county court claim form

Coupon-mad

the SAR from PPC is just showing a notice to keeper letter, transfer of liability on the back of the letter, the original PCN

Now I am confused, why have you mentioned the transfer of liability on the back, when you said you are the registered keeper:

Eminowa wrote: »

i am getting confused now... in regards to that, the PPC are pursuing the registered keeper/ driver because they don't really know who parked on the premises.

Do you mean the transfer of liability wasn't done, or that it was a lease/hire vehicle and you were not actually the rk?

Eminowa

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Now I am confused, why have you mentioned the transfer of liability on the back, when you said you are the registered keeper:


Do you mean the transfer of liability wasn't done, or that it was a lease/hire vehicle and you were not actually the rk?

Yes they are pursuing the register/keeper of the vehicle, on my SAR from the PPC, they included a NTK letter and on the back of the NTK is a form to fill for transfer of liability, i didn't even receive this letter,(NTK) so i didn't fill any of the form neither did i response to it, as i only just received it as part of my SAR now.
on my defence i have admitted in been the driver and keeper of the vehicle. just so you know, but i didn't fill any form for transfer of liability whatsoever if that make sense now

twhitehousescat

and they got my address from Experian

ahh , a valid reason under POFa to transfer liability to you

Eminowa

Do you mean the transfer of liability wasn't done, or that it was a lease/hire vehicle and you were not actually the rk

these are just letter that came as part of my SAR, i didn't fill any of these documents back to them, am just mentioning what the PPC has sent to me as SAR, which is NTK, and on the Back of the NTK is a form to fill for transfer of liability, but nothing was filled. i didn't even receive this NTK until now

Coupon-mad

how do i gather evidences as the PCN happened in Swindon,

Google Street View for the signs (you can change the date on GSV).

And reading the NEWBIES thread 2nd post, for tips about typical evidence cases.

Eminowa

i was researching other thread for my WS and i came acoss this statement

I didn't realise that under Rule 9 and 10.3(1)(a) I should not have returned my AoS until after the further PoC were served, nor should I have filed my Defence until I had sight of the Claimant’s case. My Defence was served on 25th October, the PoC served on 3rd November (8 days later than they should have been served according to rule 7.4(1)(b)). The reason that I filed my AoS and Defence earlier than I needed to was because MCOL sent me the response/defence pack with the Claim Form, whereas it shouldn't have been provided to me until the further PoC were served (rule 7.8(1)(a), which was rather misleading and led me to believe I had to acknowledge and defend with urgency.
My understanding of the rules is that the Claimant may not file the Particulars late, and the sanctions in Rule 3.8 apply unless it applies for relief under Rule 3.9 (which, to my knowledge, it has not done). Consequently, the court should not allow the further Particulars of Claim unless and until the Claimant makes that application, or the court gives directions.

what does this imply pls? does it mean after you receive a claim form with a respond pack from the county court, that the PPC has to still send you their own PoC too?

KeithP

Eminowa wrote: »

i was researching other thread for my WS and i came acoss this statement

what does this imply pls? does it mean after you receive a claim form with a respond pack from the county court, that the PPC has to still send you their own PoC too?

No it does not mean that.

It means that if the Claimant has instead of stating the PoC on the Claim Form, has opted to send them later, then technically one should not file the AoS until the PoC has been received by the Claimant.

In your case, were the PoC stated in the Particulars of Claim box on the Claim Form or not?

As you filed your AoS a month ago, and have already filed your Defence, this has no relevance.

Coupon-mad

You are reading something irrelevant to you.

Eminowa

I love this forum, everything been said is exactly what is happening, Gladstone has sent me a letter saying their client wishes to process to court, they also sent me a DQ stating a special direction to be heard on paper without an oral hearing as usual. I am smiling because I have been waiting for it, because I have read the newbies forum. I will be declining anyway.
I have got a question please, so base on my case, what do I base my argument on so I can win? when writing my WS and drafting my Skeleton argument, so I can start working and doing more research on it.
As for the DQ , I will give it till Wednesday next week for the court to send me my DQ, if not I will download mine and send it.

beamerguy

Eminowa wrote: »

I love this forum, everything been said is exactly what is happening, Gladstone has sent me a letter saying their client wishes to process to court, they also sent me a DQ stating a special direction to be heard on paper without an oral hearing as usual. I am smiling because I have been waiting for it, because I have read the newbies forum. I will be declining anyway.
I have got a question please, so base on my case, what do I base my argument on so I can win? when writing my WS and drafting my Skeleton argument, so I can start working and doing more research on it.
As for the DQ , I will give it till Wednesday next week for the court to send me my DQ, if not I will download mine and send it.

Yes, the rubbish from Gladstones even puts a smile on local rats

Heard on papers give them a 50-50 chance because they are now unsure of their claim. That's what happens when they push the Robo Claim button .... they don't have a f**king clue

Whereas when you win in court, it's 100% in your favour with costs to claim against Gladstones.

As they will probably send "green horns" to court, with a good defence and getting the judge on your side from the very start, you can zap them

But, such a letter could mean that shortly they will discontinue because they know their claim is cr*p

Gladstones are just a worn out book, just like the other dodgy legals