Parking Eye - New Response - Letter Before County Court Claim

zzzLazyDaisy

Apologies for replying on this thread - but I just wanted to point out that in NORTHOFTHEBORDER's case, as the RK lives in Scotland she can still ignore (assuming that the vehicle is registered at the DVLA to the address in Scotland).

Why? Because PoFA does not apply in Scotland.

Yes PE may try it on with a LBCCC and hope you pay up, but the fact is that MCOL will not accept a court claim against a defendant based in Scotland as it is a 'foreign jurisdiction' for these purposes. True, PE do sometimes try to circumvent this 'inconvenience' by omitting the word 'Scotland' from the address on the court claim... but a phone call to Northampton County Court should get the case dismissed fairly quickly on the grounds that the court does not have jurisdiction to hear the case.

So in this case, in the RK's shoes I would write a letter along the following lines:

---

Dear Sir

Letter Before County Court Proceedings (LBCCC) - reference

I refer to the LBCCC dated [xxxx] addressed to myself as the Registered Keeper.

You appear to have overlooked the fact that PoFA 2012 does not apply to Scotland (which, as you know, is where the Registered Keeper is located). This means that you cannot pursue myself as the Registered Keeper, but must take this matter up with the driver of the vehicle on the day in question.

For the avoidance of doubt, I can confirm that I was not the driver, and in the very unlikely event that this claim should ever find its way to court, I will produce evidence to this effect (not that this will happen, since the English courts will not accept a claim against a defendant who resides out of the jurisdiction, and Scotland does not accept PoFA claims against a Registered Keeper).

In the circumstances I invite you to cancel the charge.

Yours faithfully

PRINT NAME

---

JUST TO REPEAT FOR NEWBIES - THE 'IGNORE' ADVICE HERE IS JUST BECAUSE THE RK IS BASED IN SCOTLAND. IF YOU LIVE IN ENGLAND OR WALES 'IGNORE' IS BAD ADVICE!!!!

Greatest_Player

Kite2010 wrote: »

Would be interesting to know how that £53 is made up from and how much can be defined as actual losses suffered and not fixed costs.

Sorry this comes MONTHS late, I've just read this and have been away.

This information is presented in PE's now all too well known template "Reply to defence", and they 'calculate' this sum by citing uniforms, camera installation and ALL the irrelevant running costs which
a) do not pertain to any "breach", and
b) were tested and DISMISSED in 2011, VSC vs Ibbotson

Nothing to fear there.

Forensic

spacey2012 wrote: »

Then if this is the case they will be acting outside the right of audience.
This must be brought to question at the start of the proceedings.
Once asked to state in what capacity they are acting most district judges will sling them out on their ears.
allowing an actual employed company solicitor is often the absolute minimum rights any district or circuit judge will allow.
However it is your job to request the rights are implemented at the start of proceedings.
Once you "agree to continue" you accept it.
Most judges will gladly accept your challenge.
An agency legal representative abusing the bar system ?
They will be out on their ears in 30 seconds.

Parking eye have not thought this out at all.

Hi. I am going through old threads and I have just noticed this. When you say it is our job to "request the rights are implemented at the start of proceedings" concerning dodgy legal agents, does that mean on the day of the hearing? Or when conducting defence statements? I am at the stage of submitting documents on which I will rely, is it too late for me to impugn the PE "lawyer"? I now have his name since my papers arrived from PE.