Court defence

kfrs9960

1505grandad said:

Just checking  -  the NtK was as a result of anpr and not a ticket stuck on the windscreen?

Also that it is the Defendant's own vehicle and not a lease/hire car?

(There is no background so checking that OP has not just done a c & p)

Yes, its was a result of an ANPR, its the defendants vehicle, there is picture of the vehicle entering and one of it leaving with times and dates, neither show the driver 

Le_Kirk

kfrs9960 said:

1505grandad said:

Just checking  -  the NtK was as a result of anpr and not a ticket stuck on the windscreen?
Also that it is the Defendant's own vehicle and not a lease/hire car?
(There is no background so checking that OP has not just done a c & p)

Yes, its was a result of an ANPR, its the defendants vehicle, there is picture of the vehicle entering and one of it leaving with times and dates, neither show the driver 

ANPR is not designed to capture the driver's photo, it is or should be, focussed on the number plates and the VRM.  It is fine to claim "not the driver" but just think to yourself what you will answer if the judge asks "were you driving?"

kfrs9960

Le_Kirk said:

kfrs9960 said:

1505grandad said:

Just checking  -  the NtK was as a result of anpr and not a ticket stuck on the windscreen?
Also that it is the Defendant's own vehicle and not a lease/hire car?
(There is no background so checking that OP has not just done a c & p)

Yes, its was a result of an ANPR, its the defendants vehicle, there is picture of the vehicle entering and one of it leaving with times and dates, neither show the driver 

ANPR is not designed to capture the driver's photo, it is or should be, focussed on the number plates and the VRM.  It is fine to claim "not the driver" but just think to yourself what you will answer if the judge asks "were you driving?"

The Defendant was working night shifts so was in bed at the time of the alleged incident

Fruitcake

Then para 2 of your defence is fine as it is. When using acronyms, write the full wording first followed by the acronym in brackets afterwards. Thereafter, just use the acronym.

I would remove the sub para headings (a) and (b) and just leave all the text as para 3.

kfrs9960

The facts as known to the Defendant:

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

3,         (a) The Notice to Keeper from the Claimant fails to comply with the strict requirements of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4, including paragraph 9 (2) (f) and therefore the Claimant is incapable of holding the keeper liable.

(b) The Defendant denies that the vehicle keeper is obliged to name the driver to a private parking firm. Had this been the intention of parliament, they would have made such requirement part of POFA.

Would it be ok to inset this into the template in newbies as a defence, without editing the rest as I'm not sure what needs to be removed if anything?

nosferatu1001

" Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 ("The Act") "
Then instead of saying POFA, you can say The Act. Easier
Why do you have sub para? No part of the defence template uses sub para. 
This is your defence. I suggest you understand what you are filing, noting of course the statement of truth at the bottom.

1505grandad

A reminder of the suggested wording in C-m's template Defence:-

"2.       It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle in question but liability is denied. 

^^^ CHANGE THE ABOVE IF NOT TRUE, OBVIOUSLY! ^^^ 

(Also, continue here in your words, by either also admitting to being the driver, or hirer/lessee, if you were.   Alternatively, deny being the driver in #2, but ONLY IF TRUE.  If you DON'T KNOW, say so)."

"3.  [REMOVE AND REPLACE THESE NOTES! EXPLAIN WHAT YOU KNOW IN YOUR OWN WORDS]  

If you are only the registered keeper and were not driving, you will be saying when you first heard about this parking charge (by post, months later?) and maybe how harassed you felt by the bombardment of ‘debt recovery’ letters, and you might be taking the point that the Defendant cannot be held liable due to the Claimant not complying with the ‘keeper liability’ requirements set out in the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4."

kfrs9960

1505grandad said:

A reminder of the suggested wording in C-m's template Defence:-

"2.       It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle in question but liability is denied. 

^^^ CHANGE THE ABOVE IF NOT TRUE, OBVIOUSLY! ^^^ 

(Also, continue here in your words, by either also admitting to being the driver, or hirer/lessee, if you were.   Alternatively, deny being the driver in #2, but ONLY IF TRUE.  If you DON'T KNOW, say so)."

"3.  [REMOVE AND REPLACE THESE NOTES! EXPLAIN WHAT YOU KNOW IN YOUR OWN WORDS]  

If you are only the registered keeper and were not driving, you will be saying when you first heard about this parking charge (by post, months later?) and maybe how harassed you felt by the bombardment of ‘debt recovery’ letters, and you might be taking the point that the Defendant cannot be held liable due to the Claimant not complying with the ‘keeper liability’ requirements set out in the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4."

The facts as known to the Defendant:

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

3,      The Defendant first heard about this parking charge in Apr 2020 when they received a Notice To Keeper letter and  since that date have felt harassed by the constant bombardment of ‘debt recovery’ letters.  The defendant is taking point that they cannot be held liable due to the Claimant failing to comply with the keeper liability requirements of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (“The Act”), Schedule 4, including paragraph 9 (2) (f). The Defendant also denies that the vehicle keeper is obliged to name the driver to a private parking firm. Had this been the intention, they would have been made such a requirement part of The Act.

Does this sound better?

nosferatu1001

The defendant is taking point that they cannot be held liable

Umkomaas

It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle in question but not the driver. 

Only say that if it is actually true. If you've some corroboration that will help - not for now, but for your Witness Statement and evidence, probably some months away.