Building defense as registered owner, but not driver for court claim - any help greatly appreciated!

Redx

2) should state if you were the driver , or not the driver , or cannot recall (or don't know) who the driver was

3 items , Keeper status , driver status or not , liability is denied

We only need to see the full paragraphs that you have altered from the Coupon mad template, not the whole defence , so usually 2 & 3 , plus any extra paragraphs that are needed to pad out 3

Le_Kirk

onepiece said:

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

 3. On investigation of this claim the Defendant has revisited the site and notes that it is not possible, due to double yellow lines, to stop and see the parking sign that is lost amid multiple, non-parking related signs referencing local events, historic matters, Covid 19 warnings and other such miscellaneous signs, which are all in the same colours as the parking signage. The parking signs are completely lost amid the clutter of these other signs and, without significant time to analysis analyse each sign it is not possible, in the time taken to drive into the carpark, to see the any sign(s) pertaining to parking. Upon further investigation of the site, it takes a thorough search to find signs pertaining to parking as these are positioned approximately 12 feet above the car park on small signs, with small writing on which is impossible to read from the ground. 

I would make the changes as indicated.  Obviously you leave in or take out the [not] depending upon the facts.  Do not lie to the court!

SayNoToPCN

title of this thread says NOT the driver

FrankCannon

Did you check whether the NtK complies with PoFA 2012 ? If you do not know how to check, please post a redacted image of the NtK so that we can check for you.

SayNoToPCN

It is Excel; pretty sure they do not try to hold a keeper liable using POFA, just under an assumption they claim they can make (but cannot prove, and it is the latter that trips them up)

FrankCannon

Isn't it Civil Enforcement Ltd ?

SayNoToPCN

Ah boo - not sure where I got Excel from there!

This is from 2020 so as it is CEL it is (just about) POFA compliant. 

Le_Kirk

SayNoToPCN said:

title of this thread says NOT the driver

Then surely the defence should state such.

KeithP

Change this...

3. On investigation of this claim the Defendant has revisited the site and...

to this...

3. On investigation of this claim the Defendant has visited the site and...

Coupon-mad

Aha, I was just about to post the same:  the word 'revisited' is wrong if the D wasn't driving!