Yesterday, 08:42 PM
@SamedayCourier, this is unfortunately a good example of why POPLA can be so useless. The assessor actually recorded your central PoFA 9(2)(h) argument, recorded that CP Plus had failed to answer it, and then simply failed to determine it. Instead, they dealt with 9(2)(e), signage, ANPR etc., none of which answers the separate mandatory requirement to identify the creditor.
The important thing is that you are not bound by POPLA's rejection. It is not a court judgment and does not create any enforceable liability. You now simply move to the next stage.
Expect the usual stream of powerless debt-recovery letters demanding inflated sums. Those can be safely ignored. What you must not ignore is an actual Letter of Claim (LoC)/Letter Before Claim (LBC) or, eventually, a County Court claim.
If CP Plus ever does issue proceedings, the points that this POPLA assessor failed to deal with are precisely the points that would have to be considered properly by a District Judge: whether the NtK actually identifies the creditor as required by PoFA 9(2)(h), whether "CP Plus Ltd t/a GroupNexus" is sufficient when GroupNexus Ltd is itself a separate incorporated legal entity, and whether they can prove the date of posting rather than merely asserting a date of issue.
Neither you nor a District Judge are bound by this POPLA decision and a judge would determine those issues independently on the evidence and the law. On what CP Plus have produced so far, they have a very serious problem establishing keeper liability if the driver remains unidentified.
The important thing is that you are not bound by POPLA's rejection. It is not a court judgment and does not create any enforceable liability. You now simply move to the next stage.
Expect the usual stream of powerless debt-recovery letters demanding inflated sums. Those can be safely ignored. What you must not ignore is an actual Letter of Claim (LoC)/Letter Before Claim (LBC) or, eventually, a County Court claim.
If CP Plus ever does issue proceedings, the points that this POPLA assessor failed to deal with are precisely the points that would have to be considered properly by a District Judge: whether the NtK actually identifies the creditor as required by PoFA 9(2)(h), whether "CP Plus Ltd t/a GroupNexus" is sufficient when GroupNexus Ltd is itself a separate incorporated legal entity, and whether they can prove the date of posting rather than merely asserting a date of issue.
Neither you nor a District Judge are bound by this POPLA decision and a judge would determine those issues independently on the evidence and the law. On what CP Plus have produced so far, they have a very serious problem establishing keeper liability if the driver remains unidentified.
Never argue with stupid people. They will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience. - Mark Twain
