Trethowans Court Claim - Help Appreciated

pappa_golf

and the answer back from the DVLA , as to why info was passed on will be


"Trethowans Solicitors act on behalf of NHS trusts, providing a debt recovery service in relation to the enforcement of penalty charge notices for car parking issued under the Traffic Management Act 2004 and the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984. Trethowans Solicitors are regulated by the Law Society and the Solicitors Regulation Authority which are both recognised regulators of the DVLA Approved Operator Scheme.



Trethowans Solicitors do not have to be members of a parking Accredited Trade Association and neither do NHS Trusts as they are enforcing penalties under Statutory Law. Trethowans Solicitors make enquiries to pursue cases of unpaid penalties and carry out legal proceedings on behalf of the NHS Trust they work on behalf of.



Data is released in accordance with the provisions of the Data Protection Act and does not require the consent of the individual concerned. The Information Commissioner’s Office is fully aware that data held on our records is released in this way. However, the DVLA is mindful of the importance of making individuals aware of the circumstances in which their data may be released. The DVLA advises vehicle keepers of how their data will be used and where it may be disclosed. This information is published online at https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/release-of-information-from-dvlas-registers.



While DVLA recognises the rights of an individual to object to their data being processed it has to meet its legal obligations to release data to those who have a right in law to receive it. No vehicles are exempt from disclosure under the provisions of these Regulations.




however this offence does not come under "Traffic Management Act 2004 and the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984" so the information passed from the DVLA to trets was falsely accessed.


there is a 3rd party involved with Aintree , the company that actually run the car park and issue the ticket on behalf of aintee , something healthcare , still looking for there name , they pass the info on to trets

DollyDee_2

Deleted not applicable

ftd83

Well it's getting more confusing!

I have sent a complaint letter to Aintree Chief Executive today - ets see what happens there.

I spoke to the people in Salford at CCMCC who where most unhelpful. They said if I want to challenge the jurisdiction then I need to fill in form N244 which has a £100 fee. They seem to think its fine that the court pack can be sent anywhere as long as it eventually reached me. I am not going to pay £100 to get a spurious claim dispatched as this will not be refunded. This seems excessive for a small claims court.

Question now is what should I put on the acknowledgement of service? At the moment I have ticked the 'dispute jurisdiction' box. Do you think I would be better ticking 'defend entire claim' or even both boxes. At least then in my defence I can put that I am challenging jurisdiction because I am in Scotland and avoid paying this fee?

The_Deep

You might consider warning the PPC that you will be invoicing them for your time unless they cancel this charge.

pappa_golf

The_Deep wrote: »

You might consider warning the PPC that you will be invoicing them for your time unless they cancel this charge.

who is the PPC?

catfunt

ftd83 wrote: »

Well it's getting more confusing!

I have sent a complaint letter to Aintree Chief Executive today - ets see what happens there.

I spoke to the people in Salford at CCMCC who where most unhelpful. They said if I want to challenge the jurisdiction then I need to fill in form N244 which has a £100 fee. They seem to think its fine that the court pack can be sent anywhere as long as it eventually reached me. I am not going to pay £100 to get a spurious claim dispatched as this will not be refunded. This seems excessive for a small claims court.

Question now is what should I put on the acknowledgement of service? At the moment I have ticked the 'dispute jurisdiction' box. Do you think I would be better ticking 'defend entire claim' or even both boxes. At least then in my defence I can put that I am challenging jurisdiction because I am in Scotland and avoid paying this fee?

Hang on... where are we with this court claim? When was it issued?
I'm just puzzled with the bit in red I've highlighted above.

If you are just acknowledging claim and ticking that you wish to contest it, there should be no fee?

Or are you at the stage where it's too late for all that and you're having to pay to file a late defence?

Or has there already been a judgment in default?

System

It says "Court Claim" in the title.

You have the chance to choose the court / challenge the jurisdiction at the Directions Questionnaire stage so why not just go along with the process until then and save your £100.

Pass the issue over to the courts as the choice of court is the "consumer's"

ftd83

Thanks guys,

It was issued on 21st March, so I am still well within the 2 weeks for acknowledgement of claim stage. Nowhere in the documentation does it say there is a fee or form to fill in to challenge the jurisdiction.

I think the CCMCC people are talking garbage to be honest. My understanding was the NP244 is required if you want to set aside a judgement/late defence.

I have simply ticked the challenge jurisdiction box and was intending to write a follow up letter to the court within 2 weeks after that to formally challenge jurisdiction which I believe is required. My next email is to the daily mail...

The_Deep

Why not just write to the court pointing out jurisdiction with "May I leave it to you to take whatever action you deem appropriate"?

System

Why not just write to the court pointing out jurisdiction with "May I leave it to you to take whatever action you deem appropriate"?

Copy in Trethowans with the comment that they know that the jurisdiction will be challenged so why waste the Trust's money on this. Then if they continue, you can rightly complain to the Trust about the wasteful charges they are being invoiced by Trethowans in not abandoning a vexatious claim in the first place.

It's almost as if they want to waste the Trust's money on speculative claims.