County Court claim form

Coupon-mad

luxardo wrote: »

Every single post I have made on this forum is factual, unlike the barrack room lawyer advice you spout.

What's factual about plaintiff? There are no 'plaintiffs' in these cases.

What's factual about your allegation of perjury and other alarmist stuff?

What's factual or OK about you telling people to pay a scam knuckledragging firm?

Which PPC do you think you 'work' for? No-one there actually has a real job.

Coupon-mad

Disgruntled_parker wrote: »

Yes the defendant submitted a copy of the PCN which had two photo's on there, neither of which indicate it's the defendants vehicle. This was submitted in the WS, however if the claimant pulls other photos out the bag (such as everything requested in a SAR), can these not be dismissed.

No, not if they file it with a WS in time. They will have more photos.

Except in very rare cases with a serious lack of any photos - and UKCPM do not do that - your defence is certainly not 'prove it's my car'.

Disgruntled_parker

Coupon-mad wrote: »

No, not if they file it with a WS in time.

My point exactly. The notice of allocation gives clear direction of a deadline for the claimant to submit a WS to the COURT and to the DEFENDANT. That deadline has long gone and the defendant has not received anything. Are these rules actually set in stone or just a rough guide? The defendant in this case has done everything as requested. The Claimant has not>

I read a post on here the other day with someone asking for help with regards to filing a WS a day late. Glad rags at that time wrote to them saying they dismiss this WS as it was late.

luxardo

Coupon-mad wrote: »

What's factual about plaintiff? There are no 'plaintiffs' in these cases.

What's factual about your allegation of perjury and other alarmist stuff?

What's factual or OK about you telling people to pay a scam knuckledragging firm?

Which PPC do you think you 'work' for? No-one there actually has a real job.

What do you mean there are no plaintiffs ? Of course there is a plaintiff, it's a CCJ hearing there is a plaintiff (the parking firm) and a defendant (the poster). It just shows your total ignorance of litigation if you think there is no plaintiff.
Perjury ? Yes, lying on oath is perjury. Saying it's not your car when it clearly is amounts to perjury.
I don't work for any parking firm and I've successfully defended many cases like this. In fact I am in court with KLM next week. I really wish you would read my posts, all I suggest is that sometimes the risk to reward ratio is not there and it's easier to pay up.

Coupon-mad

Disgruntled_parker wrote: »

Just sent the C an email asking for discontinuance. Im not expecting them to reply, however if they don't reply, can the defendant use this as evidence as an attempt to end the claim which they ignored.

Just to pull this back on topic, the OP has not received any WS or evidence from the other side an has emailed as above to tell them this as a fact, and will use that email as evidence.

waamo

luxardo wrote: »

What do you mean there are no plaintiffs ? Of course there is a plaintiff, it's a CCJ hearing there is a plaintiff (the parking firm) and a defendant (the poster). It just shows your total ignorance of litigation if you think there is no plaintiff.
Perjury ? Yes, lying on oath is perjury. Saying it's not your car when it clearly is amounts to perjury.
I don't work for any parking firm and I've successfully defended many cases like this. In fact I am in court with KLM next week. I really wish you would read my posts, all I suggest is that sometimes the risk to reward ratio is not there and it's easier to pay up.

It's a claimant not a plaintiff.

Disgruntled_parker

waamo wrote: »

It's a claimant not a plaintiff.

:rotfl: ha

beamerguy

luxardo wrote: »

In fact I am in court with KLM next week. I really wish you would read my posts, all I suggest is that sometimes the risk to reward ratio is not there and it's easier to pay up.

Let's hope KLM give you a free plane ride to Holland so you can pester someone else.

Your rubbish is just that ... rubbish, grow up

Disgruntled parker ...... ignore luxardo. Every now and again we get trolls on here spreading fake news

luxardo

Oh wow POTATO POTATOE !!!!! Claimant/Plaintiff. I notice you don't make any comment on my other fact about perjury. And I am far from a troll. I'm someone with a lot more legal experience and training both practical and theoretical than anyone on this forum.

beamerguy

luxardo wrote: »

Oh wow POTATO POTATOE !!!!! Claimant/Plaintiff. I notice you don't make any comment on my other fact about perjury. And I am far from a troll. I'm someone with a lot more legal experience and training both practical and theoretical than anyone on this forum.

:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl: DOUBT THAT ???