We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
IMPORTANT: Please make sure your posts do not contain any personally identifiable information (both your own and that of others). When uploading images, please take care that you have redacted all personal information including number plates, reference numbers and QR codes (which may reveal vehicle information when scanned).
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
CEL county court
Comments
-
@geordiejoiner, please don't be confused. You must decide whose advice you prefer, bearing in mind Johnersh and LoadsofChildren123 are solicitors and regular posters here for a long time, unlike this new poster.PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT (except N.Ireland).
CLICK at the top or bottom of any page where it says:
Home»Motoring»Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD0 -
Interesting.
So why then give the D the opportunity to amend her defence (it's his mum's pcn) if the order was not meant to oblige the C to serve further PoC (described as "full" PoC?
If the order simply required C to file its pre-existing PoC, which the D had already defended, why allow for an amended defence?Although a practising Solicitor, my posts here are NOT legal advice, but are personal opinion based on limited facts provided anonymously by forum users. I accept no liability for the accuracy of any such posts and users are advised that, if they wish to obtain formal legal advice specific to their case, they must seek instruct and pay a solicitor.0 -
My guess...
1. C did no certificate of service, so DJ only has the claim form (endorsed PoC to follow)
2. Whereas D receives full PoC and claim form and defends
3. Court orders C to serve PoC (not having them)
4. C simply re-serves original PoC (confusing everyone/ OP)
5. DJ orders defence should it need amendment in light of "new" PoC0 -
I don't think these comments are inconsistent.
FWIW I have never said the order was to strike. I said that most likely the order was made in response to the short form wording on the claim form. I make clear that the court would not have asked for or the same document to be served twice.
What we have is semantics. Implicit in the wording "full Particulars" is the fact that court has received an abbreviated form. I'm not sure my phrase "further and better particulars" means anything different on a plain English interpretation.
As an aside I think we're agreed both as to why the order was made and the reason for it. I will however take issue with your suggestion that I'm incorrect.
FWIW I think we are both not off the mark, the Judge did not have POCs in front of him.
I don't think I suggested you were 'incorrect'.
Typically though if 'new' or further and better POCs are ordered, then the original POCs are struck out.My guess...
1. C did no certificate of service, so DJ only has the claim form (endorsed PoC to follow)
2. Whereas D receives full PoC and claim form and defends
3. Court orders C to serve PoC (not having them)
4. C simply re-serves original PoC (confusing everyone/ OP)
5. DJ orders defence should it need amendment in light of "new" PoC
I think the above is probably more or less spot on unless of course the Judge/ court admin staff managed to tip a mug of coffee over the case folder...0 -
Ok so the D has an opportunity here to amend the defence. There’s nothing new to defend but if he thinks he’s missed things out they could now be added in. So the OP just needs to decide.Although a practising Solicitor, my posts here are NOT legal advice, but are personal opinion based on limited facts provided anonymously by forum users. I accept no liability for the accuracy of any such posts and users are advised that, if they wish to obtain formal legal advice specific to their case, they must seek instruct and pay a solicitor.0
-
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/73392110#Comment_73392110
Re your unresolved complaint, have a look at this threadAlthough a practising Solicitor, my posts here are NOT legal advice, but are personal opinion based on limited facts provided anonymously by forum users. I accept no liability for the accuracy of any such posts and users are advised that, if they wish to obtain formal legal advice specific to their case, they must seek instruct and pay a solicitor.0 -
@geordiejoiner
How did this case end up. Did they drop or did you settle?This is a system account and does not represent a real person. To contact the Forum Team email forumteam@moneysavingexpert.com0 -
The op hasn't logged in since last November.
Maybe a pm might alert him/her to your post here0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352.2K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.6K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.3K Spending & Discounts
- 245.3K Work, Benefits & Business
- 601K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.5K Life & Family
- 259.1K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards