PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

SIP NTK Received, Appeal
cpu2007
post Thu, 20 Oct 2016 - 15:16
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 316
Joined: 22 May 2011
Member No.: 46,879



hi everyone

I hope someone can help me with this.

I have received an NTK from SIP for not appealing/paying for a parking charge notice.
This was given to me for not paying. This was paid by phone but because i paid by the phone service and was a bit late, I did it while going to work.
the paybyphone service was throwing a server error, I've tried a couple of times and it didn't work then I tried after half an hour and it worked and it worked.
However, when i returned I had the ticket.

Can I challenge this?

I didn't challenge the penalty charge notice and when I received the NTK they said I had no ground for appeal.
This is what I sent them:

QUOTE
Dear Sir or Madam,

This is my formal representation to SIP Parking Limited in regards to the Parking Charge Notice I have received for the following date: 19/10/2016
The Parking Charge Notice that I am appealing against is the following: ***

After receiving the Notice to Keeper (NTK) I have realised that the Parking Charge Notice you’re trying to enforce doesn’t comply with the protection of freedom act, therefore there is no keeper liability for the following reasons:

(a) The notice doesn’t specify the period of parking to which the charges relate.
(b) The outstanding tariff to which the charges relate,

Additionally, I would like to have photographic evidence showing where the car was parked and the period the Civil Enforcement Officer waited before issuing the ticket.


I look forward to hearing from you soon.

Yours faithfully

Their reply:
QUOTE
Dear Sir,

Please be advised, you have no ability to appeal, we have considered your email on the basis of extenuating circumstances and find no grounds to cancel the charge based on the points raised.

We suggest that you re-read the notice to keeper provided, within the documentation you will find the information you state is not enclosed.

No photographic evidence relevant with the keeper, the PCN will continue its normal recovery action.

Kind regards


What should I do ?

Thanks


PS:

I've attached the nTK document too.









This post has been edited by cpu2007: Thu, 20 Oct 2016 - 15:23
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
7 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 5 > »   
Start new topic
Replies (40 - 59)
Advertisement
post Thu, 20 Oct 2016 - 15:16
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
cpu2007
post Thu, 18 May 2017 - 09:38
Post #41


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 316
Joined: 22 May 2011
Member No.: 46,879



Unfortunately it's a bit a difficult to understand the meaning behind those legal points hence I felt like point 4 and subsequently 5 do not apply.

QUOTE
The claimant is a mere contractor and does not have occupational possession of the parking space. It therefore lacks any legal capacity unless specifically provided for in its contract.

Isn't the claimant the solicitor? if the claimant SIP parking and you're saying they are mere contractors?

If you notice, I've removed most of the points about the loss, I left that because I thought it's more to do with the exaggeration from their parts, of the charges they are applying. I'll remove it.

My initial defense included it but then I was told to make a proper defense and point out the legal points so I focused on that.

The charge isn't for over staying, technically this is what happened.
I paid through the paybyphone service, it didn't work so i left and paid for it later on, I paid for a full day but when I returned I got a parking charge notice for not having paid. I guess the ticked was issued in the morning and I paid in the afternoon.

I'll include that now.

QUOTE
To Whom It May Concern:

I am **** defendant in this matter and deny liability for the entirety of the claim.

The Defendant invites the court to strike this claim out as it is in breach of pre-court protocols in relation to the particulars of claim.
1. The claimant has behaved unreasonably by filing a claim within X days of issuing the letter before action, breaching the CPRs.

2. If the “parking charge” listed in the particulars of claim is to be considered a written agreement between Defendant and Claimant then under 7.3, the particulars fail to include “a copy of the contract or documents constituting the agreement”. There is no copy of any PCN, Notice to Keeper or copy of the wording used within any signage employed where the alleged offence occurred. At least one of these would be required for the parking charge to be enforced under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4.


3. In accordance with Civil Procedure Rules, the particulars of claim are also in breach of part 16.4. The particulars are extremely sparse; divulge no course of action, nor sufficient detail as to why the charge arose, what the original charge was, what the alleged contract was; nothing that could be considered a fair exchange of information. The vague particulars of claim disclose no clear cause of action.

4. The claimant is a mere contractor and does not have occupational possession of the parking space. It therefore lacks any legal capacity unless specifically provided for in its contract.

5. Even if the claimant had such legal capacity it is not within its power to offer, as a contract to the defendant, permission to exercise a right that he already possesses.
Neither can it set out any conditions to exercise the right.

6. If the Claimant is intending to pursue this claim against the Defendant on the basis that the Defendant is the registered keeper then the Claimant has failed to show that the conditions for recovering this charge under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 have been met. The Defendant disputes that any of the conditions necessary for a claim to be pursued against the keeper of the vehicle have been met.

6.a No evidence has been provided to show a valid Notice to Driver was given to the driver in accordance with Paragraph 7, Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.

6.b. Where a Notice to Driver was given no evidence has been provided to show that a valid Notice to Keeper was served in accordance with Paragraph 8, Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.

6.c. Where no Notice to Driver was given no evidence has been provided to show that a valid Notice to Keeper was served in accordance with Paragraph 9, Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.

6.d. No evidence has been provided to show that the Creditor has made a valid application for keeper’s details in accordance with Paragraph 11, Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.
7. It is believed that the Claimant has no standing to bring this claim. They have failed to establish their legal right to bring a claim either as the landholder or the agent of the landholder.

8. The payment service used “paybyphone” was not working properly and this has caused delayed in buying the ticket, however evidence will be provided to show the parking ticket was bought.


9. Save as expressly mentioned above, the Particulars of Claim is denied in its entirety. The Claimant has not supplied evidence that a Notice to Driver has been issued and has also not issued a Notice to Keeper. It is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief at all. The Defendant once again invites the court to strike out the claim as having no prospect of success. Alternatively, the Defendant requests the court to order the Claimant to provide further and better Particulars of Claim.


This post has been edited by cpu2007: Thu, 18 May 2017 - 09:39
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Thu, 18 May 2017 - 14:18
Post #42


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 15,274
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



QUOTE (cpu2007 @ Thu, 18 May 2017 - 09:38) *
Unfortunately it's a bit a difficult to understand the meaning behind those legal points hence I felt like point 4 and subsequently 5 do not apply.

QUOTE
The claimant is a mere contractor and does not have occupational possession of the parking space. It therefore lacks any legal capacity unless specifically provided for in its contract.

Isn't the claimant the solicitor? if the claimant SIP parking and you're saying they are mere contractors?


No, the claimant is not the solicitor. they are simply representing the claimant. the claimant, as it says on the claim form, is SIP parking.

Yes, they are a "mere" contractor. If they dont own / lease the land, then they are simply like anyone else you employ - a contractor.

QUOTE (cpu2007 @ Thu, 18 May 2017 - 09:38) *
If you notice, I've removed most of the points about the loss, I left that because I thought it's more to do with the exaggeration from their parts, of the charges they are applying. I'll remove it.


to talk about loss / GPEOL IN ANY WAY you have to CLEARLY know how to show the Beavis ruling *helps* you. If you simply put in a bare statement about GPEOL or similar, you are inviting a lazy judge to shout "Beavis! at you and then youre done. Hence what you were told.

QUOTE (cpu2007 @ Thu, 18 May 2017 - 09:38) *
My initial defense included it but then I was told to make a proper defense and point out the legal points so I focused on that.


"Defence". Set your spell check to UK English, not US English (simplified) wink.gif

QUOTE (cpu2007 @ Thu, 18 May 2017 - 09:38) *
The charge isn't for over staying, technically this is what happened.
I paid through the paybyphone service, it didn't work so i left and paid for it later on, I paid for a full day but when I returned I got a parking charge notice for not having paid. I guess the ticked was issued in the morning and I paid in the afternoon.

What is the EXACT REASON they give for issuing the ticket? You can work that in. If there was nothing stating *when* an all day ticket has to be purchased by, then purchasing is anytime before you left would make sense, and the consumer rights act 2015 should allow you to say that any ambiguity in the terms work in your favour

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cpu2007
post Thu, 18 May 2017 - 14:55
Post #43


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 316
Joined: 22 May 2011
Member No.: 46,879



I'm making some assumptions here as this happened last year and I do not clearly remember everything.
In addition, the request of payment they sent me a few times (NTD,NTK) doesn't show the exact reason.

In the following Notice to Keeper



The reason is: No ticket displayed.

I checked that date on my phone as I receive an SMS every time I purchase a ticket using paybyphone, which shows me buying a ticket for 4 hours (sorry it's not full day, they work by hours)

Now I don't know what time I get a ticket from them because they are not stating the time in the Notice to keeper, letter before claim or Claim form as well as not stating any reason whatsoever so I'm having difficulty knowing what's going on.

My assumption is that the ceo checked the reg of the vehicle, was showing as not paid in the system and he/she left a parking charge notice. I eventually paid for the ticket when the paybyphone website stopped giving me an internal server error.



Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Fri, 19 May 2017 - 08:38
Post #44


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 15,274
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



OK, it would have been good to know that! No ticket displayed, when you can pay by phone, is a nonsense reason.

As I said, you assert what you believe is true. So you assert that the signs make no requirement to pay by phone / website for an all day ticket by a certain time, and it is a reaosnable asusmption given the ambiguity that any time you pay before leaving is good. You do not need to be certain, just have a reasonable belief! You can only lay down the facts as you know them. remember, it is THEIR job to prove THEIR case.

You further sasert that the reason given - no ticket displayed - is a nonsense, as despite making payment for all day before leaving the car park and before returning to the vehicle to find the PCN (this is important - shows no intention to not pay and risk getting a PCN) no ticket would EVER be displayed. You assert that such a "contravemntion" is therefore possible even if someone pays - as you did.

I have used "you" there to mean "the driver", as obviously in cases where the drivers idnetity is not known, ths is not revealed by you OR by others. This is purely for my ease of use.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Lynnzer
post Fri, 19 May 2017 - 08:48
Post #45


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 8,191
Joined: 9 Feb 2006
Member No.: 4,813



QUOTE (nosferatu1001 @ Fri, 19 May 2017 - 09:38) *
OK, it would have been good to know that! No ticket displayed, when you can pay by phone, is a nonsense reason.

As I said, you assert what you believe is true. So you assert that the signs make no requirement to pay by phone / website for an all day ticket by a certain time, and it is a reaosnable asusmption given the ambiguity that any time you pay before leaving is good. You do not need to be certain, just have a reasonable belief! You can only lay down the facts as you know them. remember, it is THEIR job to prove THEIR case.

You further sasert that the reason given - no ticket displayed - is a nonsense, as despite making payment for all day before leaving the car park and before returning to the vehicle to find the PCN (this is important - shows no intention to not pay and risk getting a PCN) no ticket would EVER be displayed. You assert that such a "contravemntion" is therefore possible even if someone pays - as you did.

I have used "you" there to mean "the driver", as obviously in cases where the drivers idnetity is not known, ths is not revealed by you OR by others. This is purely for my ease of use.

I'd back that up with evidence of you being elsewhere when the payment was made otherwise they may assume you retuned, saw the ticket and then made payment.
A train ticket with return times sort of thing would be good, or a proven appointment or a statement from your employer say you were at work for the period.


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cpu2007
post Fri, 19 May 2017 - 09:30
Post #46


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 316
Joined: 22 May 2011
Member No.: 46,879



QUOTE (nosferatu1001 @ Fri, 19 May 2017 - 09:38) *
OK, it would have been good to know that! No ticket displayed, when you can pay by phone, is a nonsense reason.

As I said, you assert what you believe is true. So you assert that the signs make no requirement to pay by phone / website for an all day ticket by a certain time, and it is a reaosnable asusmption given the ambiguity that any time you pay before leaving is good. You do not need to be certain, just have a reasonable belief! You can only lay down the facts as you know them. remember, it is THEIR job to prove THEIR case.

You further sasert that the reason given - no ticket displayed - is a nonsense, as despite making payment for all day before leaving the car park and before returning to the vehicle to find the PCN (this is important - shows no intention to not pay and risk getting a PCN) no ticket would EVER be displayed. You assert that such a "contravemntion" is therefore possible even if someone pays - as you did.


I have used "you" there to mean "the driver", as obviously in cases where the drivers idnetity is not known, ths is not revealed by you OR by others. This is purely for my ease of use.



Thank you nosferatu1001

what I am trying to understand is whether I need to point this out now.
The reason why I am saying this is because if you look at the claim form, is vague and it doesn't say reasons behind the issue of the ticket and in my defence I am stating that the claim form is vague.
The no ticket displayed and any evidence related to it, shouldn't it be shown at a later time?
Thanks
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Fri, 19 May 2017 - 12:46
Post #47


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 15,274
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



Yes, evidence is shown later

I havent said to adduce evidence yet. Youre reading more into what is written than what is actually there

Yes you state the claim form is vague. you THEN state that you have attempted to present a defnce, despite the poor defence, and assume.... and this is where you talk about ambiguous terms etc.


It isnt tricky. Youre over thinking this, and being paralysed into inaction. Yo uMUST get your defence written NOW. Show it to us. The longer we have the better.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cpu2007
post Fri, 19 May 2017 - 13:28
Post #48


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 316
Joined: 22 May 2011
Member No.: 46,879



QUOTE (Lynnzer @ Fri, 19 May 2017 - 09:48) *
QUOTE (nosferatu1001 @ Fri, 19 May 2017 - 09:38) *
OK, it would have been good to know that! No ticket displayed, when you can pay by phone, is a nonsense reason.

As I said, you assert what you believe is true. So you assert that the signs make no requirement to pay by phone / website for an all day ticket by a certain time, and it is a reaosnable asusmption given the ambiguity that any time you pay before leaving is good. You do not need to be certain, just have a reasonable belief! You can only lay down the facts as you know them. remember, it is THEIR job to prove THEIR case.

You further sasert that the reason given - no ticket displayed - is a nonsense, as despite making payment for all day before leaving the car park and before returning to the vehicle to find the PCN (this is important - shows no intention to not pay and risk getting a PCN) no ticket would EVER be displayed. You assert that such a "contravemntion" is therefore possible even if someone pays - as you did.

I have used "you" there to mean "the driver", as obviously in cases where the drivers idnetity is not known, ths is not revealed by you OR by others. This is purely for my ease of use.

I'd back that up with evidence of you being elsewhere when the payment was made otherwise they may assume you retuned, saw the ticket and then made payment.
A train ticket with return times sort of thing would be good, or a proven appointment or a statement from your employer say you were at work for the period.



This will prove to be very difficult for a multitude of reasons:
-This happened last year, long time ago.
- I have left the job, I believe on that day I was working half day.
- I am surprised I have sms confirming payment for that day but other than that I don't know what other evidence I can submit. I'll try to find more about it.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cpu2007
post Fri, 19 May 2017 - 13:43
Post #49


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 316
Joined: 22 May 2011
Member No.: 46,879



Revised:

QUOTE
To Whom It May Concern:

I am **** defendant in this matter and deny liability for the entirety of the claim.

The Defendant invites the court to strike this claim out as it is in breach of pre-court protocols in relation to the particulars of claim.
1. The claimant has behaved unreasonably by filing a claim within X days of issuing the letter before action, breaching the CPRs.

2. If the “parking charge” listed in the particulars of claim is to be considered a written agreement between Defendant and Claimant then under 7.3, the particulars fail to include “a copy of the contract or documents constituting the agreement”. There is no copy of any PCN, Notice to Keeper or copy of the wording used within any signage employed where the alleged offence occurred. At least one of these would be required for the parking charge to be enforced under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4.


3. In accordance with Civil Procedure Rules, the particulars of claim are also in breach of part 16.4. The particulars are extremely sparse; divulge no course of action, nor sufficient detail as to why the charge arose, what the original charge was, what the alleged contract was; nothing that could be considered a fair exchange of information. The vague particulars of claim disclose no clear cause of action.

4. The claimant is a mere contractor and does not have occupational possession of the parking space. It therefore lacks any legal capacity unless specifically provided for in its contract.

5. Even if the claimant had such legal capacity it is not within its power to offer, as a contract to the defendant, permission to exercise a right that he already possesses.
Neither can it set out any conditions to exercise the right.

6. If the Claimant is intending to pursue this claim against the Defendant on the basis that the Defendant is the registered keeper then the Claimant has failed to show that the conditions for recovering this charge under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 have been met. The Defendant disputes that any of the conditions necessary for a claim to be pursued against the keeper of the vehicle have been met.

6.a No evidence has been provided to show a valid Notice to Driver was given to the driver in accordance with Paragraph 7, Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.

6.b. Where a Notice to Driver was given no evidence has been provided to show that a valid Notice to Keeper was served in accordance with Paragraph 8, Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.

6.c. Where no Notice to Driver was given no evidence has been provided to show that a valid Notice to Keeper was served in accordance with Paragraph 9, Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.

6.d. No evidence has been provided to show that the Creditor has made a valid application for keeper’s details in accordance with Paragraph 11, Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.
7. It is believed that the Claimant has no standing to bring this claim. They have failed to establish their legal right to bring a claim either as the landholder or the agent of the landholder.

8. The payment service used “paybyphone” was showing internal server error upon several attempts, so a decision to try again later was made

8a. The sign at the location of the alleged contravention shows no requirements of paying for a ticket by paybyphone/website by a certain time.

8b. Although the claimant has not made clear the reason behind this parking charge notice, the defendant assumes, by the look of the Notice To Keeper received previously, that the alleged contravention is “No ticket displayed”.
The claimant fails to understand that purchasing a ticket using the service mentioned in section 8, means that no ticket will ever be displayed.

9. Save as expressly mentioned above, the Particulars of Claim is denied in its entirety. The Claimant has not supplied evidence that a Notice to Driver has been issued and has also not issued a Notice to Keeper. It is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief at all. The Defendant once again invites the court to strike out the claim as having no prospect of success. Alternatively, the Defendant requests the court to order the Claimant to provide further and better Particulars of Claim.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Sat, 20 May 2017 - 20:43
Post #50


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 15,274
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



8b doesn't make sense
Instead state that no ticket would ever be displayed, and sdo a pen could be issued even when payment was made, which it was here.
You didn't add that payment was made at x time, y minutes after entering, for a full day ticket. That's 8a. Otherwise 8a is irrelevant - you've not said that at all!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cpu2007
post Mon, 22 May 2017 - 08:31
Post #51


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 316
Joined: 22 May 2011
Member No.: 46,879



I know you're saying that I'm overthinking this but I can't help to do this because I feel like a few things will put me in a bad situation, I might be misunderstanding you so correct me if I'm wrong.
first of all: what is "sdo a pen could be issued..."?

I have already cleared in my previous posts that it wasn't a full day ticket but a 4 hours, there are also 8 and 12 hours tickets as well as 30 mins,1 hour and 2,3 hours
I bought the 4 hours ticket
My sms tells me that I have purchased it around 3:30pm and it will expire around 7:30 pm
I have also said that I don't know what time the ticket was given to me as I don't have the Parking charge notice and in all the subsequent correspondence, SIP/gladstones never specified the time. so in all honestly I don't remember the time I entered and the time I purchased the ticket, all I know it's initially i wasn't able to get through paybyphone and then I managed to when I tried later on.

Also I have dozens of other sms notifications showing that I was used to park there frequently (which might strengthen my defence showing that I wasn't trying not to pay?)

I was thinking about using that for my defence,stating that I have paid the ticket, because the claimant simply stated "no ticket was displayed" so I can say that's because i paid online.
Other than that the claimant isn't appealing for anything else or making it clear what the reasons are for issuing the ticket.

This post has been edited by cpu2007: Mon, 22 May 2017 - 08:35
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Mon, 22 May 2017 - 15:38
Post #52


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 15,274
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



So a pcn. Autocorrect on the second, fat fingers on the first.

Ok mistake on all day, however the point I made stands - that payment was made at x time, for y hours. As no requirement is made to pay within z time of entering then no breach of contract could have occurred. The claimants failures in providing payment facilities that operate within minutes is not your fault.

You're not appealing. You're defending. Different mind set.

You can indeed introduce a history of paying. Include it as a point here to show it was a failure in the claimants payment provision that caused the DELAY in purchasing the ticket.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cpu2007
post Tue, 23 May 2017 - 09:55
Post #53


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 316
Joined: 22 May 2011
Member No.: 46,879



For sake of brevity I'm going to put the revised version of section 8 only.
QUOTE
8.The payment service used “paybyphone” was showing internal server error upon several attempts, so a decision to try again later was made

8a. Payment was made at 3:08 pm for 4 hours, as no requirement is made to pay within a certain time of entering then no breach of contract could have occurred.

8b. No parking ticket would ever be displayed if paybyphone service is used, therefore a parking charge notice could be issued when the payment was made.


Thanks

PS: if I understand this correctly, I have 28 days to upload my defense, I hope to get this done today as I'm close to the deadline.

This post has been edited by cpu2007: Tue, 23 May 2017 - 09:57
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cpu2007
post Thu, 22 Jun 2017 - 13:13
Post #54


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 316
Joined: 22 May 2011
Member No.: 46,879



I have received an email from Gladstones, it contains N180 and they want to settle it on paper.
Here is the correspondent:

We act for the Claimant and have notified the Court of our Client’s intention to proceed with the claim.

Please find attached a copy of our Client’s completed Directions Questionnaire, which will be filed with the court upon their request. You will note we intend to request a special direction that the case be dealt with on the papers and without the need for an oral hearing

This request is sought simply because the matter is in our Client’s opinion relatively straightforward and the costs incurred by both parties for attending an oral hearing would be disproportionate.

You will note our Client has elected not to mediate. Its decision is not meant to be in any way obstructive and is based purely on experience, as mediation has rarely proven beneficial in these types of cases. Notwithstanding this, our Client would be happy to listen to any genuine payment proposals that you wish to put forward.


There was also an empty N180, am I supposed to fill that? I haven't received anything from the court yet(received the email 2 days ago)

Thanks

This post has been edited by cpu2007: Thu, 22 Jun 2017 - 13:13
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ostell
post Thu, 22 Jun 2017 - 13:36
Post #55


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 6,306
Joined: 8 Mar 2013
Member No.: 60,457



So you hunt round the forum for similar "special directions" and respond with a rejection for a paper hearing. Make them come out to you so that they can be questioned.

This post has been edited by ostell: Thu, 22 Jun 2017 - 13:37
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Thu, 22 Jun 2017 - 13:37
Post #56


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 15,274
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



Your research on here has shown you that this is common tactic employed by GS. It will also show you what you need to put as a covering letter to your own N180.
What does MCOL say about it? Does it state the DQ has been sent?
Have you read up on the next steps?
You didnt show us the defence you submitted.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SchoolRunMum
post Sat, 24 Jun 2017 - 22:44
Post #57


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 17,089
Joined: 20 Sep 2009
Member No.: 32,130



You could even Google 'pepipoo Gladstones straightforward papers' which would show you dozens of relevant results where this stage is dealt with.

This post has been edited by SchoolRunMum: Sat, 24 Jun 2017 - 22:44
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cpu2007
post Wed, 19 Jul 2017 - 10:46
Post #58


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 316
Joined: 22 May 2011
Member No.: 46,879



I have been chasing the court because I cannot access my account and called them but they couldn't help, they advised to call a moneyclaimonline number to resolve this technical issue.
So I did call the latter but they never responded.
I emailed them, automated acknowledgement but no reply from them and it's been a couple of weeks now.

A few days ago I received the N180 document and now I need to fill that and send it before the 24 of July.

I have searched for 'pepipoo Gladstones straightforward papers' but not sure what to look for.

However I bumped into this topic and post 27 from Gan gives an idea on how to reply. Should I consider that to fill my n180

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showto...07781&st=20

Any other advice on what I might be missing before I send my N180?

Thanks

This post has been edited by cpu2007: Wed, 19 Jul 2017 - 10:50
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
emanresu
post Thu, 20 Jul 2017 - 05:13
Post #59


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 10,756
Joined: 24 Aug 2007
From: Parking Support Groups
Member No.: 13,324



Does it look like this

QUOTE
A1 = NO to mediation (they want the whole amount, you want to pay them nothing, so no scope for mediation. This will not go against you)

B = fill in all the details, name, address, etc

C1 = YES to small claims track – this is the limited costs track for claims up to £10,000 in value

D1 = name of your local County Court – unless you are a Ltd company, the case files will be transferred there

D2 = NO to expert evidence (this relates to medical negligence cases and suchlike)

D3 = 1 witness (that’s you) (or more if you are going to get another person to provide a statement)

D4 = Put down the dates of any pre-booked holidays, NO to interpreter (unless you need one).


--------------------
Where there is a claim - there is a counterclaim.
Are Parking companies misusing your personal data or interfering with your lease? Counterclaims are only £25. Makes them sit up and take notice. For leaseholds, join in the Managing agents too. Since the purpose of these claims is to frighten you, give them something to be frightened of.
Subject Access Requests to the DVLA?Find out who accessed your data and when. Try SubjectAccess.Requests@dvla.gsi.gov.uk. [Apologies if it does not work]
Double Dip / ANPR FaultsThe BPA Report on ANPR Double Dips is here. Ideal case for a counterclaim (see above).
Daily Court List. See who is doing what and where here
Printing and posting Witness Statements. Easy and cheap way DoxDirect
What is court like. A District Judge's view
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cpu2007
post Fri, 21 Jul 2017 - 11:36
Post #60


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 316
Joined: 22 May 2011
Member No.: 46,879



yes it looks like this, I have filled the form and sent it. Finger crossed. I guess I have to wait for the response now right?

I've sent it to court, do I also have to send it to Gladstones?

This post has been edited by cpu2007: Fri, 21 Jul 2017 - 11:36
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

7 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 5 > » 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



Advertisement

Advertise here!

RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: Sunday, 25th February 2018 - 03:56
Pepipoo uses cookies. You can find details of the cookies we use here along with links to information on how to manage them.
Please click the button to accept our cookies and hide this message. We’ll also assume that you’re happy to accept them if you continue to use the site.