PCN UKCPS Leeds City Station

[b789]

I will give you an IAS, kangaroo court, appeal later. In the meantime, just consider the corrupt tosssers response… “We are not relying on PoFA to hold the Keeper liable but we are going to assume that the Keeper was the driver”.

The ONLY legal way a Keeper can be held liable is if they strictly comply with PoFA. There is no assumption or inference allowed to presume the Keeper was the driver. 

If it were me, I would simply respond as follows:

Dear UKCPS,

Re: PCN [reference]

I write as registered keeper. No driver has been identified and no admission is made.

Your position is laughable and is a clear indication of the knuckle dragging level of intelligence applied at your firm of ex-clamper Baboons.

You have admitted that this is a non-PoFA charge and that UKCPS is not relying on Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. You then immediately attempt to hold the keeper liable anyway by pretending that you can simply “assume” the keeper was the driver.

That is not law. That is not evidence. That is not reasoning. It is legal gibberish, but not surprising, coming from a bunch of scammers. 

The only lawful route to keeper liability is strict compliance with PoFA. You have admitted that you are not relying on PoFA. Therefore, unless you have actual evidence that I was the driver, you have no case against me as keeper.

There is no legal presumption that the keeper was the driver. There is no obligation to name the driver. Silence is not evidence. An appeal by the keeper is not an admission of driving. You obviously know that but you hope that this Keeper is one of the low-hanging fruit on the gullible tree who will simply pay up out of ignorance or fear. Think again. 

Your position is therefore reduced to this: “We cannot hold the keeper liable under PoFA, so we will just pretend the keeper was the driver instead.”

That is beyond pathetic, and a clear sign of ignorance backed up by verbal thuggery. 

Cancel the charge.

If UKCPS maintains this nonsense, I refer you to the reply given in Arkel v Pressdram (1971)

Yours faithfully,

[Name]