Court defence

nosferatu1001

@Umkomaas - "The Defendant was working night shifts so was in bed at the time of the alleged incident"

kfrs9960

Umkomaas said:

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. 

Its true, but do you think its best I don't state it?

Umkomaas

kfrs9960 said:

Umkomaas said:

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. 

Its true, but do you think its best I don't state it?

I'd state it. 

Fruitcake

kfrs9960 said:

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 (NTK) from the Claimant fails to comply with the strict requirements of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, (The Act) 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?

Personally. I think your earlier version above (with minor tweaks) is much better than the version below.

As for your question above, there is no need to edit anything in the template defence. It's all there for a reason.

kfrs9960 said:

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.

kfrs9960

Fruitcake said:

kfrs9960 said:

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 (NTK) from the Claimant fails to comply with the strict requirements of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, (The Act) 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?

Personally. I think your earlier version above (with minor tweaks) is much better than the version below.

As for your question above, there is no need to edit anything in the template defence. It's all there for a reason.

kfrs9960 said:

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 it matter that I haven't strictly follow the suggestions in the template for section 2 & 3 in my original defence?

Coupon-mad

No.  But why is this sentence not in #2, where it clearly assists the Judge to understand your denial of liability.  This is a relevant fact, so why have you told us but not the Judge in the defence?

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

kfrs9960

Coupon-mad said:

No.  But why is this sentence not in #2, where it clearly assists the Judge to understand your denial of liability.  This is a relevant fact, so why have you told us but not the Judge in the defence?

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

I didn't realize I had to put the reasons why I denied liability in my defence, thought I had to leave it for my witness statement and evidence ?

Umkomaas

kfrs9960 said:

Coupon-mad said:

No.  But why is this sentence not in #2, where it clearly assists the Judge to understand your denial of liability.  This is a relevant fact, so why have you told us but not the Judge in the defence?

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

I didn't realize I had to put the reasons why I denied liability in my defence, thought I had to leave it for my witness statement and evidence ?

As a one-line scene setter, it's fine to go into the opening bars of your Defence. If there are further bedroom details you feel you want to expose - keep those for the WS! 😄

Redx

Your defence should open the door ready to step through the door at the WS plus Exhibits stage in a few months time

You denied being the driver , one door

You state you work shifts and were in bed at the time , another door is opened

You deny liability under the POFA protection , yet another door opened

Ad infinitum. !!

Going through the doors , or making the claimant step through those doors into your domain , is what you are doing

Those same doors also mean a claimant may put your case on the too difficult pile and seeks easier prey

You should remember that the only chance they have of winning against a non driver is full compliance with POFA , plus other compliances like landowner authority , signage , the CRA 2015 , CoP compliance etc

If they have failed POFA compliance , they lose , against a non driver keeper

CEL are well known for failing to comply with POFA , they are experts at failure and have discontinued numerous times in the past , brinkmanship , then cowardice

kfrs9960

Redx said:

Your defence should open the door ready to step through the door at the WS plus Exhibits stage in a few months time

You denied being the driver , one door

You state you work shifts and were in bed at the time , another door is opened

You deny liability under the POFA protection , yet another door opened

Ad infinitum. !!

Going through the doors , or making the claimant step through those doors into your domain , is what you are doing

Those same doors also mean a claimant may put your case on the too difficult pile and seeks easier prey

You should remember that the only chance they have of winning against a non driver is full compliance with POFA , plus other compliances like landowner authority , signage , the CRA 2015 , CoP compliance etc

If they have failed POFA compliance , they lose , against a non driver keeper

CEL are well known for failing to comply with POFA , they are experts at failure and have discontinued numerous times in the past , brinkmanship , then cowardice

2.       It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle in question and was working night shifts so was in bed at the time of the alleged incident. Liability is denied. 

Would this be OK to use?