Court Claim PCN

Coupon-mad

WinWin wrote: »

they also say:

Despite having ample opportunity to do so the Defendant failed to identify the driver either adequately or all. The Court is therefore invited to conclude it more likely than not that the Registered Keeper(ie, the Defendant) was the driver.

They always say that, it's not true. You will hopefully know to rebut that with the words of Henry Greenslade. Easy peasy.

Are you in time to do your own WS, going by the letter from the court that gave the hearing date?

WinWin

Hi Coupon-mad

Yes in time. Just rather a long defense from them. Thank you, I will have a read

Coupon-mad

You will probably find a WS already written that might suit adapting, by searching the forum for:

Greenslade Witness Statement

Lamilad

It's not their "defence" it's a witness statement. Post it up here via a Dropbox link or similar.

I'm guessing you haven't got long to get your own WS in?

WinWin

hearing is early March and it says WS two weeks prior at the latest.

Hope I got this right. Allocation notice says:

To prepare for the hearing IT IS ORDERED THAT:

Each party must deliver to every other party and to the court office copies of all documents(including any experts reports) on which they intend to rely at the hearing no later than 14 days before the hearing.

Does that mean I got till mid Feb to get WS to court and claimant?

WinWin

Lamilad : Can I attach with Outlook OneDrive?

KeithP

WinWin wrote: »

Can I attach with Outlook OneDrive?

Host it where you like, except photobucket, then post a link here.

WinWin

Hi

Here is the link to my Gladstones Witness Statement

pix.sfly.com/6cHYDPDk

I did send a request for further information which I received no response(they are claiming they never received) and alledge keeper liability

Hoping your can give me some pointers

Many thanks

WinWin

sorry, meant WS from them

Coupon-mad

OK but what about their evidence that the parking fee was 'underpaid'? What did they attach?

The WS is a completely ludicrous Gladstones template, trotted out in every case with slight tweaks.

You will need to debunk 'Elliott v Loake' (search the forum for 'Loake' and use 'advanced search' and change it to 'show POSTS' (not threads). Debunk their statement that the keeper has somehow failed by not naming the driver (they don't have to, and why would anyone throw a relative to the parking sharks by naming them as driver, this removing the keeper protection - vague though it is - in Schedule 4?).