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??

This is exactly what the defence I submitted on moneyclaim.gov.uk said:

"I was not driving the vehicle at the time. Although I am the
registered owner my partner is the primary user and was driving
the vehicle on both occasions. Her name is XXX XXX and she
resides at the same address as I. ADDRESS HERE. The claim needs re-filing under her
name at which time she will submit her own defence."

Please understand I'm obviously not a legal expert. Can someone please explain how the Money Claim Online relates to the county court and visa versa. Is my defence on the money claim also my only defence in court now?

- I've said I'm the Registered Keeper and given the address of the driver.
- They will say "We complied with POFA"
- Is it now too late for me to add my defence about not receiving the letters because the driver and real offender admits to throwing them out?

Coupon-mad wrote: »

And was this a residents block of flats 'permit' car park, or what? Employer car park? Retail where the driver was shopping?

Its at the back of a cinema. Not retail, The driver parked to go to dentist.

Coupon-mad wrote: »

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.

Which questions specifically?

Thanks!

Carthesis

brexit33 wrote: »

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

The original initial claim was £150 x 2 straight from the off.

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

If the charge is only listed as £100, then that's what the charge is. Where has the extra £50 come from? I'm betting it's a "debt collector fee" which they aren't allowed to chase for.

The court fee and legal rep's fee are both tied up together in the maximum small claims court costs that can be awarded which is capped at (I think) £50.

brexit33 wrote: »

Is it now too late for me to add my defence about not receiving the letters because the driver and real offender admits to throwing them out?

THIS ISN'T A DEFENCE. This will be stated as your problem, not theirs, because how can it be theirs?

brexit33

Carthesis wrote: »

If the charge is only listed as £100, then that's what the charge is. Where has the extra £50 come from? I'm betting it's a "debt collector fee" which they aren't allowed to chase for.

It wasn't an additional fee, £150 was the original fine listed in the first letter. They must changed the signs since August.

Carthesis wrote: »

THIS ISN'T A DEFENCE. This will be stated as your problem, not theirs, because how can it be theirs?

From POFA "A notice sent by post is to be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, to have been delivered". The argument is a I'm proving to the contrary that the post was not delivered because my partner intercepted them.

Coupon-mad

It wasn't an additional fee, £150 was the original fine listed in the first letter. They must changed the signs since August.

Can't be, the ceiling is £100. They've added a random £50 to each one - I really think you should read other Gladstones threads! You will learn all of this.

brexit33 wrote: »

Which questions specifically?

You've answered them, said it is Gladstones which may help you because their particulars of claim ('PoC') are as woeful as your defence (sorry).

Please understand I'm obviously not a legal expert.

We do understand that (almost every newbie here is a quivering jelly about these PCNs and claims) that's why our sticky advice thread tells you about how to defend a small claim and shows examples and what not to say/what paperwork is needed when.

Please read the NEWBIES thread part headed 'Small Claim?' and all the links under that heading now, to at least know what to expect in terms of procedure from now on. There is no point in settlement or mediation.

Can someone please explain how the Money Claim Online relates to the county court and visa versa. Is my defence on the money claim also my only defence in court now?

Well you received a court claim, so you knew it was real. The paperwork told you that you could either defend by ticking boxes on the form or online using the MCOL password. You chose the latter. There was a defence box and you filled it in (you will see from the sticky thread you should NOT have done this yet, should have acknowledged the claim only, but you didn't). Can't be helped. At least Gladstones lack of information and 'particulars of claim' can be attacked as you go through the process.

That IS the sum total of your defence, that you were not the driver. So all you can later attack (with your DQ*, I suggest, then later in your Witness Statement*) is:

- the woeful particulars of claim, no evidence supplied (just two dates and a car number and a random figure of £150 per PCN that doesn't match the signs and exceeds the BPA 'ceiling' by 50% - so you CAN object to that). This lack of coherent PoC prevented you from making any informed defence and you thought this was time to name the driver, seeing as the claim was the first you knew of it. See...you can sneak that in too...

Then in your actual Witness statement you will be confirming that you were not the driver, that MB know that fact as you have informed them and that, in any event (whether you had named her or not) they can only hold you liable if they have FULLY complied with ALL aspects of the POFA Schedule 4 which includes 'adequate notice of the parking charge' (e.g. this is a way of sneaking in a signage argument too = not adequate...!). You have never seen the Notice to Keeper but you believe from others you've seen in the public domain that they are not compliant and incapable of recovering a charge from a registered keeper as there is no other route other than full compliance with Schedule 4. That forces G's to show their hand which is when you will get to see the PCN, before any hearing.

But that's for later on, we will support you. Your defence is far weaker than it should be but it is what it is - at least gives you the POFA Schedule 4 to call upon - and there is no point paying unless a Judge tells you to so you may as well go the whole hog.






*all covered in the NEWBIES sticky thread, in bargepole's post about the paperwork.

Carthesis

brexit33 wrote: »

It wasn't an additional fee, £150 was the original fine listed in the first letter. They must changed the signs since August.



From POFA "A notice sent by post is to be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, to have been delivered". The argument is a I'm proving to the contrary that the post was not delivered because my partner intercepted them.

That is not what "presumed to be delivered" means."Presumed to be delivered" means Royal Mail stuck it through your letterbox - that's all. It's a way of getting round the defence of it being lost in the post. How can MB or RM be held accountable for your missus opening and subsequently binning post that they've delivered to the correct address with your name on it? They can't, and any reasonable person would never think it so.

You need to drop that line as it'll get nowhere.

Do exactly as C-M has suggested, and for the love of God do some reading about other cases. That way at least you'll be semi-protest and stand a chance. C-M has given you clues about how to very cleverly introduce points of defence that you should have made yourself but haven't, and thus given you a chance at maybe getting away with this, when to be honest youve done yourself no favours.

brexit33

Ok thank you for your help Carthesis & Coupon-mad. I've been reading through the NEWBIE posts and am now more clear on the process. I will wait for the questionnaire to come through.

Carthesis wrote: »

That is not what "presumed to be delivered" means."Presumed to be delivered" means Royal Mail stuck it through your letterbox - that's all. It's a way of getting round the defence of it being lost in the post. How can MB or RM be held accountable for your missus opening and subsequently binning post that they've delivered to the correct address with your name on it?

But what if you could prove that royal mail lost it, for example they admitted to sending it to the wrong address.

Taking that a step further. What if you could prove that the post man ripped it up before putting it in the mail box (you have cctv showing this). Now what if it is your neighbour on cctv doing this. Now what if it your wife doing this? The responsibility ends with the postman?

DoaM

The responsibility ends once it is through the letterbox/delivered to the property. What happens afterwards is of no relevance to the claim of being delivered.

Carthesis

Jesus.

Ever get the impression you're talking to a brick wall?

If you had conclusive, irrefutable proof that the letter was lost / damaged / destroyed before it got put in your letterbox, them maybe, **MAYBE** you'd get a judge to allow you to go back the step one. In this case that wouldn't help you as you've admitted the driver.

But, as it stands, your wife ripping g the letters up inside the house and your neighbour or the postman doing it outside your house is a false equivalence. That means that they ARE NOT THE SAME THING.

If it's gone through your letterbox and into your house, it has been delivered. What happens to it after that is your responsibility.

You seem to be sleepwalkinginto presenting, before a judge, in a court, the "dog ate my homework" defence. I wouldn't **WANT** a judge finding in your favour in those circumstances to be honest. Can you even imagine the precedent it'd set?

(Well none, because it's small claims and that doesn't set precedent, but I'm sure most people will be able to discern what I mean.)

brexit33

Carthesis wrote: »

You seem to be sleepwalkinginto presenting, before a judge, in a court, the "dog ate my homework" defence. I wouldn't **WANT** a judge finding in your favour in those circumstances to be honest. Can you even imagine the precedent it'd set?

I didn't say I was going to present it, just mulling it over. A thought exercise if you like.... :rotfl:

If they have complied with section 4 I wont have a defence anyway.

If I did put it to the judge that POFA fails to account for the situation where the driver has a motive and opportunity to deliberately obstruct the keeper being notified and I as the keeper notified the claimant at the first opportunity after becoming aware. Perhaps a judge would understand the situation.

It wouldn't leave me any worse off....

Coupon-mad

If they have complied with section 4 I wont have a defence anyway.

Well why not search this forum and pepipoo for other similar dated MB threads where people may have shown the NTK wording. Find one from a similar month and you will see what yours likely had in its wording.