks ready to go.

Thanks all 

Final version:

2.           It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle in question but was not the driver, all liability is denied.

 

3.           The Defendant was not the driver of this vehicle and has no knowledge of any parking charge notice (‘PCN’) or letters. It is not accepted that the location included prominent signs giving ‘adequate notice’ of the onerous parking charge. A compliant Notice to Keeper (‘NTK’) was not properly served in strict accordance with section 9 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (‘POFA’). Using the photographs provided by the Claimant and from a subsequent visit to the site by the Defendant, the bay in question appears to be a valid parking space at this location. There is an absence of any “no parking” sign and no double yellow or cross-hatched markings to make it absolutely clear the bay in question is (supposedly) not a parking space.

fivele

Motty2014 said:

Coupon-mad said:

Apart from that, it looks ready to go.

Thanks all 

Final version:

2.           It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle in question but was not the driver, all liability is denied.

 

3.           The Defendant was not the driver of this vehicle and has no knowledge of any parking charge notice (‘PCN’) or letters. It is not accepted that the location included prominent signs giving ‘adequate notice’ of the onerous parking charge. A compliant Notice to Keeper (‘NTK’) was not properly served in strict accordance with section 9 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (‘POFA’). Using the photographs provided by the Claimant and from a subsequent visit to the site by the Defendant, the bay in question appears to be a valid parking space at this location. There is an absence of any “no parking” sign and no double yellow or cross-hatched markings to make it absolutely clear the bay in question is (supposedly) not a parking space.

Hi, I was wondering how your case went?

I have just received a court claim from Elms for the same place .

KeithP

fivele said:

Motty2014 said:

Coupon-mad said:

Apart from that, it looks ready to go.

Thanks all 

Final version:

2.           It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle in question but was not the driver, all liability is denied.

 

3.           The Defendant was not the driver of this vehicle and has no knowledge of any parking charge notice (‘PCN’) or letters. It is not accepted that the location included prominent signs giving ‘adequate notice’ of the onerous parking charge. A compliant Notice to Keeper (‘NTK’) was not properly served in strict accordance with section 9 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (‘POFA’). Using the photographs provided by the Claimant and from a subsequent visit to the site by the Defendant, the bay in question appears to be a valid parking space at this location. There is an absence of any “no parking” sign and no double yellow or cross-hatched markings to make it absolutely clear the bay in question is (supposedly) not a parking space.

Hi, I was wondering how your case went?

I have just received a court claim from Elms for the same place .

Hello @fivele. If you want help with defending your claim you are best advised to start your own thread. When doing so, please tell us the Issue Date on your County Court Claim Form.

Fruitcake

fivele said:

Motty2014 said:

Coupon-mad said:

Apart from that, it looks ready to go.

Thanks all 

Final version:

2.           It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle in question but was not the driver, all liability is denied.

 

3.           The Defendant was not the driver of this vehicle and has no knowledge of any parking charge notice (‘PCN’) or letters. It is not accepted that the location included prominent signs giving ‘adequate notice’ of the onerous parking charge. A compliant Notice to Keeper (‘NTK’) was not properly served in strict accordance with section 9 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (‘POFA’). Using the photographs provided by the Claimant and from a subsequent visit to the site by the Defendant, the bay in question appears to be a valid parking space at this location. There is an absence of any “no parking” sign and no double yellow or cross-hatched markings to make it absolutely clear the bay in question is (supposedly) not a parking space.

Hi, I was wondering how your case went?

I have just received a court claim from Elms for the same place .

Motty has not been on MSE since the 14th of April. You could send them a private message which should trigger an email alert and thus get a response.

You will need your own thread anyway so go ahead with that so we can start to help you.

fivele

KeithP said:

fivele said:

Motty2014 said:

Coupon-mad said:

Apart from that, it looks ready to go.

Thanks all 

Final version:

2.           It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle in question but was not the driver, all liability is denied.

 

3.           The Defendant was not the driver of this vehicle and has no knowledge of any parking charge notice (‘PCN’) or letters. It is not accepted that the location included prominent signs giving ‘adequate notice’ of the onerous parking charge. A compliant Notice to Keeper (‘NTK’) was not properly served in strict accordance with section 9 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (‘POFA’). Using the photographs provided by the Claimant and from a subsequent visit to the site by the Defendant, the bay in question appears to be a valid parking space at this location. There is an absence of any “no parking” sign and no double yellow or cross-hatched markings to make it absolutely clear the bay in question is (supposedly) not a parking space.

Hi, I was wondering how your case went?

I have just received a court claim from Elms for the same place .

Hello @fivele. If you want help with defending your claim you are best advised to start your own thread. When doing so, please tell us the Issue Date on your County Court Claim Form.

Hi, I was just curious as to what the outcome was and the reason, and if the landowner was identified - not looking for help with mine as I am in the process of starting a thread. Thanks 

KeithP

Now that @Motty2014 has started another thread, I'm sure he'll be along shortly to update us with progress on this outstanding issue.