2 MCOL in the space of weeks @Coupon-mad could you help please?

happysue

Is this is ok to submit now?, anyone disagree?

Coupon-mad

Vehicle Control Services LIMITED (Claimant)

Please see exhibit 1, that shows screen shots from Google maps.

No exhibits or attachments at all are to accompany a defence.

2 MCOL in the space of weeks

Two claims, both from VCS? If so, then you need to add the words you will find when you search for:

two claims? abuse of process consolidated

Redx

the first instance of IPC should be in brackets and preceded by the full name of that trade body , thereby establishing what the acronym actually means

as mentioned above, no exhibits at this stage, they will be mentioned and exhibited later in the process at the WS + EXHIBITS + COSTS ORDER stage

happysue

Coupon-mad wrote: »

No exhibits or attachments at all are to accompany a defence.

Two claims, both from VCS? If so, then you need to add the words you will find when you search for:

two claims? abuse of process consolidated

Thanks for your help. The defence has now been edited. The other Mcol is from Horizon Parking!

happysue

Redx wrote: »

the first instance of IPC should be in brackets and preceded by the full name of that trade body , thereby establishing what the acronym actually means

as mentioned above, no exhibits at this stage, they will be mentioned and exhibited later in the process at the WS + EXHIBITS + COSTS ORDER stage

Thanks for your helped. The defence has now been edited.

happysue

The defence is now ready and will be submitted my 4pm today. Thanks Again

KeithP

You've found an old name for the IPC.
It's at least three years since they were known as the Independent Parking Committee. Look at their website for an up to date name.

I don't know what link is hiding behind "LINK HAD TO BE DELETED", but I suspect the IPC CoP.
You don't have evidence in a defence. A short extract of the IPC CoP should be evidence referred to in your Witness Statement - later in the process.

happysue

KeithP wrote: »

You've found an old name for the IPC.
It's at least three years since they were known as the Independent Parking Committee. Look at their website for an up to date name.

I don't know what link is hiding behind "LINK HAD TO BE DELETED", but I suspect the IPC CoP.
You don't have evidence in a defence. A short extract of the IPC CoP should be evidence referred to in your Witness Statement - later in the process.

Edited thank you

Coupon-mad

Too many ''ofs''!

of which the Defendant was the registered keeper of,

And add in a section saying that VCS had to comply with the POFA if they wanted to hold a rk liable and had not identified the driver, and they did not do so in 2015.

That wording is found in other defences to copy from and I seem to recall the residential defence example by solicitor poster, JOHNERSH (as linked in the NEWBIES thread in the defence examples) has the POFA point written to a tee.

happysue

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Too many ''ofs''!


And add in a section saying that VCS had to comply with the POFA if they wanted to hold a rk liable and had not identified the driver, and they did not do so in 2015.

That wording is found in other defences to copy from and I seem to recall the residential defence example by solicitor poster, JOHNERSH (as linked in the NEWBIES thread in the defence examples) has the POFA point written to a tee.

Thank you, that was a great example