Are they taking this as notice of ownership?

D_P_Dance

There is nothing wrong with adding an e, in fact it was, when I was a member, the preferred spelling in HM Diplomatic Service,  Read this. 

https://www.dictionary.com/e/judgement-vs-judgment/

Richard_Snowden

UPDATE
Today I have received an extensive reply from BW Legal regarding the parking charges they have been pursuing me for the past few years. 
The letter details the background, core terms and conditions of the parking space and the following in relation to THE BREACH:
'The enclosed photographs taken by the parking attendant shows your vehicle breaching the terms and conditions as the permit displayed in the dashboard of the vehicle was invalid'
It goes on to say 'Photocopied permits are not valid, an example of a valid permit is enclosed. For example, the material of the permit is static which cling to windscreens. It can therefore be seen clearly that the permit displayed was a photocopy and therefore not a valid permit.'

As a result of the breach, Our client is well within their contractual rights to issue the PCNs and take all necessary steps to recover the outstanding charge.
It then talks about the fact that a large amount of my defence has been copied and pasted from an external source (allegedly) and it is therefore nonsensical and entirely irrelevant.
It draws fact to the Vehicle Control Services Limited v Alfred Charles Crutchley case relating to the terms of the parking.
It then goes on for a further two pages in regards to my defence and how it would be looked at on a case by case matter, not based on past rulings.
Finally (towards the end of their lengthy document) they have given a final offer, reducing the amount from £660.13 to £520.00 otherwise they will proceed with the claim with a view to obtain a CCJ.

nosferatu1001

Is this their useless 11 pages? 
Search for the nonsensical term
Of c0ourse theyll try to get a CCJ. Its the b loody point of court (in theory)
Doesnt mean they have any context. 

Coupon-mad

UPDATE
Today, as expected, I have received the template reply BW Legal tweak for everyone.

Corrected the above for you!  I never want to see that tedious letters again.

Please, please, please...spare us...just search the forum for 'nonsensical'.

Richard_Snowden

Thank you all for your help thus far.
I've been on the MCOL website today and I can see the status has been updated as below:
Your claim was transferred to SOUTHAMPTON on 08/06/2020
Should I start preparing for my day in court?
Thanks again.

KeithP

Richard_Snowden said:

Should I start preparing for my day in court?

Of course. Continue to follow the guidance in the NEWBIES thread.

D_P_Dance

Search for videos of mock hearings on You Tube

Le_Kirk

D_P_Dance said:

Search for videos of mock hearings on You Tube

............ or use this one which is posted regularly on this forum by @KeithP (and others): -
www.youtube.com/watch?v=n93eoaxhzpU

Richard_Snowden

So I have received a letter yesterday from the courts with the following ruling:
The claim is struck out as an abuse of process.
It states that the claim contains a substantial charge additional to the parking charges which it is alleged the Defendant contracted to pay and goes on to say that this additional charge is not recoverable under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4 nor with reference to the judgement in Parking Eve v Beavis.

Thank you all for your support in this process and helping me fight my corner.

nosferatu1001

Nice!
which court, claim number etc?