Updated 08/03 - I won my case!

RoseNarene

I copied the defence as directed by the Newbies thread, yes, and added the bits about being chased twice because of my name change, just as I was told to.

No, I don't know how to recognise a POFA compliant PCN. Very little of this makes sense to me, in spite of reading the newbies thread (which I have). I have not identified the driver in either my defence or my WS as I do not know if I was driving or not. I'm not the only one to have used my car in the years the PCNs were issued. 

The original PCN is below. The ones they are chasing me for are the ones that are in the right name, but everything was (apparently) sent to my mum's address, where I had to move after separation from my ex husband. I don't recall ever getting them.

How do I know if it's PODA compliant? I checked the dates on the letters, and they are within 14 days.

Fruitcake

We need to see the back to confirm, but the front doesn't mention the PoFA at all.

We also need to know the date of each alleged event and the date of issue of each NTK.

As for the rubbish about , "The claimant believes the defendant was the driver ..." that alters nothing if the NTK was not PoFA compliant. I actually believe it wasn't because they wouldn't need to put that statement in if it was compliant.


They have to prove beyond the balance of probabilities (greater than 50%) that the keeper was the driver if the NTKs were not PoFA compliant.

You have put in your statement that you don't know yourself and that another person/other people could have been driving. That means there is only a 50/50 chance it was you. Beyond the balance of probabilities means it must be greater than 49.99999999999/50.000000000001 if could have been either you or one other driver. If there were two other possible drivers then that balance shifts to 33.33333/66.333333 in your favour.

Having thought about this, I actually think you should remove the parts where you say something like "it could have been me" or "even if I had been driving" and just leave in, you don't know (because you don't) and that other people could have been driving with you and the kids as passengers. 
I would leave in the part about breastfeeding. Personally I think on the balance of probabilities that you wouldn't have been driving if you were still nursing no matter what the age of the child.

If you have a copy of any insurance document with two named drivers, or something like driver and spouse, then include that as an exhibit.

RoseNarene

Sorry, I deleted the dates so as to not give anything away about my identity; I've tried to be careful about that!! 

Date of overstay: 27/06/2019
Date of 1st notice: 04/07/2019
Date of 2nd notice: 22/07/2019
Date of 3rd notice: 08/08/2019

and for the other PCN
Date of overstay: 18/09/2018
Date of 1st notice: 10/09/2018
Date of 2nd notice: 05/10/2018
Date of 3rd notice: 22/10/2018

All of them were sent to my mum's address, where I was living until November 2018. I was late to change my logbook which is why they all went there. It was up to date by the time I got the claim notices, which were sent to the right address. I may have got one or two letters, but certainly not all 6 (and I didn't get any that were sent in the wrong name, but those ones aren't part of this claim). I ignored the ones I got because that was what I thought you were meant to do, as I didn't realise at the time that the advice had changed. 

Fruitcake

I'm not sure what you mean about 1st, 2nd, and 3rd notice, but it doesn't matter if all the NTKs are worded the same because they are not PoFA compliant because the don't include the PoFA wording. Back then Highview NTKs never were PoFA compliant, but they have got their act together more recently.


That's good news.

I have added and amended my previous post, so I suggest you go back and re-read it. Now we know the NTKs were not PoFA compliant, then only the driver can be held liable and they have to prove better than 50/50 that you were the driver. If you don't know they they have no chance of proving it, but on the day it will come down to who the judge believes.

The person who wrote their WS was not present at the time of the event. They were not a witness to the event. Therefore they can only speculate. They cannot prove it was you.

RoseNarene

Thank you, I already read your amended post and made a few changes. 

Ok, I've found the stuff in the Newbies thread about what to add regarding POFA. Point out that they are not compliant, so therefore I am not liable, and link to schedule 4 of the protection of freedoms act 2012, and add Henry Greenslade's wording from the POPLA annual report. Am I right?

RoseNarene

Oh, should I add that in the 'abuse of process' section of my WS?

Fruitcake

Yes, but post your amended WS here before you submit it.

RoseNarene

Great thanks. Doing it now.

RoseNarene

Is this the wording I need to use as to how they were not POFA compliant? "The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who may have been potentially liable for the charge"

Coupon-mad

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6340374/dcbl-county-court-claim-on-behalf-of-highview-parking-pcn-2016/p4

Just like your case in many ways and that WS saw off the claim last week!