Received a letter from court.

Le_Kirk

A defence is a series of short punchy legal/technical arguments, written, as you have determined, in the third person.  The arguments should be used to refute what is claimed in the POC.  Using the defence template, paragraph #1 is not edited, paragraph #2 states whether you are keeper and NOT the driver or keeper AND driver.  An own space defence is best defended as keeper and driver as you can then give an honest first person account in the witness statement.  A defence as not driver is best if  a) you weren't the driver and b) the PCN failed POFA.  Paragraph #3 is used to set the scene for the judge and explain that you deny not paying/overstaying/not displaying/not having a permit/not having a blue badge (or whatever the POC states) and, provided you have opened the door with those arguments, you can tell the whole story in the narrative that forms the witness statement along with the evidence that backs up the defence.  Just write section 3 in your own words and one of the regulars will critique it for you; resist the temptation to write War & Peace.

Jenni_D

Be aware that (I think) @Coupon-mad has very recently updated the template defence to incorporate the new Parking Code of Practice legislation.

TM74

I'm having trouble quoting, but going back to what Le_Kirk said, because I'm dealing with Highview do I admit that the Defendant was the keeper AND driver at the time of alleged offence? Or just word it as the Defendant was the driver but not the keeper - seen this mentioned a few times and didn't know why? 

Highview doesn't follow POFA so what does this actually mean as to my defence.

And sorry I have been extremely busy with work and this has to be in for tomorrow afternoon.

Fruitcake

If you are the keeper, then say so. If you were driving, you should probably say keeper and driver.
If you don't know who was driving, you should say so.

I refer you back to one of my earlier posts.

"I believe that Highview did not use PoFA wording on their NTKs five years ago, so cannot hold the keeper liable. This really only helps if the keeper was not the driver because the judge may ask the defendant if they were driving, and a truthful answer must be given."


A keeper has protections in law (the PoFA 2012) that a driver does not. If the claimant knows the identity of the driver, then the PoFA and any defence surrounding it is irrelevant.

You should include the vehicle breakdown and refer to the Jopson vs Homeguard case as a separate defence paragraph, renumber follow on paragraphs accordingly.
The judge in that case specifically referred to dealing with a flat tyre as being a vicissitude of short duration.

Coupon-mad

If I say 'The Defendant admits to be the keeper and driver ' well because I was, will this render the PoFA 2012 act as useless because I've basically stated I was the driver too ? 

Yes, that would kill the argument dead.

So don't do that.  Just copy another Highview defence from the past fortnight, that covers both POFA and the new Code of Practice.  Easy and pie, pretty much copy and paste.

You only need to scroll through the threads going back 20 or 30 pages to find Highview ones, if your Highview forum searches aren't working well.

The reason we don't supply links and do searches for people, is that stops newbies learning how to use the forum to find what they need.

TM74

Thank you Coupon-mad.

But can I still use some of the paragraphs out of the jopson case regarding Vicissitudes of the matter ?

Fruitcake

Yes of course. The Jopson case was about "loading/unloading isn't parking", but the judge also stated that attending to a vicissitude of short duration is also not parking, and gave the precise example of a flat tyre. It is a perfect defence point for your case.

KeithP

Spell out PCN the first time of use.

E.g. the end of your para 3 should perhaps be...
...leading to a Parking Charge Notice('PCN') being issued.

I would change your paragraph numbering to simple numbering, but maybe that's just me.
E.g. your paras 3.1, 3.2 and 3.3 become 4, 5 and 6 respectively and subsequent paragraphs are renumbered to suit.

TM74

2. It is admitted that the defendant was the registered keeper and driver of the vehicle but liability is denied.

3. The alleged event was over five years ago so it is difficult to remember the complete facts, however it is known that the Defendant did park in the stated car park on the alleged date of the event. It is also known that there were vicissitudes with Vehicle registration number xxxxxxxx leading to a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) being issued.

4. The Defendant received the PCN letter through the post and was quite shocked as even in the photo evidence it shows the car was merely visible on a dark wet night after all shops were closed for at least 2 hours.

5.Signage was also poor in 2016 and the car park was unlit and in darkness so it made it almost impossible to see or even read any sign or notice.

6. The Defendant argues that due to vicissitudes surrounding the event then at no point is 'parking' active therefore it is also disputed that this is an unlawful charge against them.

TM74

I've noticed this ...do I have to use a capital letter everytime I use the name ' Defendant ' even midway through a sentence?