Double Parking Charge Notice for "Not displaying a valid permit"

Were_Doomed

Your choice of course ... you're only potentially limiting the help you could receive, but if you're OK with that who am I to complain? (Have you not seen the many other threads where people have happily complied with the request, and seen the subsequent really useful observations that have followed?)

pastacolg

Am I still within the required time frame if the hearing is on 20 November and I will send my WS tonight?

Fruitcake

I don't understand why you won't show their exhibits including photos and signage or even the name of the paralegal who signed the WS. 
You still haven't told us if you received a copy of the scammer's alleged contract with the landowner or MA.

Without sight of the redacted portions of their WS and exhibits, I have decided to bow out of this thread.

pastacolg

@Fruitcake would you be comfortable if someone posted online your signature you use for banking, contracts, etc? I want to protect that.

I'll post the agreement shortly. It's very weak so I'll built a nice WS around that too.

The solicitors are BW Legal.

pastacolg

Here it is. It's very short and it's not as strong as I had thought before. Which is great!

pastacolg

And their appeal response. When I read the underlined passages it boils my blood again. That's why I vowed to not pay them a penny.

Umkomaas

pastacolg said:

Here it is. It's very short and it's not as strong as I had thought before. Which is great!

No authority to pursue this to court in their own right (or even on the part of the landowner). 

Were_Doomed

Umkomaas said:

pastacolg said:

Here it is. It's very short and it's not as strong as I had thought before. Which is great!

No authority to pursue this to court in their own right (or even on the part of the landowner). 

Bingo! You undermine their claim from the outset - pointing out that their claim has no legal foundation and therefore must be struck out. You also pursue this as unreasonable behaviour because they should have known (and their legal representatives must have known - they are supposed to be the experts after all) that the claim had no foundation (no contractual authority to pursue the alleged debt via court) therefore they have wasted both the defendant's and the court's time on a wild goose chase.

pastacolg

How come they have no authority when it's explicitly stated that they are the enforcers of the PCN on this land? I would argue that they cannot enforce the payment from permit holders.

I have already lost a case in the same car park but with Gladstones (for a silly reason though) https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/75326732/#Comment_75326732

Granted I had not questioned their authority in the WS but I think I did so in my Defence. The judge didn't question it.

pastacolg

I'm thinking of bringing the following weak yet a common sense argument that the claimant acted in bad faith. As a parking employee must have had seen my car at the same spot many, many times throughout weeks prior the contravention - unless it was their first week of work at that car park.