County Court Claim Received - Daughter was the Driver

KeithP

Your PCN number and your vehicle's registration mark are both clearly visible in the first image in your most recent post.

Redx

only if they produce the original pcn that they issued, so not the one above because that is NOT an NTK, its a reminder because it tells you that you have failed to reply to the notice to keeper, meaning a previous letter

if they can show a previous pcn , as an NTK, presumably posted within 14 days, issued to the keeper after getting RK details from the DVLA, a judge may well take the view that it was issued and posted, because that is their core business and they issue hundreds or thousands daily , as I said , On The Blanace of Probabilities, because that is the rule a judge applies

they have to be more sure than not

the redacted one is a copy of the pcn issued ten days after the incident, in order to arrive by day 15 , the one you say never arrived , so that copy of the first pcn is the missing NTK that never arrived

Old_Bird_65

KeithP said:

Your PCN number and your vehicle's registration mark are both clearly visible in the first image in your most recent post.

Oh dear! I'm making a pigs ear of this!.... I was in a rush to dash out to the station, so didn't pay full attention. Will post them back properly in a minute.

Redx

in your redactions , add a note on the piece of paper doing the redacting to say copy of ntk front , copy of NTK rear , copy of reminder letter , or someting similar, so its easier to talk about them individually , redact all personal info , VRM , name , address , pcn reference etc

Old_Bird_65

Okay, I think These are all safe now! Thanks for noticing! 

Old_Bird_65

Redx said:

only if they produce the original pcn that they issued, so not the one above because that is NOT an NTK, its a reminder because it tells you that you have failed to reply to the notice to keeper, meaning a previous letter

if they can show a previous pcn , as an NTK, presumably posted within 14 days, issued to the keeper after getting RK details from the DVLA, a judge may well take the view that it was issued and posted, because that is their core business and they issue hundreds or thousands daily , as I said , On The Blanace of Probabilities, because that is the rule a judge applies

they have to be more sure than not

the redacted one is a copy of the pcn issued ten days after the incident, in order to arrive by day 15 , the one you say never arrived , so that copy of the first pcn is the missing NTK that never arrived

Yes, I knew this was the PCN that I was supposed to have received but I've only recently discovered that a PCN and NTK can be one and the same thing.  I think it's a bit misleading too that the reminder letter was labelled 'Letter of Notification Regarding Keeper Liability'. 
A Copy of this PCN is in CEL's evidence bundle.
I'm hoping that this won't be the most significant issue, but that it can be more about the fact that the phone system wasn't working. 
Anyway, I'll re-do my WS to reflect our conversations, but I'm being called away from the computer now, so it may have to wait until the morning.
Thanks again for all your help (and patience!)

Redx

Those are better , helpful too

I agree that the names of the paperwork need to be improved , to prevent confusion , but unless the government Mhclg define the names in the new CoP it's a case of being the way it is

It's clear that CEL produced an NTK , the first postal notice , the one you say never arrived , only a judge can decide on probabilities , but it seems that popla ruled on the same issue due to it being included in the evidence pack

So do not be surprised if a judge accepts it and says , move on

Old_Bird_65

Thanks Redx...  I'll pray the truth wins! 

Coupon-mad

Half day parking in Lewes: 

Don't park in Eastgate Wharf!  We are helping soooo many people caught by predatory CCTV there, operated by OPS.  So steer clear (literally!).

Do you want support at your hearing and when is it?  Myself and ParkingMad are local ladies who rock up to assist people at their hearings, for free.  You ain't seen nothing yet regarding pedantic middle aged women till you meet us two, hahaha!

Re the Supplementary WS I feel it misses out the crux of the argument - it is meant to reiterate the words I wrote in beamerguy's Abuse of Process thread, that the Claimant 'knew or should have known' three things relating to adding £82.  The 3 things that kill that are the POFA, the CRA 2015 Sch2 and the Beavis case three quotes in paras 98.193 and 198.  

And it is only the added £82 that is the issue, not the £75 or the interest (both OK fees/interest) so you need to remove that bit.

In evidence put the attached (linky) Skipton case judgment in as well, and if you can hang on a day (?) I will post the Southampton transcript I promised to post here that I now have, that explains all about the strike out reasoning.

Old_Bird_65

Thanks for the parking warning Coupon-Mad.... I will choose my spot very carefully!
That's very kind of you to offer to support me at the hearing - it's on Wed 18th March at 11.30am. So, would you be allowed to speak in the court?  It would be a shame to keep pedantic middle aged women silent! I will have a good look at the Skipton link and try and sort out my paragraph about the £82. Yes, I'm sure I can hang on a day for the Southampton transcript too.
Thanks again for all the help - I would be completely lost without this forum!