Defending Ticket - Minster Bay Watch & Gladstone

brexit33

Coupon-mad wrote: »

You can't use arguments not already touched upon in the defence. What did your 'defence' actually say??

They won't resubmit the claim in her name. Claim stage is TOO LATE to name the driver.

This will continue in your name and you get NO CCJ AT ALL so stop worrying. However you may end up losing and paying them as your defence is weak. No CCJ though so you may as well fight unless this takes up so much of your time that you will lose more money/huge amounts of sleep over it (you will have to attend a hearing in 2017 to defend this and we can help with that defence bundle stage with suggestions for evidence - but only if you stated them in the defence).

However, I am dreading your answer, did you even put ANYTHING else in the defence box (signage issues, planning permission, the fact there was no contract, the fact they do not own the car park)?

My Defence said that - Although I am the registered keeper my partner is the primary user of the vehicle and was the driver at the time of the offence. Then I put her name and address. Thats all really, no other arguments.

Oh well sound like I've probably !!!!ed it up. I will try and proceed the I never received any letters because she threw them out argument as a) she didn't want me to get mad at her b) she thought it would go away. I nominated the driver as soon as I was aware of the situation and can prove she was driving at the time.

Doesn't sound like its going to get me very far though.

Can I not submit any more evidence or elaborate on the defence in court?

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Can you show us the NTK please (cover your name & address & VRN/PCN numbers). This is the letter that first arrived - they may have called it a 'PCN'

I've never seen the NTKs because she threw them out. I know they sent two lots of two letters but thats all she knows. (btw this actually the true course of events, I don't have a reason to lie to you guys on here).

Coupon-mad wrote: »

And is this a claim from GLADSTONES SOLICITORS or other solicitor on behalf of MB?

Yes its GLADSTONES

Carthesis

It's probably worth going to court anyway, purely on the basis that it looks as though they're trying to claim debt collector costs and excessive court costs as part of the two claims.

If they're hearing them both in a bundle, the most you should pay is the full cost of both tickets as listed on the NTK, plus £50 in court costs.

k3lvc

brexit33 wrote: »

The dentist office is right across the street from car parking and there is not much other parking nearby. Being about ~35 weeks pregnant at the time she couldn't walk far.

To my knowledge there are 2 Dental Surgeries in that immediate area - one with a 200 space car park (albeit paid) closer than your partner parked, the 2nd where I suspect you could find free on-street parking within a closer distance than where she parked.

bargepole

brexit33 wrote: »

Then main reason is I dont want a CCJ in my name. .

And everything you've done so far is calculated to make it more likely that you will get one.

This thread should be referenced in the Newbies sticky as a perfect example of how NOT to defend a court claim.

A strong contender here for the 2016 'Why Do We Bother?' award.

Carthesis

k3lvc wrote: »

To my knowledge there are 2 Dental Surgeries in that immediate area - one with a 200 space car park (albeit paid) closer than your partner parked, the 2nd where I suspect you could find free on-street parking within a closer distance than where she parked.

That may be the case, but to some extent it doesn't matter.

His partner - rightly or wrongly - parked where she did for reasons only known to her at the time.

That doesn't have any bearing whatsoever on the mistakes that have subsequently been made in the handling of the appeal process etc.

brexit33

Coupon-mad wrote: »

NO.
I already said what your one defence ground now was. It is NOT the above. I asked some questions too, please answer!

Ok so If i didn't mention that she threw out the letters on the moneyclaim.gov.uk defence then I can't mention that in court? I assumed it was just a summary before the real proceeding started.

I'll might as well just ring them and see if they will settle now then,

Carthesis

brexit33 wrote: »

I'll just ring them and see if they will settle now then,

DON'T DO THAT!!

As I said above, it very much appears as though for the £295 quid, they've added on a charge from whatever debt recovery firm they use, plus no doubt an outlandish fee for "solicitors", plus court costs and the lot.

THE FIRST THING YOU SHOULD DO is go to this car park, take some photographs of the signage, and then let us know what the initial "fine" cost would have been, before and after the "pay it early for less" bribe period.

Coupon-mad

brexit33 wrote: »

Ok so If i didn't mention that she threw out the letters on the moneyclaim.gov.uk defence then I can't mention that in court? I assumed it was just a summary before the real proceeding started.

I'll might as well just ring them and see if they will settle now then,

OMG.

I said what your defence is, said to continue to defend. You can mention in court what your defence is and I told you what that will depend on! Your defence IS a summary but you didn't include ten or more things you should have done. You have ONE defence point about the POFA.

NO-ONE rings up about a court claim. Do not go there.

Please re-read your advice and calm down, yes you missed a trick but you have one ace card as a defendant keeper who was not driving, to try in the end. We told you what that was.

:eek:


P.S. if you are genuine (as this appears to be a waste of time 'wind up the forum' thread so far) please, answer my original questions.

brexit33

THE FIRST THING YOU SHOULD DO is go to this car park, take some photographs of the signage, and then let us know what the initial "fine" cost would have been, before and after the "pay it early for less" bribe period.

Here are the photos from the site I took today http:// imgur.com/a/uYzcn

The parking charge is only listed as £100 on the wall signs.

The original initial claim was £150 x 2 straight from the off. She doesn't think there was a reduction for paying early.

The claim is now £303.39 + £35 Court Fee + £50 Legal Representative = £388.29.

System

What is the claim for? This is a Pay and Display leased by the Odeon to Bransby Wilson?

Have you had a word with the cinema to see what they can do. Maybe nothing but if their business is going to be hit by Gladstones, they ought to know.