02-10-2026, 06:02 PM
I’ve looked at both points and this is how I suggest we deal with them...
On the two letters dated 31 May and 1 July: only the 31 May 2024 letter is relevant for Keeper liability. That is the only document that could potentially count as a Notice to Keeper for PoFA purposes. The 1 July 2024 letter is just a reminder and cannot create or repair Keeper liability, so it is not treated as an NtK and does not need to be analysed as one.
That said, the address inconsistency is worth mentioning, but only in a limited way. NGPM have said they obtained your details from the DVLA at the time of the event, which would have shown your old address. However, the 31 May letter is addressed to your new address, even though your V5C was not updated until 1 June. The Claimant has never explained how or when they obtained the new address. This doesn’t need to be framed as an accusation — it simply shows that their evidence is internally inconsistent and that they have not proved proper service.
The key point remains that neither letter was received, and the Claimant has produced no proof of posting or service. The 1 July letter is mentioned only to show that multiple documents were generated, none of which were received, and none of which are supported by proof of posting.
On evidence: yes, you should provide screenshots or confirmations for both the Royal Mail redirection and the DVLA V5C update. These are strong, straightforward pieces of evidence. They show that you took reasonable steps to ensure continuity of post and updated the DVLA promptly. They also help rebut any suggestion that non-receipt was your fault.
Used together, this keeps the focus exactly where it should be: the Claimant cannot prove that any Notice to Keeper was properly given within the required period, and therefore cannot rely on keeper liability.
Here is adjusted paras 10-11 that will cover that:
For the exhibits, keep it simple and neutral. You only need to reference each document once, at the point it becomes relevant, using standard court wording. There’s no need to explain the document in detail or repeat what the judge already knows.
You can label exhibits as “Exhibit A”, “Exhibit B” etc, but it is often clearer to use your initials followed by a sequential number, for example RG-01, RG-02, RG-03. This makes it immediately obvious which party the exhibits belong to and avoids confusion if the Claimant also uses lettered exhibits. Either approach is acceptable, but initials plus numbering is generally cleaner and preferred in practice.
I suggest using the following exhibits:
XX-01 – Royal Mail redirection confirmation showing the redirection start date of 25 May 2024.
XX-02 – DVLA confirmation showing the V5C update date of 1 June 2024.
XX-03 – A copy of the document described by the Claimant as the Notice to Keeper dated 31 May 2024.
In the witness statement, simply refer to each document at the first relevant paragraph (for example, “a copy is exhibited at Exhibit XX-01”). That is sufficient. The judge can read the exhibit if needed; your job is only to anchor it to the factual point you are making.
For example:
Important drafting notes (not for the WS)
• Each exhibit is referenced once, at the first logical point
• No exhibit is over-explained
• No exhibit is used to argue law
• The judge can read the document if they want — you just anchor it
On the two letters dated 31 May and 1 July: only the 31 May 2024 letter is relevant for Keeper liability. That is the only document that could potentially count as a Notice to Keeper for PoFA purposes. The 1 July 2024 letter is just a reminder and cannot create or repair Keeper liability, so it is not treated as an NtK and does not need to be analysed as one.
That said, the address inconsistency is worth mentioning, but only in a limited way. NGPM have said they obtained your details from the DVLA at the time of the event, which would have shown your old address. However, the 31 May letter is addressed to your new address, even though your V5C was not updated until 1 June. The Claimant has never explained how or when they obtained the new address. This doesn’t need to be framed as an accusation — it simply shows that their evidence is internally inconsistent and that they have not proved proper service.
The key point remains that neither letter was received, and the Claimant has produced no proof of posting or service. The 1 July letter is mentioned only to show that multiple documents were generated, none of which were received, and none of which are supported by proof of posting.
On evidence: yes, you should provide screenshots or confirmations for both the Royal Mail redirection and the DVLA V5C update. These are strong, straightforward pieces of evidence. They show that you took reasonable steps to ensure continuity of post and updated the DVLA promptly. They also help rebut any suggestion that non-receipt was your fault.
Used together, this keeps the focus exactly where it should be: the Claimant cannot prove that any Notice to Keeper was properly given within the required period, and therefore cannot rely on keeper liability.
Here is adjusted paras 10-11 that will cover that:
Quote:10. The Claimant relies on a document described as a Notice to Keeper dated 31 May 2024. The Claimant has stated that it obtained my keeper details from the DVLA at the time of the alleged event, which it accepts showed my former address. Any Notice to Keeper sent to that address was not received by me. This is despite the fact that a Royal Mail redirection from my former address to my new address had been in force since 25 May 2024, further demonstrating that the notice was not effectively served.
11. The Claimant has produced no proof of posting, no certificate of posting, and no other evidence demonstrating that the Notice to Keeper dated 31 May 2024 was correctly addressed, posted, and given to me. The Claimant has disclosed only the date the notice was generated. The Claimant has also provided no explanation as to how my new address appears on its correspondence dated 31 May 2024 when my DVLA V5C was not updated until 1 June 2024. In the absence of proof that a Notice to Keeper was properly given to me by 6 June 2024, as required by paragraph 9 of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, the Claimant cannot rely on Schedule 4 to transfer liability to me as registered keeper.
For the exhibits, keep it simple and neutral. You only need to reference each document once, at the point it becomes relevant, using standard court wording. There’s no need to explain the document in detail or repeat what the judge already knows.
You can label exhibits as “Exhibit A”, “Exhibit B” etc, but it is often clearer to use your initials followed by a sequential number, for example RG-01, RG-02, RG-03. This makes it immediately obvious which party the exhibits belong to and avoids confusion if the Claimant also uses lettered exhibits. Either approach is acceptable, but initials plus numbering is generally cleaner and preferred in practice.
I suggest using the following exhibits:
XX-01 – Royal Mail redirection confirmation showing the redirection start date of 25 May 2024.
XX-02 – DVLA confirmation showing the V5C update date of 1 June 2024.
XX-03 – A copy of the document described by the Claimant as the Notice to Keeper dated 31 May 2024.
In the witness statement, simply refer to each document at the first relevant paragraph (for example, “a copy is exhibited at Exhibit XX-01”). That is sufficient. The judge can read the exhibit if needed; your job is only to anchor it to the factual point you are making.
For example:
Quote:6. On 25 May 2024, I put a Royal Mail redirection in place from my former address to my new address. That redirection remained in force for a period of three months. A copy of the redirection confirmation is exhibited at Exhibit XX-01.
7. I permanently vacated my former address on 31 May 2024. I updated the vehicle’s V5C with the DVLA on 1 June 2024. Confirmation of the DVLA update date is exhibited at Exhibit XX-02
8. Accordingly, during the period immediately following the alleged event, I had taken reasonable steps to ensure continuity of postal service by way of Royal Mail redirection, and I updated the DVLA promptly once the move was complete.
9. The alleged parking event occurred on 23 May 2024. Under Schedule 4 paragraph 9(3)(b) of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, any Notice to Keeper must be given to the registered keeper within the relevant period of 14 days beginning with the day after the parking event, namely no later than 6 June 2024.
10. The Claimant relies on a document described as a Notice to Keeper dated 31 May 2024, a copy of which was disclosed by the Claimant and is exhibited at Exhibit XX-03. The Claimant has stated that it obtained my keeper details from the DVLA at the time of the alleged event, which it accepts showed my former address. Any Notice to Keeper sent to that address was not received by me. This is despite the fact that a Royal Mail redirection had been in force since 25 May 2024.
11. The Claimant has produced no proof of posting, certificate of posting, or other evidence demonstrating that the Notice to Keeper dated 31 May 2024 was correctly addressed, posted, and given to me. The Claimant has disclosed only the date the notice was generated. The Claimant has also provided no explanation as to how my new address appears on correspondence dated 31 May 2024 when my DVLA V5C was not updated until 1 June 2024. In the absence of proof that a Notice to Keeper was properly given to me by 6 June 2024, as required by paragraph 9 of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, the Claimant cannot rely on Schedule 4 to transfer liability to me as registered keeper.
Important drafting notes (not for the WS)
• Each exhibit is referenced once, at the first logical point
• No exhibit is over-explained
• No exhibit is used to argue law
• The judge can read the document if they want — you just anchor it
Never argue with stupid people. They will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience. - Mark Twain
