Is it too late?

whitepatch

Coupon-mad wrote: »

LOL, yes it is too late if it's already set aside!


Yes, this is the main hearing (they should forget the CCJ, that's in the past).

Yes please show us a link to their full WS (with your name/address and car VRN, etc, covered). Best to scan everything and host in Dropbox, then reply here with a share link from Dropbox to the pics.

If you still can't post URL links, change the http to hxxp and add gaps.

So it is safe for me to remove all regarding the default judgement?

Dropbox isn't letting me share the file.

So I have hosted here... https://www.pdfhost.net/index.php?Action=Download&File=23c6a3a6e8f3f5901a3edab1874bf3bb

Let me know if you can see it?

Le_Kirk

That is not Dropbox, it is something called pdf host.

whitepatch

https://www.dropbox.com/s/6fcbf732x7pyume/Bundle%20the%20approved%2C%20signed%20statement%20with%20the%20exhibits%283%29.pdf?dl=0

I think this should work!??

Le_Kirk

Yep, that's got it!

Coupon-mad

Have they got the dates wrong in #8, as they say 2017, yet earlier they say 2016?

If you like, send me a pm as I see this is close to my area of West Sussex and if I am free I might be able to attend with you.

whitepatch

Le_Kirk wrote: »

That is not Dropbox, it is something called pdf host.

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Have they got the dates wrong in #8, as they say 2017, yet earlier they say 2016?

If you like, send me a pm as I see this is close to my area of West Sussex and if I am free I might be able to attend with you.

I think they are referring to the default judgement in November 2017. The actual parking incidents took place in 2016.

Yes I will do, that will be amazing, Thank you!!

whitepatch

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Have they got the dates wrong in #8, as they say 2017, yet earlier they say 2016?

If you like, send me a pm as I see this is close to my area of West Sussex and if I am free I might be able to attend with you.

Sorry, yes they have got the dates wrong, it should be 2016.

nosferatu1001

Your WS NOW is to support why you are not liable for the parking charge
The reason why the DEFAULT judgement should be set aside may be similar, however the intent behind this WS is not the same as for the CCJ set aside.

It must support your *defence* to the claim.

Coupon-mad

The evidence and WS is very sparse and the landowner contract has the signatory redacted, it's not dated, and does not look like a 2011 agreement. Looks as mocked up as the 'PCN' reprint rubbish.

It's also signed (anonymously) by a Managing Agent who may or may not have been the MA in 2011 when they say the contract started...pre-POFA then, when UKCPM were clampers.

There are also no definitions, times and days of enforcement, nothing about the agreement of what UKCPM are to do and who is responsible for what, and nothing in evidence to show whether there is a chain of authority from the landowner allowing this enforcement years later in 2016.

The photos show no signs in view, and what looks like a bay, plus the words 'NO PARKING' but no contract.

Plenty of the bays and roads are not within UKCPM's remit as per their own evidence and there is nothing to show exactly where within the mixed harbour estate, the car actually was, and it certainly was not near any UKCPM sign or the ticketer would have photographed it.

Is that the full extent of their photo evidence? No signs in situ?!

I sent a pm to this OP - advised her to use Jopson (re the loading) and Bull (re the prohibition on parking).

whitepatch

nosferatu1001 wrote: »

Your WS NOW is to support why you are not liable for the parking charge
The reason why the DEFAULT judgement should be set aside may be similar, however the intent behind this WS is not the same as for the CCJ set aside.

It must support your *defence* to the claim.

Okay, so their points as to why they entered the default judgement (about addresses and letters sent) are not relevant at this stage?