Gladstone County Court Claim

Redx

his point is that you cannot state something that isnt there is true

if you have the map and you know that the part the vehicle was parked on is NOT a part of their land ownership, say so, ie:- say what you believe or know to be true based on your own paperwork (but the land registry wont have made a WS stating that their map is different to the claimants map , nor will they have seen any contract between a landowner and a PPC either- so dont say that)

later, in your WS, you can argue what you are saying by having an OPINION on it of your own, questioning their evidence in contrast to your own at that point and criticising their map, especially as this is the defence stage, not the evidence + WS stage

use tinypic and add the url on here, stop trying to circumvent the forum controls, this is not a hosting site, it is not a legal aid site , its a consumer advice site where unpaid volunteers can offer their opinions

azz007

Could I add these points around..

I got the local mp to write to MB to cancel the tickets at the time. Which they denied.

And I tried to settle with MB with a small fee. Prior to the claims.

Are those points worthy of adding into the defence?

Which shows unreasonable behavior.

Redx

personally, I would add them into your WS


IDEALLY YOU WANT THEM TO BACK DOWN, not offering them olive branches and not weakening your own case either

azz007

Redx wrote: »

personally, I would add them into your WS

I thought you can't add anything further on the WS later on if it wasn't mentioned on the defence on the first place

Redx

you cannot add a defence argument in the WS unless its been referred to in the defence

but your WS can aver what you know to be true or believe to be true

how you word the defence so that you can expand upon it later without compromising or weakening your position in the meantime is your current task


but earlier you implied that the Land Registry had stated something in their map which we dont believe that they did, it was your personal opinion, your argument, not theirs

azz007

Redx wrote: »

how you word the defence so that you can expand upon it later without compromising or weakening your position in the meantime is your current task

makes sense that , your right, im going to remove the land reg stuff and build the other points in

Redx

I believe you should state in your defence that the defendant (or driver) did not park on any land under their control and you have proof from the Land Registry

this would open the door for later

THE DEEP made a point about your wording, because he probably thought that you were stating that the Land Registry had made a comparison of both maps and stated in a WS that one had been altered. The LR dont do that as its beyond their remit (this isnt CSI or NCIS)

it is for you to opine that in your WS later, building on your defence

as for the settlement question, if you were willing to settle than this could have been before you found out that this wasnt their land to patrol, plus if you wanted to settle out of court you would go for mediation and then try to settle at whatever you offered, providing you or the driver were culpable

but if you believe that they have ticketed on land beyond their control due to you comparing their map to your LR map, then you would state your opinion in YOUR WS later down the line, having opened the door in your defence

azz007

Redx wrote: »

as for the settlement question, if you were willing to settle than this could have been before you found out that this wasnt their land to patrol, plus if you wanted to settle out of court you would go for mediation and then try to settle at whatever you offered, providing you or the driver were culpable

yes i did attempt to settle after popla failed , and this was before i got hold of the land reg.
when i asked if they were willing to settle , they ignored it and didn't respond. so now i can say no to mediation right. , it shouldnt affect my chances, just shows how unreasonable their behaviour is

Redx

agreed, as long as if asked you can explain why you now refuse ADR or to settle

ie:- you PAID for LR maps to check their claims and proved they have falsified their documents , or that it is your opinion, therefore you reserve the right to refuse mediation and to rescind any offers made in the light of the latest evidence that you paid for and obtained


hence why I thought that this should be in your WS later on, plus the evidence


you can open the door to it in your defence

nosferatu1001

7) is it £60 or £70? Did they definitely call it legal costs, and if so maybe mention when they did so ie in their letter of X date

10 I would lose th e last sentence and 10.1 goes entirely.
2b) You havent actually said they have failed to meet the conditions of POFA to hold the keeper liable, nor where they have falied to meet the requirements (in brief) - for example failing to serve in time, the NtK wasnt complete, etc

I do reckon you will need to aver that the claimant is issuing itckets on land they have no contract over, and I would put that as the first legal argument. It underpins everything.
13 im not a fan of unless you are making a counterclaim.

14 and 14.1 - no idea why you ask to strike twice.

You have 10 and 12 both talking about poor particulars. Shorten them and dont have them bizarreley seperated.

6) is rubbish as it stands. it is fodder for a WS. You need to rewrite this entirely, and start with the LEGAL ARGUMENT why you are not liable. If the issue is imsleading signage, STATE SO and dont hide it away

Legal argument: brief explanation of it and why it is relevant. Thats your pairing (tuple) in a defence