county court summons

Redx

that last pic, needs more work , so take it down first

blank out the claim form ref no , the VRM of the vehicle, and also the MCOL login password reference too

mary6157

[IMG][/img][IMG]hxxp://i64.tinypic.com/30w3z9y.jpg[/IMG]

[IMG][/img][IMG]hxxp://i65.tinypic.com/2meveah.jpg[/IMG]

[IMG][/img][IMG]hxxp://i64.tinypic.com/av2nt.jpg[/IMG]

Redx

signage pics


http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=2meveah&s=9#.W8CzLPZRdPY


http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=av2nt&s=9#.W8CzUfZRdPY

mary6157

[IMG][/img][IMG]hxxp://i64.tinypic.com/256si0k.jpg[/IMG]
claim form with details blanked out

mary6157

Thanks for all your prompt replies.
I will go and draft my defence and post back on this thread when complete.

Really grateful for your help so far.

Redx

mary6157 wrote: »

[IMG][/img][IMG]hxxp://i64.tinypic.com/256si0k.jpg[/IMG]
claim form with details blanked out

that seems ok

redacted claim form

http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=256si0k&s=9#.W8C1O_ZRdPY

The_Deep

This is an entirely unregulated industry which is scamming the public with inflated claims for minor breaches of contracts for alleged parking offences, aided and abetted by a handful of low-rent solicitors.

Parking Eye, CPM, Smart, and another company have already been named and shamed, as has Gladstones Solicitors, and BW Legal, (these two law firms take hundreds of these cases to court each year). They lose most of them, and have been reported to the regulatory authority by an M.P.
for unprofessional conduct

Hospital car parks and residential complex tickets have been especially mentioned.

The problem has become so rampant that MPs have agreed to enact a Bill to regulate these scammers. Watch the video of the Second Reading in the House of Commons recently

http://parliamentlive.tv/event/index/2f0384f2-eba5-4fff-ab07-cf24b6a22918?in=12:49:41 recently.

and complain in the most robust terms to your MP. With a fair wind they will be out of business by Christmas.

System

I'd like to offer an alternative to the "hide the driver" arguments suggested by Quentin and Red-x.

It does work sometimes but most time it doesn't. See #2 in my signature for what can happen.

A judge has a couple of bear traps he can lay for the unwary. The first is "balance of probabilities" (BoP) which gives him/her free reign to decide who was driving. And in one court you are made to swear an oath to say you were not driving.

The second trap is "adverse inference" which is where a judge is allowed to penalise a party if they feel they are being untruthful or hiding something.

In this case, if you hide the driver, it is perfectly possible for a judge to decide on BoP that you were the driver and the signs were clear by taking adverse inference from an unwillingness to be open about the issues.

But as always, free advice should be judged by its price.

Redx

a very good set of legal points there

I am only advising the OP to edit post #1 etc and the pictures in order to protect themselves from anyone using their posts on here against them

BUT, when it comes down to their DEFENCE, then as stated the OP has a choice to make


1) either they defend as KEEPER and not reveal who was driving and rely on POFA2012 etc (this strategy may come unstuck in the manner described by Iamemanresu above)

OR

2) they defend as driver and can attest to what happened on the day when no signage was seen (but is present in the photos on tinypic)




only the OP can decide which defence strategy to go for

and in some cases it is better to have a defence as the driver , so needs careful consideration

I am not legally qualified to make that choice, but I do believe that people should be careful what they write on public forums at the outset

Quentin

IamEmanresu wrote: »

I'd like to offer an alternative to the "hide the driver" arguments suggested by Quentin and Red-x.

It does work sometimes but most time it doesn't. See #2 in my signature for what can happen.

A judge has a couple of bear traps he can lay for the unwary. The first is "balance of probabilities" (BoP) which gives him/her free reign to decide who was driving. And in one court you are made to swear an oath to say you were not driving.

The second trap is "adverse inference" which is where a judge is allowed to penalise a party if they feel they are being untruthful or hiding something.

In this case, if you hide the driver, it is perfectly possible for a judge to decide on BoP that you were the driver and the signs were clear by taking adverse inference from an unwillingness to be open about the issues.

But as always, free advice should be judged by its price.

You misunderstood the thinking behind advising newbies to remain anonymous and not reveal who was driving. It's not intended to be the basis of the defence - though could be! (Think golden ticket)

Newbies often divulge their identity and the identity of the driver in an OP written in ignorance of the game.

When they are aware of the significance of revealing either the driver or their ID then they decide the way forward.

But initially there is no downside to keeping those details away from the PPC

Your disparaging comment regarding "free advice" is impolite and unnecessary