Please help!

KeithP

Hatebeingdone said:

Please could you point me in the direction of the template defence.  When I search I keep getting individual cases. Sorry to be a pain.

On 24th March, the day you started this thread, I wrote...

KeithP said:

To create a Defence, and then file a Defence by email, look again at the second post on the NEWBIES thread - immediately following where you found the Acknowledgment of Service instructions.

That same post went on to say...

KeithP said:

....your daughter has until 4pm on Tuesday 19th April 2022 to file her Defence.

At the time I wrote that, your daughter had over three weeks to create and file a Defence.
She now has just over three days.

OK, you told us earlier that you've had Covid and understandably that has delayed things, but what has the named Defendant been doing over the last three weeks?
A rhetorical question - that's none of my business.

Hatebeingdone

We have all had Covid.  My grandson had it first and we all got it at roughly the same time because we had all travelled in a car together. Thanks for your help.

Hatebeingdone

Fruitcake said 'I am fairly certain that six years ago, Highview did not issue PoFA compliant NTKs, and therefore the keeper cannot be held liable.' I have looked carefully at the PCN and The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA) and cannot find fault with the PCN.  I have tried to copy the PCN (without personal details) but have not been able to. Can anyone tell me if there is anything specific to an older PCN that may not be correct to fine the keeper please?

Fruitcake

The keeper can never be fined by an unregulated private parking company.

For a NTK to be PoFA compliant and capable of holding the keeper liable it must arrive within the timescales stated in the PoFA, and carry the mandatory wording warning given in the PoFA.

I suggest you go through the PoFA again and compare it line by line with the NTK, because I do not believe it will have been compliant that long ago. They never were.

Coupon-mad

Highview have never (we mean deliberately NEVER) used the POFA and it is easy to spot.

Paragraph 9 wording isn't there: clue: 9(2)f

Hatebeingdone

Thanks.  I think it must have arrived on time.  Said to have parked on 08/06 and date of notice is 20/06so seems to be in by the skin of their teeth.

Coupon-mad

Makes no difference about the time.

Fruitcake

Arriving in time is only one criteria that must be met for a NTK to be PoFA compliant. The other one is mandatory wording, which won't be there.
Trust us; we know what we are talking about.

Hatebeingdone

Fruitcake said:

Arriving in time is only one criteria that must be met for a NTK to be PoFA compliant. The other one is mandatory wording, which won't be there.
Trust us; we know what we are talking about.

Yes, I know you all most certainly do.  It's just a pity I don't.  I have used the wording part in my defence thank you!  I am still writing it but hope to get some help from the forum once it's in better shape. One question I wanted to ask is: the defence is from someone who was not the driver.  The parking signs are bad but is this irrelevant to add if the defendant was not driving the car at the time when it was parked? 

Coupon-mad

No it is totally relevant for the keeper to say they were not driving, but that the signs are pants (could be based on local knowledge, or going there recently, to specially have a look due to the court threat, or asking the driver, or Googling the place and finding it's a cash-cow entrapment site where people are commonly caught out).

It is easy to spot the lack of 9(2)f warning and you will need to know this to explain it to the Judge, who may not be familiar with Schedule4 POFA.