6 year old pcn county claim form received

Bookbug123

Emailed and posted a signed copy as no scanner available.

Have received their WS. ARGH! 45 pages as it includes all their evidence. Soooo, I'm feeling stressed by it. Turns out that I did reply to their original letters. I can't even remember this. My emails are in evidence bundle but all I said was that I denied being the driver abd any liability for the PCN. Is it going to matter that I engaged with them initially? They are relying on CPS Vs AJH films ltd to claim Keeper liability. I will look this case up on the forum this evening.
Second, they have a log of all parking tickets issued by the machine on the day. Their arguement states that my rvn ('or an rvn even remotely resembling it') does not show on the log. In fact it does but only the last 3 letters, purchased two mins after the car arrived. I have included in my WS an arguement about the machines being faulty/unreliable but was not relying on it heavily. I am now worrying I should have focused on this point more heavily?

Redx

I believe you can send in ANOTHER ws that makes comments about their WS and the points you raised above , so draft an addendum asap

cant see how they can still be using AJH Films as an argument , plenty of words exist about this so do a search for them

if a payment meter allows for incorrect registrations, plus if your VRM can be identified, then the payment was made and they accepted the varied contract based on taking the money for the ticket they issued to the vehicle known as "those last 3 letters"

Bookbug123

Oh really? I can still do an addendum?
That is good news. Back to it!

Coupon-mad

CPS v AJH Films is found by searching the forum for those words (not 'vs'). Been debunked loads of times in wording you can copy from other threads, and I think it was thrown out by the Judges in Excel v Lamoureux and Excel v Smith.

System

*CPS v AJH Films* is found by searching the forum for those words (not 'vs'). Been debunked loads of times in wording you can copy from other threads, and I think it was thrown out by the Judges in Excel v Lamoureux and Excel v Smith.

It would take a brave or incompetent judge to find in the Claimant's favour on CPS v AJH. Has it been used successfully against an individual rather than a company?

Bookbug123

Thank you all for being so helpful and supportive. I feel less freaked out by their WS today. I have been reading about CPS v AJH films and now feel more confident about defending against that argument. Its been debunked so many times, surely they can't use it.

Any thoughts on whether they will accept a late addendum to argue the case that the reg does show on the log, just not complete?

Also, do I need to be concerned that I had previously engaged with them and refused to give driver details. I was claiming to have ignored completely (because as far as I could remember, I did!).

Castle

IamEmanresu wrote: »

It would take a brave or incompetent judge to find in the Claimant's favour on CPS v AJH. Has it been used successfully against an individual rather than a company?

The only case I have ever found was Excel v Smith; which was then overturned on appeal:-
http://www.parking-prankster.com/more-case-law.html

nosferatu1001

By engaging with them and sasserting your RIGHT to not name the driver, that can only help you, of course.

"they" dont accept anything, its up to the courts. Personally I owuld just write it as part of the skellie.

Coupon-mad

Castle wrote: »

The only case I have ever found was Excel v Smith; which was then overturned on appeal:-
http://www.parking-prankster.com/more-case-law.html

Yep, the first Judge in Excel v Smith, 'brave?' 'incompetent?' or maybe just 'misled' by the party who were represented, who she listened to more. At least he got it overturned and so now we can use the transcript, being an appeal decision by a Circuit Judge with a little more weight behind it.

Bookbug123

Right, I've been looking at my defence and ws and also reading up on skeleton arguements. I shave already referred to Excel v Smith so I probably am not adding an evidence just arguing against theirs. So, I am now thinking (as suggested by Nosferatu1001) that rather that write an addendum, I will focus on writing my skeleton arguement to include the response to their WS. Does that sound ok? I'll then bring it back here for advice.