CC Claim - BW Legal Help!

Lynxy

The_Deep wrote: »

Elliot v Loake was a criminal case which hinged on forensic evidence, (flakes of paint from one vehicle found on another). It has nothing to do with private parking charges.

Ok fair do, i will take this out.

Coupon-mad

Pepipoo - http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?

Still no link to your thread. That's just the forum, we know where to find pepipoo.

Originally Posted by The Deep
Elliot v Loake was a criminal case which hinged on forensic evidence, (flakes of paint from one vehicle found on another). It has nothing to do with private parking charges.

Ok fair do, i will take this out.

Yes take it out, but only because it makes no sense to argue against something they haven't actually said!

This is a pack of lies so DO NOT put this in a defence! Remove #2, 2.1, 2.2, 2.3 and 2.4.

2.1. The identity of the driver of the vehicle on the date in question has not been ascertained. The Claimant has not identified the driver. The Defendant does not know who the driver was. He has made reasonable enquiries of third parties who were authorised to drive the said vehicle at the time of the alleged incident. None have admitted that they were the driver because they cannot remember, and the Defendant cannot remember who used the car on the 20 October 2018, a date more than 8 months ago. The Defendant has no means of finding out who the driver was, and is not obliged to do so by the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 or any other legislation, or pursuant to any contractual obligation.

Remove any ''I'' and change to the third person 'The Defendant' such as here:

I refer you

You might struggle with this case unless the Judge is with you on the matter of trespass and agrees with PACE v Lengyel. I see a fairly clear image of a car parked next to a sign - not good, never do that on private land (that just means any 'non Council land' and has no special meaning - so no reply like so many posters do, saying 'I didn't know it was private land' - after all you parked right next to a sign!).

So, how about replacing #2 with a point about the Claimant not allowing the mandatory 'grace period' and only showing evidence of the car there for two minutes (or whatever the gap was between all the photos) which is insufficient time to have allowed the driver to have gone upstairs(?) to the flat being visited, and fetch a visitor's permit that cannot possibly have been in the driver's possession on arrival, as such a suitable grace period for permitted authorised visitors to the residents must be allowed.

You can also add something saying the Notice to Keeper is not worded properly for keeper liability in that it misstates the warning from 8(2)f of the POFA by saying 'within 28 days' and paraphrases the strictly prescribed words wrongly, so that the NTK effectively misinforms the recipient about their liability as keeper, and is premature about it, by 2-4 days when compared to the 8(2)f wording...

...which you need to read and understand!

What date in November does the NTK say it was posted? You blanked the date off.

The_Deep

£240 is far more than the Law allows for this sort of claim. The down market solicitors whom the PPCs engage know this, but, because they are solicitors, know that a lot of people will pay up.

It is in fact double charging and non claimable debt collectors' add ons. Imo, this is fraud, or, at the very least, improper conduct.

Lynxy

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Still no link to your thread. That's just the forum, we know where to find pepipoo.

Sorry, I thought I pasted the link.
Here it is again --> http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=123629&st=20

Ok, I will remove
-- sections, #2, 2.1, 2.2, 2.3 and 2.4
-- any references to "I".
-- PACE v Lengyel.

I will revise #2 as suggested.
And add the section about NTK not worded properly.

What date in November does the NTK say it was posted? You blanked the date off

22nd of November.

Quentin

Are your initials **?

Lynxy

Quentin wrote: »

Are your initials **?

Why do you ask? Have I missed and not blacked it out?

Quentin

You need to take down all your Dropbox links here and elsewhere where you have posted them

Each one reveals your full name

Also edit the quote in your above post

Lynxy

Quentin wrote: »

You need to take down all your Dropbox links here and elsewhere where you have posted them

Each one reveals your full name

Also edit the quote in your above post

Done - I had no idea dropbox shared such info :wall:

Quentin

Not done properly

You need to remove the links as advised

Lynxy

Quentin wrote: »

Not done properly

You need to remove the links as advised

I have removed the links from DropBox and also deleted the folder so any existing links, it wont be available. Trying to contact the moderator on Pepipoo to allow me to edit the original post (although links are already dead)