Court Defence advice please

bob5678

KeithP said:

bob5678 said:

Redx said:

Answer the questions above please !

A Claimant must prove compliance with POFA to hold a Keeper who was not the driver liable , it's that simple

No POFA compliance means no keeper liability , so chase the driver , who shall not be named !! , Simples !!

The defendant can say that they either know who as driving but decline to say , or say it's a relative or similar , or they do not know who was driving , but they must reply truthfully and honestly. Yer honour , I was not the driver !!  I respectfully decline to say !!

So the claim fails on POFA , the rest is icing on the Cake

The rest comes into it where a claimant complied with POFA , so landowner authority and signage count because they ticked the POFA compliance box and the keeper is liable for the actions of their vehicle

So with POFA compliance , you either name the driver in reply to the NTK PCN , or you take the responsibility on as keeper !

I do think the claimant complied with POFA, apart from the one small point, that they do not explicitly say "We do not know who the driver is" - I don't know if this is a point we can rely on as defence though.

And another 'small point' being that they should state when those 29 days start counting from.
Have a look at para 9(2)(f) of POFA.

There is a text box on the NTK, with
"Reference Number:
Vehicle Reg:
Issued Date: 4th March
Entry Time/Date: 25/2/2019
Exit Time/Date: 25/2/2019
Duration:

Amount Due: £90
within 29 days"

I don't know if this counts?

bob5678

Fruitcake said:

You should add something about the NTK failing to comply with the strict requirements of the PoFA 2012 and therefore incapable of holding the keeper liable. 
Expand on that at the WS and exhibits stage.

Forget 9 (2) (e).

Look at 9 (2) (f)

Thanks - Is this in relation to 9.2.e? 

They certainly allude to not knowing who the driver is, but they don't specifically state it in the way it's worded in POFA

KeithP

bob5678 said:

KeithP said:

bob5678 said:

Redx said:

Answer the questions above please !

A Claimant must prove compliance with POFA to hold a Keeper who was not the driver liable , it's that simple

No POFA compliance means no keeper liability , so chase the driver , who shall not be named !! , Simples !!

The defendant can say that they either know who as driving but decline to say , or say it's a relative or similar , or they do not know who was driving , but they must reply truthfully and honestly. Yer honour , I was not the driver !!  I respectfully decline to say !!

So the claim fails on POFA , the rest is icing on the Cake

The rest comes into it where a claimant complied with POFA , so landowner authority and signage count because they ticked the POFA compliance box and the keeper is liable for the actions of their vehicle

So with POFA compliance , you either name the driver in reply to the NTK PCN , or you take the responsibility on as keeper !

I do think the claimant complied with POFA, apart from the one small point, that they do not explicitly say "We do not know who the driver is" - I don't know if this is a point we can rely on as defence though.

And another 'small point' being that they should state when those 29 days start counting from.
Have a look at para 9(2)(f) of POFA.

There is a text box on the NTK, with
"Reference Number:
Vehicle Reg:
Issued Date: 4th March
Entry Time/Date: 25/2/2019
Exit Time/Date: 25/2/2019
Duration:

Amount Due: £90
within 29 days"

I don't know if this counts?

It doesn't - simply because 4th March is not the 'date given'.
See POFA para9(6).

But you are short of time, at this stage do as @Fruitcake suggests...

Fruitcake said:

You should add something about the NTK failing to comply with the strict requirements of the PoFA 2012 and therefore incapable of holding the keeper liable. 
Expand on that at the WS and exhibits stage.

Forget 9 (2) (e).

Look at 9 (2) (f)

bob5678

KeithP said:

bob5678 said:

Redx said:

Answer the questions above please !

A Claimant must prove compliance with POFA to hold a Keeper who was not the driver liable , it's that simple

No POFA compliance means no keeper liability , so chase the driver , who shall not be named !! , Simples !!

The defendant can say that they either know who as driving but decline to say , or say it's a relative or similar , or they do not know who was driving , but they must reply truthfully and honestly. Yer honour , I was not the driver !!  I respectfully decline to say !!

So the claim fails on POFA , the rest is icing on the Cake

The rest comes into it where a claimant complied with POFA , so landowner authority and signage count because they ticked the POFA compliance box and the keeper is liable for the actions of their vehicle

So with POFA compliance , you either name the driver in reply to the NTK PCN , or you take the responsibility on as keeper !

I do think the claimant complied with POFA, apart from the one small point, that they do not explicitly say "We do not know who the driver is" - I don't know if this is a point we can rely on as defence though.

And another 'small point' being that they should state when those 29 days start counting from.
Have a look at para 9(2)(f) of POFA.

Thanks

They do have a text box with amongst other things like vehicle Reg
"Issue date: 4th March 2019"
then three lines down

"Amount Due: £90
Within 29 days"

Fruitcake

I repeat, forget 9 2 e

Look at 9 2 f The wording on your NTK does not match the wording in the PoFA.

bob5678

Fruitcake said:

I repeat, forget 9 2 e

Look at 9 2 f

Hi will forget that point - thanks
I think they do comply with 9 2 f
from NTK
"We now request this amount is paid using one of the payment methods described overleaf. If within 29 days we have not received full payment or driver details, under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, we have the right, subject to the requirements of the Act, to recover the parking charge amount that remains funpaid from the keeper of the vehicle."

bob5678

So am I right that they have complied with POFA - and I shouldn't use it as a defence at all in this case?
In which case I reply on issues around bad signing

KeithP

bob5678 said:

Fruitcake said:

I repeat, forget 9 2 e

Look at 9 2 f

Hi will forget that point - thanks
I think they do comply with 9 2 f
from NTK
"We now request this amount is paid using one of the payment methods described overleaf. If within 29 days we have not received full payment or driver details, under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, we have the right, subject to the requirements of the Act, to recover the parking charge amount that remains funpaid from the keeper of the vehicle."

So once again, with POFA 9(6) in mind, tell us when those 29 days start?

bob5678

Re. a defence about bad signing, how detailed should I be at this stage regarding issues with signage - I understand not to attach any evidence.
But would a bullet point list of different issues be a good idea? 
- eg, font size, height of sign, volume of text on sign, broken lightbulbs, darkness, bad positioning of signs, lack of signs in certain places, confusion around boundaries of public and private land, and also of different areas of private land each with different sets of parking rules.
(edited for clarity)

Fruitcake

You are rushing this. Slow down and be more thorough.

You need to compare the wording on your NTK about the 29 days with the wording on PoFA 2012 9 (2) (f) and play spot the difference.

The PoFA tells you when the 29 days starts. (It actually says 28 days beginning with the day after ... which makes 29 days). Your NTK does not say when the 29 days starts.

Take your time and compare the two word by word, then tell us when the 29 days starts according to your NTK.