Advice county court claim, BW legal

Coupon-mad

 I have posted the contract here. Don't know why they would redact that part .Anything to question here? 

The fact it is redacted - search the forum for the 2020 Court of Appeal case about redaction of contracts (Chestnut something).

She confirmed by email that Link parking are not paid anything by Remus(MA) but they earn their money by issuing PCN. So, there. Is that even legal?

Normal for this scam industry, even though this is a protection racket style contract, a throwback to clamping.

The freeholder is some one else altogether who is not mentioned in the contract.

Massive point to make - this is not evidence of authority flowing from the landowner, which is required to get DVLA data.

Coupon-mad

But the point is, that example letter was not sent to you before the parking event.  It is irrelevant.

KeithP

jvf1000 said:

Could you please have a look at 22 of the WS. what is she trying to say here? 

You could've quoted it to save us looking for it.

The Defendant's appeal clearly acknowledges her to be the driver “I had parked” and yet the Defence is disingenuously indicating she is
Not the Registered Keeper
Denies the Defendant “..or lawful user”

Clearly they are saying that you have told them you are the driver. 
Once the driver is identified, any discussion about 'registered keeper' or 'lawful user' becomes irrelevant.

KeithP

KeithP said:

jvf1000 said:

Could you please have a look at 22 of the WS. what is she trying to say here? 

You could've quoted it to save us looking for it.

The Defendant's appeal clearly acknowledges her to be the driver “I had parked” and yet the Defence is disingenuously indicating she is
Not the Registered Keeper
Denies the Defendant “..or lawful user”

Clearly they are saying that you have told them you are the driver. 
Once the driver is identified, any discussion about 'registered keeper' or 'lawful user' becomes irrelevant.

I've now just re-read the whole of your thread.

I now realise (again - as the first two pages of this thread are cluttered with this discussion) that you are not the Defendant. You are not the driver, You have not received the Claimant's Witness Statement.

So the words in my recent post should be "...they are saying that the Defendant has told them that she is the driver".

Coupon-mad

jvf1000 said:

I got the impression that she is trying to imply to the court that I wasn't telling the truth. Registered keepers don't have to be the only ones to drive the vehicle. I am sure she is aware of that.

The witness is trying to say that and that section made me snort with laughter, to try to suggest that a Defendant who rightly says they are not the registered keeper, but has admitted to being the driver, is somehow lying.  I just ignored it.  Judges aren't stupid.

Redx

The claimant PPC can only obtain RK details once from the DVLA , within the first 6 months , under the Kadoe contract

They cannot go back for more licks of the ice-cream , one lick only

As pointed out above , there can be many drivers of a vehicle and some RK do not even drive or have a driving licence !! My friends grandson was an RK from 5 to 16 according to Motability , but only gained a driving licence in his late teens

It doesn't even come down to the household vehicle insurance either , because there are tens of thousands of insured drivers who can drive that vehicle on the road , traders , mechanics , police , ME !!

Parking companies and guttersnipe legals have blinkers on , one mantra only !!

Were_Doomed

What does your court order say? Normally it would be your Witness Statement and evidence, which you would file with the court and serve on the other party.

Coupon-mad

jvf1000 said:

Just to clarify,  what are the things that need to be sent 14 days before the remote court hearing?

The things you see in the only linked WS example.  Plus a copy of the defence at the moment, in case the Judge is working from home and doesn't have access to the defence.  But it depends what your order says on page two about who is to file a bundle and by when.

Umkomaas

jvf1000 said:

Yes, thanks for that. I think it  may de safer to add the defence too. Its a remote court hearing. How strange!

It's a remote hearing to avoid any of the participants infecting/being infected by one of the other parties in a face-to-face. You wouldn't want to walk away with a win ..... then spend weeks on a ventilator gasping for air!