Received Notification Of Instruction from Elms Legal - what now? Please help!

Coupon-mad

We wouldn't recommend it.  Someone last year who had evidence they were not driving, still lost in court v Highview (definitely a non-POFA NTK) because they got a bad Judge who didn't get it.

pomegranate45

Coupon-mad said:

We wouldn't recommend it.  Someone last year who had evidence they were not driving, still lost in court v Highview (definitely a non-POFA NTK) because they got a bad Judge who didn't get it.

A previous comment suggests that all I need to change on the standard template is paragraphs 2 & 3 and then literally copy and paste ALL other parts; 4 to 18; the suggestion being that I still need to include parts 4-18, without making any amendments, regardless of how irrelevant some parts may seem to be in the context of my specific case.

Is this correct?

KeithP

pomegranate45 said:

Coupon-mad said:

We wouldn't recommend it.  Someone last year who had evidence they were not driving, still lost in court v Highview (definitely a non-POFA NTK) because they got a bad Judge who didn't get it.

A previous comment suggests that all I need to change on the standard template is paragraphs 2 & 3 and then literally copy and paste ALL other parts; 4 to 18; the suggestion being that I still need to include parts 4-18, without making any amendments, regardless of how irrelevant some parts may seem to be in the context of my specific case.

Is this correct?

Yes, and it looks like you need to read the rest of that template Defence again to discover that every point in there is relevant.

Umkomaas

Your focus on the failure of the PPC to meet the requirements of PoFA to invoke keeper liability risks the Judge asking you whether you were in fact the driver on the day. How will you answer?

pomegranate45

Umkomaas said:

Your focus on the failure of the PPC to meet the requirements of PoFA to invoke keeper liability risks the Judge asking you whether you were in fact the driver on the day. How will you answer?

Hi, I'll answer "No".

Near the end of my defence I've written: 

The defendant was not the driver of the vehicle during the specified date on which the alleged period of parking occurred. The defendant does not know who the driver was, and would be under no obligation to give the name of the driver if they were to know.

Do you think this would stop the judge from asking the question? And do you think the wording is appropriate or too heavy-handed?

pomegranate45

Yes, and it looks like you need to read the rest of that template Defence again to discover that every point in there is relevant.

I will do, thank you!

pomegranate45

KeithP said:

Yes, and it looks like you need to read the rest of that template Defence again to discover that every point in there is relevant.

Sorry to bother you but I just want to be absolutely clear: I still need to include parts of the standard Template such as paragraphs 22 and 23 which relate to Lack of landowner authority evidence and lack of ADR?

I don't want to accuse the PPC of failures that they have actually complied with...

KeithP

pomegranate45 said:

KeithP said:

Yes, and it looks like you need to read the rest of that template Defence again to discover that every point in there is relevant.

Sorry to bother you but I just want to be absolutely clear: I still need to include parts of the standard Template such as paragraphs 22 and 23 which relate to Lack of landowner authority evidence and lack of ADR?

I don't want to accuse the PPC of failures that they have actually complied with...

Paragraph 22 of the template Defence is simply asking the Claimant to prove that the Claimant has the authority of the landowner to start litigation in their own name.
Seems a quite reasonable thing to ask.

Para 23 accuses parking companies of not having an independent and effective dispute resolution service.
It's a fact.

Umkomaas

pomegranate45 said:

Umkomaas said:

Your focus on the failure of the PPC to meet the requirements of PoFA to invoke keeper liability risks the Judge asking you whether you were in fact the driver on the day. How will you answer?

Hi, I'll answer "No".

Near the end of my defence I've written: 

The defendant was not the driver of the vehicle during the specified date on which the alleged period of parking occurred. The defendant does not know who the driver was, and would be under no obligation to give the name of the driver if they were to know.

Do you think this would stop the judge from asking the question? And do you think the wording is appropriate or too heavy-handed?

The Judge will ask anything he/she determines relevant to the case. You can be sure that VCS will be looking to pin you as the driver - it's their standard approach in their court cases. 

If you can truthfully answer 'no', that's good - I presume you have proof that you couldn't possibly have been the driver, if so, that's great. But if 'no' isn't the truth you expose yourself to much more than simply losing the parking charge case against you. 

pomegranate45

If you can truthfully answer 'no', that's good - I presume you have proof that you couldn't possibly have been the driver, if so, that's great. But if 'no' isn't the truth you expose yourself to much more than simply losing the parking charge case against you. 

Could you please expand on this?

What proof could I provide to prove that I wasn't the driver?
How could they prove that I was the driver, if in fact I had been the driver?
What would I be exposing myself to if I was in fact the driver?