PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

County Court Notice, Seeking guidance on defence
Doraemon
post Tue, 2 Oct 2018 - 23:18
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 20
Joined: 2 Oct 2018
Member No.: 100,173



Hello forum members,

My first post and I am seeking help from experts. Found some similar posts but not exactly.

Summary: Got a county court notice for a pvt parking offence in 2016. Been asked to pay 275 pounds approx. Notice acknowledged with 'intention of paying part claim' option

Background:
1. Company leased Car parked below apartment on first-come-first-serve allocated parking space.
2. Sticker normally placed on dashboard 365 days a year but one one bad night slipped off on the car floor. Next day PCN struck on windshield.
3. Fine appealed with CPM UK car park mgt admissing genuine lapse but not indicating who was driving. Promised this wont repeat but still appeal rejected. Had sent a copy of allotted sticker and a picture that it was on the car floor and told them I have not glued the sticker as it blocks drivers view.
4. More reminders sent by UK car park mgt but ignored
5. Debt collector starts sending letters addressing me by wrong name (spelling mistake).
6. Asked debt collector to settle for half fine but request rejected.
7. Debt collector sends more letters. By this time, I got frustrated and wrote back demanding proper photographic evidence that shows car registration number and windscreen all in one shot as windscreen pic was blocked by front hedge and registration number not visible. They give separate pics in bits and pieces.
8. Debt collector sends all pics and asks why am I demanding these pics now when in my first appeal accepted the lapse.
9. Finally recieve the county court notice before I could reply back. I was away during holiday period.

Defence points:
1. Had valid parking sticker allotted to my address.
2. Past judgement precedence (2015) in the case of Canterbury council fines where there was a judgement that ruled against the council on fines against flipped but valid parking tickets. This case is similar but its a pvt parking company.
3. The company knows that car is parked 365 days a week in that locality below the apartment and does have a valid sticker.
4. I am still willing to pay half the fine as initially proposed due to the part lapse as acknowledged in the appeal.

Do you think I stand a chance and how do I prepare the case? I am so frustrated, I feel like suing the company for the scamming business model they have developed. Why cant they invest in the technology to let an owner of a ticket to register the car against it so that the company or warden knows this car is authorised to park automatically on the site. This is like taking undue advantage of the disability of a human mind thats forgetful at times. Utterly criminal and unfair. I still have an option of a counter claim as the intention I gave in the court notice acknowledgement is not binding on me it seems.

Thanks and regards

This post has been edited by Doraemon: Wed, 3 Oct 2018 - 20:34
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
3 Pages V  < 1 2 3 >  
Start new topic
Replies (20 - 39)
Advertisement
post Tue, 2 Oct 2018 - 23:18
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
Doraemon
post Thu, 11 Oct 2018 - 23:40
Post #21


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 20
Joined: 2 Oct 2018
Member No.: 100,173



Thanks....I was thinking about virtual pint biggrin.gif ..flowers will also do but rolleyes.gif

Anyway, here is my first draft. I have searched online based on which I have drafted this. I still need to give references to other cases which I noticed lot of people give as precedents (still searching but will put most similar ones -2-3).
Also, I don't know how to present the 'Counter Claim' details. Maybe just a section in the end 'Counter Claim' and then I detail out my points. I will have to take a day off so my whole day work cost (I will have to calculate that but should be around 330-350) and then the time I have invested in preparing my defence and other time lost which I could have given to my family. Not sure how much does frustration cost!


IN THE COUNTY COURT
Claim No.: XXXXX
Between
UK CAR PARK MANAGEMENT LIMITED
(Claimant)

-and-

Doraemon
(Defendant)


DEFENCE

1. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.

Background
2. The Defendant is a Non-UK national residing in the UK since Mar 2014. The Defendant was not fully acquainted with the finer details of UK parking laws and leaseholder rights until this point where he is having to defend himself against a ‘Private’ parking claim which he considers as ‘Unlawful’.

3. The Defendant is a lease holder of the property, XXXXX, since XXXX and is the keeper of a leased vehicle, Registration Number: XXXXX. This is Defendant’s first new car since he arrived in the UK leased through XXXX via his Company Car Scheme and the lease conditions give immediate adult family member driving rights.

4. The car parking area contains allocated open parking spaces demised to some residents, and a general area for residents who do not have an allocated space. Entry to the parking is open and there are no automated barrier entry/exit points.

5. On XXXX date, UK Car park Management Company issued a parking fine alleging that there was no sticker displayed on the windshield.

6. Upholding the ‘Spirit of honesty’, the Defendant wrote to UK Car park Management Company requesting a cancellation of the fine on the basis that he is a resident within the locality and has an authorised sticker which had fallen off the car dashboard. A copy of the parking sticker and a picture evidence of the sticker lying on the car floor below the dashboard and in front of the seat were also provided. The request was, however, rejected.

7. The Defendant at that time, due to being fairly new to the UK and not being fully acquainted with the lease holder rights, made an attempt to settle the fine and offered to pay half of the fine amount but the offer was rejected by the Debt recovery agent appointed by the Claimant.

Authority to Park and Primacy of Contract
8. The Defendant avers that there was an absolute entitlement to park deriving from the terms of the lease, which cannot be fettered by any alleged parking terms. The lease terms provide the right to park one domestic private motor vehicle in the free parking area. Below is the extract from the Defendant’s lease which covers the Parking conditions:-

‘Easement granted by this lease for the benefit of the Property’ -
‘The right in common with all others entitled thereto from time to time to park one domestic private motor vehicle only on the Estate in any free parking space other than those specifically allocated or to be allocated’

10. The Defendant, at all material times, parked in accordance with the terms granted by the lease. The erection of the Claimant's signage, and the purported contractual terms conveyed therein, are incapable of binding the Defendant in any way, and their existence does not constitute a legally valid variation of the terms of the lease. Accordingly, the Defendant denies having breached any contractual terms whether express, implied, or by conduct.

11. The Defendant had joined the Management Company membership at the time of purchasing the property by paying a membership fee and also paid a one-time fee of £25 towards parking permit. Therefore, the Defendant clearly had a valid parking permit.

11.1. The Deed of covenant nowhere mentions about the display of the parking permit and also about the terms and conditions or even any of a fine. See below extract from the ‘Sales Pack’ provided by the Managing Agent at the time of purchasing the property.

'There is a parking regulation in place at this property and residents must have a permit to be able to park in the bay. Permits are available at a cost of 25 plus VAT. A copy of the scheme regulations pertaining to the unit address is available from the property manager upon request'

11.2. There seems to be a questionable intent in purposely favouring the Car Management Company whereby terms and conditions can be amended in future to suit the interest of a single party i.e. the Claimant.


Alternative pertinent Defence points
12. The Claimant, or Managing Agent, in order to establish a right to impose unilateral terms which vary the terms of the lease, must have such variation approved by at least 75% of the leaseholders, pursuant to s37 of the Landlord & Tenant Act 1987, and the Defendant is unaware of any such vote having been passed by the residents.

13. In this case the Claimant has taken over the location and runs a business as if the site were a public car park, offering terms with £100 penalty on the same basis to residents, as is on offer to the general public and trespassers. However, residents are granted an easement right to park/rights of way and parking terms under a new and onerous 'permit/licence' cannot be re-offered as a contract by a third party. This interferes with the terms of leases and tenancy agreements, none of which is this parking firm a party to, and neither have they bothered to check for any rights or easements that their regime will interfere with (the Claimant is put to strict proof). This causes a substantial and unreasonable interference with the Defendant's land/property, or his/her use or enjoyment of that land/property.

14. The photographic evidences provided by the Claimant do not conclusively prove the alleged breach. Also, there is no evidence of who was driving the vehicle at the time of the breach.0

Important Industry Ramification – Selective Technological disability
15. It is unbelievable that in today’s time when there is so much technological advancement that the Claimant or any similar company, in the spirit of ‘Car Parking Management’, cannot invest in technology to allow ‘Authorised’ residents to link their car registration number with the property address. This is a clear indication of selective dropping of a Customer use case to suit the Business Model of the Claimant which is totally against the spirit and aim of the Business for which it was set up. If the Claimant cannot build this technology, why this information cannot be supplied by the Managing Agent directly to the Car Park Management Company? These are pertinent questions that the Defendant feels need answering.

I believe that the facts stated in this Defence are true.


………………………………………………………. (Defendant)

……………………… (Date)

This post has been edited by Doraemon: Thu, 11 Oct 2018 - 23:41
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Eljayjay
post Thu, 11 Oct 2018 - 23:44
Post #22


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 849
Joined: 1 Apr 2017
Member No.: 91,235



I strongly recommend that you upload your lease (after redacting any personal data) to another website and post a link to it here.

Your lease is the document of paramount importance. It governs the behaviours, relationships, rights and obligations of the parties to it.

It almost certainly will not permit a person who is not a party to it to enforce its terms. So, if it governs parking, it will almost certainly not allow a parking operator, who will not be one of those parties, to charge you for parking. If your parking is subject to a separate contract, upload that too.

Residential parking cases are usually very easily defendable.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Fri, 12 Oct 2018 - 07:46
Post #23


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18,084
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



15 is junk. Drop it.
You need to realise courts see these every day and dont want a lot of waffle
If you drop into MSE forum -> newbies thread you can spot the example of a defence, penned by someone legally qualified, to gve yo uan example of concision in argument, structure etc. You will notice it does not waffle on introducing arguments not within the remit of the court - no way will the court suggest the C must install a white list or equivalent system and that beause they have not, that no claim against a driver can ever succeed.

For counterclaim - costs of the hearing itself ARE NOT part of a counterclaim. Those are claimed AS COSTS and are capped at a half days pay, max £95. Parking and mileage to from court are allowed. If you want to claim furhter costs of preparing a defence, reserarch etc you will have to show that the C has been unresaonable enough to meet the requirements of CPR27.14(2)(G) which is the ONLY way to unlock further costs. Once you have done so you will then be able to claim at £19 per hour - nothing more - for an itemised list of time spent. But dont do that now. thats costs. Costs are worked out later

For a counterclaim - you would be going I presume for
:- misuse of data - they never had rights to access YOUR data as you had rights to park there (assumig they DID access it from the DVLA and you didnt give it to them) -> Vidal Hall v Google is the authority there, from memory
- trespass to property and, if they slapped a ticket on the car, trespass to goods as well. For this you can argue that if they wanted to use your space to run a business they should have negotiated a fair rate for you, and an example would be the cost of a days parking nearby. If that is £10, then in a hypothetical negotaiton where you agree they can use your space and charge people £100, you get £10 per day. That will swiftly run into the THOUSANDS and so you want to *carefully* consider the cost of making a ocunterclaim, as by now you will be aware the cost to file a claim or counterclaim INCREASES with the amount claimed.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Doraemon
post Sun, 14 Oct 2018 - 17:34
Post #24


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 20
Joined: 2 Oct 2018
Member No.: 100,173



QUOTE (Eljayjay @ Fri, 12 Oct 2018 - 00:44) *
I strongly recommend that you upload your lease (after redacting any personal data) to another website and post a link to it here.

Your lease is the document of paramount importance. It governs the behaviours, relationships, rights and obligations of the parties to it.

It almost certainly will not permit a person who is not a party to it to enforce its terms. So, if it governs parking, it will almost certainly not allow a parking operator, who will not be one of those parties, to charge you for parking. If your parking is subject to a separate contract, upload that too.

Residential parking cases are usually very easily defendable.


Hi there, I have got these links now:-

House Lease (full):-
https://drive.google.com/open?id=11570V0PWY...k9lpBYewiI0KbFj


Managing Agents Deed of Covenant (Sales Pack - first 4 pages as rest seemed irrelevant) :-
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1jhj4YcUol...rDXyo3R-C7lw0jt

PS: Tried my best to redacted to my best ability. If something is amiss pls let know.

Thanks





QUOTE (nosferatu1001 @ Fri, 12 Oct 2018 - 08:46) *
15 is junk. Drop it.
You need to realise courts see these every day and dont want a lot of waffle
If you drop into MSE forum -> newbies thread you can spot the example of a defence, penned by someone legally qualified, to gve yo uan example of concision in argument, structure etc. You will notice it does not waffle on introducing arguments not within the remit of the court - no way will the court suggest the C must install a white list or equivalent system and that beause they have not, that no claim against a driver can ever succeed.

For counterclaim - costs of the hearing itself ARE NOT part of a counterclaim. Those are claimed AS COSTS and are capped at a half days pay, max £95. Parking and mileage to from court are allowed. If you want to claim furhter costs of preparing a defence, reserarch etc you will have to show that the C has been unresaonable enough to meet the requirements of CPR27.14(2)(G) which is the ONLY way to unlock further costs. Once you have done so you will then be able to claim at £19 per hour - nothing more - for an itemised list of time spent. But dont do that now. thats costs. Costs are worked out later

For a counterclaim - you would be going I presume for
:- misuse of data - they never had rights to access YOUR data as you had rights to park there (assumig they DID access it from the DVLA and you didnt give it to them) -> Vidal Hall v Google is the authority there, from memory
- trespass to property and, if they slapped a ticket on the car, trespass to goods as well. For this you can argue that if they wanted to use your space to run a business they should have negotiated a fair rate for you, and an example would be the cost of a days parking nearby. If that is £10, then in a hypothetical negotaiton where you agree they can use your space and charge people £100, you get £10 per day. That will swiftly run into the THOUSANDS and so you want to *carefully* consider the cost of making a ocunterclaim, as by now you will be aware the cost to file a claim or counterclaim INCREASES with the amount claimed.


Thanks. I will remove point 15 and refer to MSE forums. Still not fully sure about the counterclaim i.e. if I have a solid case or not. Need more digging on the cost aspects. I don't have much time left now! The date on the claim was 19th September. On the point of having access to my data. There was no way they could have got my details as my car is a leased car. Like a fool, I gave my details in my reply to them and that's how they started writing at my address! (Big learning for me). My name in the letters even changed (spelling mistake) when they transferred to the debt collector and the solicitor. In fact, the Court claim also has my name misspelt! But like a good law abiding resident, I acknowledged the claim.

There is no trespassing either. They only slapped the fine on the windshield when my car was parked in the resident free parking bay.

This post has been edited by Doraemon: Sun, 14 Oct 2018 - 22:11
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Doraemon
post Sun, 14 Oct 2018 - 22:52
Post #25


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 20
Joined: 2 Oct 2018
Member No.: 100,173



In many defence I am seeing a mention of Beavis. I am not sure if I should also mention it in my case. The circumstances are different.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ostell
post Sun, 14 Oct 2018 - 23:02
Post #26


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 8,441
Joined: 8 Mar 2013
Member No.: 60,457



What you call the deed of covenant to me seems to be just an information pack, not a deed at all, and therefore parking is controlled by the lease.

Beavis was to do with parking for free with a maximum period in a shopping centre. There was a commercial reason to allow a turnover of customers. This has no bearing on your case as there is no commercial reason and the penalty laws are still in play.

Your lease does indeed permit the parking on one car on any free space.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SchoolRunMum
post Sun, 14 Oct 2018 - 23:14
Post #27


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 17,983
Joined: 20 Sep 2009
Member No.: 32,130



QUOTE (Doraemon @ Sun, 14 Oct 2018 - 23:52) *
In many defence I am seeing a mention of Beavis. I am not sure if I should also mention it in my case. The circumstances are different.

Yes, like most people on parking forums do. They have a point explaining why their case is different, and thus, Beavis is distinguished.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SchoolRunMum
post Mon, 15 Oct 2018 - 01:13
Post #28


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 17,983
Joined: 20 Sep 2009
Member No.: 32,130



I don't think you should counter-claim, nor should you change your draft or be persuaded to instead use some template from a newer poster currently attempting to steer every residential case on this forum and on MSE, in a complicated way, which I find alarming.

I also think you have little time - and should just get your defence in once you are happy with it. The defence is basically good and you have the PPC your data by appealing, so you can't say they obtained your DVLA data and misused it. So I would forget the counter-claim.

As I say, your defence is based on a decent one, and IMHO just needs a few wording changes.

I would remove #2 which doesn't help:

QUOTE
2. The Defendant is a Non-UK national residing in the UK since Mar 2014. The Defendant was not fully acquainted with the finer details of UK parking laws and leaseholder rights until this point where he is having to defend himself against a ‘Private’ parking claim which he considers as ‘Unlawful’.



...and get the name of the Claimant company right, it's not:

QUOTE
UK Car park Management Company


It's UKCPM, as per the heading in your defence, but in the body of your defence there is no need to keep naming them - just change all mentions of 'UK Car park Management Company' to 'the Claimant' (apart from in the defence heading, of course, where you got the name correct).


This is American 'windshield?' 'sticker'? What do those words mean in this context in the UK? And it's not a 'fine' either:

QUOTE
On XXXX date, UK Car park Management Company issued a parking fine alleging that there was no sticker displayed on the windshield.


Change that sentence #5 to this I reckon, and then you can call the charge a 'PCN' lower down the defence:

QUOTE
On xx/xx/2018 the Claimant issued a parking charge notice ('PCN') alleging that the vehicle was not authorised to park, due to the permit apparently not being visible through the windscreen. In fact the Defendant avers, the permit was certainly in sight through the car windows had the ticketing employee carried out a full check, albeit at some unknown time before or at the time of the ticketer leaning across the cars on site, someone or something had caused the always-displayed permit to slip from the dashboard.



And here, permit, permit, permit, not ''sticker'' and I've changed: ''Upholding the ‘Spirit of honesty’,'' to 'good faith' which is a concept that was mentioned in the Beavis case:

QUOTE
6. To resolve the minor dispute and in the interests of good faith, the Defendant wrote to the Claimant requesting a cancellation of the PCN on the basis that he is a resident within the locality and has an authorised permit which had fallen off the car dashboard. A copy of the permit and a picture evidence of the permit lying in full view on the car floor below the dashboard, were also provided. The request was, however, rejected.



I'd change this a bit too (and you can only mention this offer if it was made openly and not in a letter with a heading 'WITHOUT PREJUDICE'):
QUOTE
7. The Defendant at that time, due to being fairly new to the UK and not being fully acquainted with his own prevailing lease holder rights, felt intimidated and out of his depth and made an attempt to settle the PCN and offered to pay half of the unconscionable amount without admitting any liability, but the offer was rejected by the unregulated Debt recovery agent appointed by the Claimant, who continued to bombard the Defendant with various demands for different sums of money.



And here I would add a sentence about the fact the rights are expressly stated to be 'demised with full title' (in #1 of page 6 of the lease):

QUOTE
8. The Defendant avers that there was an absolute entitlement to park deriving from the terms of the lease, which cannot be fettered by any alleged parking terms nor interfered with by any third party. The lease terms provide the right to park one domestic private motor vehicle in the free parking area. Below is the extract from the Defendant’s lease which covers the Parking conditions:-

The lessor hereby demises with full title guarantee unto the lessee all that the property together with (in common with all other persons entitled to the like or any other rights) the easements rights and privileges set out in Part 1 of the Schedule.

Easement granted by this lease for the benefit of the Property’ -
‘The right in common with all others entitled thereto from time to time to park one domestic private motor vehicle only on the Estate in any free parking space other than those specifically allocated or to be allocated’



And remove all of this, as it doesn't assist your case:

QUOTE
11.1. The Deed of covenant nowhere mentions about the display of the parking permit and also about the terms and conditions or even any of a fine. See below extract from the ‘Sales Pack’ provided by the Managing Agent at the time of purchasing the property.

'There is a parking regulation in place at this property and residents must have a permit to be able to park in the bay. Permits are available at a cost of 25 plus VAT. A copy of the scheme regulations pertaining to the unit address is available from the property manager upon request'

11.2. There seems to be a questionable intent in purposely favouring the Car Management Company whereby terms and conditions can be amended in future to suit the interest of a single party i.e. the Claimant.




And I would have this as #15 onwards, as I notice you had nothing about distinguishing your case from Beavis, or questioning the landowner authority/legitimate interest of this charge, or dodgy/prohibitive signs (always mention the signs even in a residential case):

QUOTE
15. In the alternative, if the Court considers that a contract might have existed, it is denied that the Claimant’s signage sets out the terms in a sufficiently clear manner which would be capable of binding any permitted resident. The terms on the Claimant's signage are displayed in small font, and appear to be aimed at would-be trespassers by seeking to deter 'unauthorised' parking. No contract is on offer - the signs are prohibitive at best - and the Defendant already enjoys a demised right to park and has a permit, so no parking licence or anything of value could possibly be described as flowing between the parties by way of consideration. It is, therefore, denied that the Claimant's signage is capable of creating a legally binding contract between this third party agent and a permitted/authorised resident.

16. Further and in the alternative, this Claimant is put to strict proof that whilst operating as a contractor on an agency basis with a bare licence, it has the necessary authorisation from the landowner to pursue payment from residents by means of litigation in its own right. The Claimant is required to show not just authority to issue PCNs and put some signs up, but must explain how they consider they have the right to disregard the primacy of contract of residents and unilaterally impose an undoubted private nuisance of an onerous obligation and unconscionable penalty, that rides roughshod over the clear unfettered right to park, as set out in the lease.

17. The Defendant would like to point out that this car park can be fully distinguished from the details, facts and location in ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67. Mr Beavis had no prior rights in the land, and he admitted being the driver and that he overstayed, having seen the prominent signs offering a parking licence with caveats. Thus he had entered into a contract with ParkingEye, whose charge only escaped falling foul of the penalty rule due to the clear wording on the signs and the 'rare and complex' legitimate interest arising from the commercial need for a regular turnover of spaces in an otherwise free retail park. None of this applies in this case, where there was (and is) no comparable 'legitimate interest' in penalising residents, which - even if the Claimant has a contract with the Managing Agent or freeholder - the Defendant avers is a derogation from grant.

18. The claim inexplicably includes an additional £60, for which no calculation or explanation is given, under the excuse of 'indemnity costs if applicable' which the Claimant passes off as 'damages' or sometimes 'debt collector costs'. Given the fact that the notorious debt collectors used by firms like the Claimant openly advertise their 'service' on a no-win-no-fee basis, and secondly, that CPR 27.14 does not permit such charges to be recovered in the Small Claims track, these costs are an attempt at double recovery and are a gross abuse of process. In any event, the binding Supreme Court decision in Beavis confirmed that a parking firm not in possession cannot plead their case in damages or indemnity costs, and could only collect a prominently advertised contractual sum for parking (in that case, £85) and only where the sum flows from a 'relevant contract/obligation' and is supported by a compelling commercial and legitimate interest.

19. The Claimant has also added on top of that £60, a further £50 in 'legal costs' that have also not been expended. The Claimant uses a solicitor - closely connected to their Trade Body and the so-called appeals service - which files hundreds of similar robo-claims every week. As such, the Defendant avers that no solicitor is likely to have supervised this current batch of cut & paste claims at all. According to Ladak v DRC Locums UKEAT/0488/13/LA the claimant can only recover the direct and provable costs of the time spent on preparing the claim in a legal capacity, not any administration cost.

20. In summary, the Defendant denies the claim in its entirety, voiding any liability to the Claimant for all amounts due to the aforementioned reasons. It is the Defendant's position that the claim discloses no cause of action, is without merit, and has no real prospect of success.

21. The Defendant invites the court to strike out the claim, using its case management powers pursuant to Civil Procedure Rules 3.4.

21.1. Alternatively, the Defendant requests the Court to order the Claimant to provide Further and Better Particulars of Claim - specifically explaining how it believes it can interfere with and override the rights and privileges already granted to the Defendant under the lease - and allow the Defendant a specified time to respond, and/or requests that the Court uses its case management powers to order a preliminary hearing to examine that vital issue.

I believe the facts contained in this Defence are true.


Name

Signature

Date


This post has been edited by SchoolRunMum: Mon, 15 Oct 2018 - 01:19
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ostell
post Mon, 15 Oct 2018 - 08:34
Post #29


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 8,441
Joined: 8 Mar 2013
Member No.: 60,457



QUOTE (SchoolRunMum @ Mon, 15 Oct 2018 - 00:14) *
QUOTE (Doraemon @ Sun, 14 Oct 2018 - 23:52) *
In many defence I am seeing a mention of Beavis. I am not sure if I should also mention it in my case. The circumstances are different.

Yes, like most people on parking forums do. They have a point explaining why their case is different, and thus, Beavis is distinguished.


Extinguished
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Doraemon
post Mon, 15 Oct 2018 - 12:31
Post #30


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 20
Joined: 2 Oct 2018
Member No.: 100,173



Thanks a lot @SchoolRunMum for your inputs. Really appreciate your time and direction. I will rework my defence in the evening after getting back home.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Doraemon
post Mon, 15 Oct 2018 - 22:21
Post #31


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 20
Joined: 2 Oct 2018
Member No.: 100,173



Ok. Defence finally drafted.

One issue, the Money Claim online allows limited number of lines! Is there any alternative way to file a defence?

I found this on another forum. Is this the preferred way to circumvent this issue?


1) Print the Defence.
2) Sign it and date it.
3) Scan the signed document back in and save it as a pdf.
4) Send that pdf as an email attachment to CCBCAQ@Justice.gov.uk
5) Just put the claim number and the word Defence in the email title, and in the body of the email something like 'Please find my Defence attached'.
6) Log into MCOL after a few days to see if the Claim is marked "defended". If not, you should chase the CCBC until it is.

Thanks
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ostell
post Mon, 15 Oct 2018 - 22:32
Post #32


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 8,441
Joined: 8 Mar 2013
Member No.: 60,457



Subject line is Claim number, title (CPM v Doraemon), Defence,

If you print your document to PDF then you can add a scan of your signature to the PDF document. Saves printing, signing and scanning again. Scan your signature black pen on very white paper. You will be adding your signature to other documents.

This post has been edited by ostell: Mon, 15 Oct 2018 - 22:33
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Doraemon
post Mon, 15 Oct 2018 - 22:44
Post #33


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 20
Joined: 2 Oct 2018
Member No.: 100,173



Thanks ostell. What do you mean by 'Other documents' ?

Do I have to also send a copy of my lease or is that for later i.e. day of the hearing?

Regards

This post has been edited by Doraemon: Mon, 15 Oct 2018 - 22:48
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SchoolRunMum
post Tue, 16 Oct 2018 - 00:10
Post #34


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 17,983
Joined: 20 Sep 2009
Member No.: 32,130



No attachments go with the defence. No evidence at all yet. If you are close to the deadline to get this defence in, also RING the CCBC a few hours after emailing it to make sure they do update MCOL, as they are sometimes slow & inefficient (overloaded) and people have actually had the CCBC overlook a defence before.

I think ostell meant you will be signing things like your DQ, then WS, all later on.

Your lease and evidence goes with the Witness statement before the hearing, a few months later than now (read the 'what happens when' post by bargepole as linked in the second post of the NEWBIES thread on MSE forum.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Tue, 16 Oct 2018 - 08:30
Post #35


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18,084
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



Once youve got your defence sorted, go to the MSE NEWBIES thread, post 2
Read it
Read it again
Read it a third time

It takes you thruogh the WHOLE PROCESS completely, with NO room for questions on process.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Doraemon
post Wed, 17 Oct 2018 - 08:31
Post #36


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 20
Joined: 2 Oct 2018
Member No.: 100,173



QUOTE (nosferatu1001 @ Tue, 16 Oct 2018 - 09:30) *
Once youve got your defence sorted, go to the MSE NEWBIES thread, post 2
Read it
Read it again
Read it a third time

It takes you thruogh the WHOLE PROCESS completely, with NO room for questions on process.


Apologies I might be stupid. I could not find the Newbies thread! Do I need to be registered on MSE before I could see that? I could see various Motoring threads though.
Sorry again if thats too obvious to be missed. Might just be my anxiety causing me to miss things.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Wed, 17 Oct 2018 - 09:02
Post #37


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18,084
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



Google search
NEWBIES THREAD MSE should give you the thread as the first result.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Doraemon
post Wed, 17 Oct 2018 - 21:46
Post #38


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 20
Joined: 2 Oct 2018
Member No.: 100,173



QUOTE (nosferatu1001 @ Wed, 17 Oct 2018 - 10:02) *
Google search
NEWBIES THREAD MSE should give you the thread as the first result.

Thanks. I have found the thread but its so badly structured, at least its coming like that on my mobile screen. So nowhere Post numbers are mentioned. I have found the info I was after finally after some effort deciphering the page.
There are FAQs where questions are same colours as URLs so damn confusing. Sorry but there does not seem to be any structure to it. It may well be my mobile browser thingie!

This post has been edited by Doraemon: Wed, 17 Oct 2018 - 22:41
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SchoolRunMum
post Wed, 17 Oct 2018 - 21:56
Post #39


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 17,983
Joined: 20 Sep 2009
Member No.: 32,130



QUOTE
I have found the thread but its so badly structured,

Ouch. Wow.

QUOTE
questions are same colours as URLs

I like Blue, I'm a Brighton fan. Blue does not only mean or = a URL link, clearly a question with an answer typed below it, is not going to be a clicky link. I'm not changing them to red!

The first appeal there is in blue too, and no-one has ever asked ''is it a URL link''?! No it's picked out in a contrasting colour to make it easy to see on a laptop.


... I wrote it and maintain it, have done for years (when not banned due to a pointless stalker having an annual pop at me using another username each time).

The NEWBIES thread is not for viewing on a tiny mobile, no forum is, don't tell us you have been here the whole time looking here on a mobile, no way! It's a forum. You cannot possibly see all that is on here or MSE that way. You will not be able to research and learn and search forums like this. You only see the tip of the iceberg!

QUOTE
So nowhere Post numbers are mentioned


Sigh...that's because you are reading it on a mobile. The post numbers are clear on any PC or laptop.

Do you even see the post numbers here?

There are post numbers top right of every post anyone makes...same as on MSE.

This post is #39, do you see that? If not, that's why not to read forums on blinking mobiles.

This post has been edited by SchoolRunMum: Wed, 17 Oct 2018 - 22:04
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Doraemon
post Wed, 17 Oct 2018 - 22:49
Post #40


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 20
Joined: 2 Oct 2018
Member No.: 100,173



QUOTE (SchoolRunMum @ Wed, 17 Oct 2018 - 22:56) *
QUOTE
I have found the thread but its so badly structured,

Ouch. Wow.

QUOTE
questions are same colours as URLs

I like Blue, I'm a Brighton fan. Blue does not only mean or = a URL link, clearly a question with an answer typed below it, is not going to be a clicky link. I'm not changing them to red!

The first appeal there is in blue too, and no-one has ever asked ''is it a URL link''?! No it's picked out in a contrasting colour to make it easy to see on a laptop.


... I wrote it and maintain it, have done for years (when not banned due to a pointless stalker having an annual pop at me using another username each time).

The NEWBIES thread is not for viewing on a tiny mobile, no forum is, don't tell us you have been here the whole time looking here on a mobile, no way! It's a forum. You cannot possibly see all that is on here or MSE that way. You will not be able to research and learn and search forums like this. You only see the tip of the iceberg!

QUOTE
So nowhere Post numbers are mentioned


Sigh...that's because you are reading it on a mobile. The post numbers are clear on any PC or laptop.

Do you even see the post numbers here?

There are post numbers top right of every post anyone makes...same as on MSE.

This post is #39, do you see that? If not, that's why not to read forums on blinking mobiles.


My humble apologies! I know its my mobile browser issue. And to top it all, I am actually a bit frustrated fighting this PCN and devoting time doing all this research at the expense of family time! I ought to be spending time with my little son and missus! Its probably that frustration that came out biggrin.gif

Just to update everyone, I have emailed my defence finally today after applying corrections as advised earlier on the post.

Thanks for all your help. Will be waiting to hear from the court now. I believe my defence will be shared with the Claimant. Hope it gives them gooosebumps and sweat and they withdraw their claim before troubling me to appear for the hearing and coughing up my costs.

Thanks again. Irrespective of the outcome of my case, you guys are doing a fab job at helping people fight these sharks. Keep it up.

This post has been edited by Doraemon: Wed, 17 Oct 2018 - 22:51
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

3 Pages V  < 1 2 3 >
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: Saturday, 20th October 2018 - 22:36
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.