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

Umkomaas

If you were working somewhere remote from the parking event site with proof from employer. If you were in another town. On holiday abroad. If you weren't the driver, you would know what proof of that you have. 

Defences based on attempted technical loopholes are never very strong, but if you're going to use one, you'll have to know, understand and be able to argue cogently the law on which you are relying. 

Don't forget, there'll be a legal advocate in the opposite corner, so it's not likely to be plain sailing. 

What would I be exposing myself to if I was in fact the driver?

Contempt of court might be one. 

KeithP

pomegranate45 said:

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?

What proof could I provide to prove that I wasn't the driver?
Proof that you were elsewhere is the obvious one.
Have you Google timeline on your phone?
Did you make debit or credit card purchases elsewhere?

How could they prove that I was the driver, if in fact I had been the driver?
Proof in a Civil Court need be no more than 'on the balance of probabilities'.
So, for example, if there is only one named driver on your insurance, or no-one else usually drives you car, the court can find, on the balance of probabilities, that you were in fact the driver.

What would I be exposing myself to if I was in fact the driver?
Being found guilty of the criminal offence of perjury. Google it.

pomegranate45

Defences based on attempted technical loopholes are never very strong, but if you're going to use one, you'll have to know, understand and be able to argue cogently the law on which you are relying. 

In this case, the 'technical loophole' is written in law (POFA 2012) and they cannot argue against it because the PPC's non-compliance is written in ink on the original NTK they sent me.

The only possible way they can win this case is by proving I was the driver.

How could they do this?

KeithP

pomegranate45 said:

Defences based on attempted technical loopholes are never very strong, but if you're going to use one, you'll have to know, understand and be able to argue cogently the law on which you are relying. 

The only possible way they can win this case is by proving I was the driver.

How could they do this?

Read my latest edit to my post above, where I added...

How could they prove that I was the driver, if in fact I had been the driver?
Proof in a Civil Court need be no more than 'on the balance of probabilities'.
So, for example, if there is only one named driver on your insurance, or no-one else usually drives you car, the court can find, on the balance of probabilities, that you were in fact the driver.

pomegranate45

How could they prove that I was the driver, if in fact I had been the driver?
Proof in a Civil Court need be no more than 'on the balance of probabilities'.
So, for example, if there is only one named driver on your insurance, or no-one else usually drives you car, the court can find, on the balance of probabilities, that you were in fact the driver.

Sorry, I didn't see your post before my reply to other person.

I have no proof that I wasn't the driver, and there are no other named drivers on my insurance etc.

So should I just pay the £255 because 'on the balance of probabilities' I'd lose the case at best, and be found guilty of perjury at worst?

Coupon-mad

No.  Even if you lose you'd pay less!

Just defend it using the template plus your facts (like everyone else successfully does here every day) but don't say you were not the driver if you were.

There is no need to rely on the POFA if you were driving.  As long as you are a truthful witness and comply with all court deadlines you are not exposed to costs.

No Defendant has been 'done' for perjury against a PPC.  Not happening.

99% win rate here and no risk.  Just tell the truth in your facts section.  If you were not driving that's great!

pomegranate45

Coupon-mad said:

No.  Even if you lose you'd pay less!

Just defend it using the template plus your facts (like everyone else successfully does here every day) but don't say you were not the driver if you were.

There is no need to rely on the POFA if you were driving.  As long as you are a truthful witness and comply with all court deadlines you are not exposed to costs.

No Defendant has been 'done' for perjury against a PPC.  Not happening.

99% win rate here and no risk.  Just tell the truth in your facts section.  If you were not driving that's great!

Okay, but I have a problem here because my entire defence (liability as Keeper/POFA 2012 14 day rule etc) goes out the window.

Therefore I'd essentially be going to court with no defence what-so-ever, knowing that I'd lose the case, but will save myself the cost of the added-on fees.

Coupon-mad

What was the alleged breach? Overstay at a retail park? Were the signs clear so you knew you were in breach?

Umkomaas

There seems to be a burning assumption on your part that this will actually end up in a court hearing (physical or virtual), but there are plenty of examples where, when Defendants go through all the motions of defending their case rather than rolling over and coughing up, many PPCs, including VCS, discontinue near to a hearing date. 

As @KeithP said earlier, depends how good you are at poker!

pomegranate45

Coupon-mad said:

What was the alleged breach? Overstay at a retail park? Were the signs clear so you knew you were in breach?

The car was parked for approx. 90 mins on a site with multiple buildings - NHS offices / a gym / another business etc. The car was basically parked in the wrong section of car park whilst the driver attended the gym, not realising that that section of the car park needed a permit.

The driver actually parked there approx. five times over the course of a week or two before realising the mistake. Therefore the driver is also concerned that by admitting fault in this case could lead to further PCNs for the other occassions.

The signage is clear, the driver had recently passed their test and naively presumed that the gym membership covered the parking permit for the car park beside the gym.