I think the original notice was probably in time
If
this is the original notice, it is not in time at all.
That you weren't the driver puts you in a strong position. So, with regards to formulating your defence, take a look around the forum at some others and you'll get a sense of structure but, it is essentially a short series of statements that deals with each of the claimant's allegations, stating whether the defendant accepts, denies or cannot admit/deny each of them.
As an example of how you might approach some of their claim form:
1. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.
2. It is denied that the Defendant was the driver of the vehicle. As the Defendant was not driving the vehicle, it follows that he cannot be liable as the driver.
3. It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle, but liability pursuant to Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) is denied. The Claimant failed to deliver a Notice to Keeper compliant with the provisions of PoFA, namely failing to deliver said notice within the relevant period of 14 days beginning with the day after that on which the specified period of parking ended, as defined by paragraph 9(5) of the act. The period of parking ended on 25th August 2024. The Claimant issued a notice by post on 8th August 2024. Under paragraph 9(6) of PoFA, a. notice sent by post is to be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, to have been delivered (and so “given” for the purposes of sub-paragraph (4)) on the second working day after the day on which it is posted; and for this purpose “working day” means any day other than a Saturday, Sunday or a public holiday in England and Wales. This notice was therefore given on Monday 12th August 2024, this being 18 days after that on which the specified period of parking ended. As the Claimant has failed to issue a notice compliant with the requirements of PoFA, it is denied that the Defendant is liable as the registered keeper.
