Southend Airport no stopping

John464

... or did someone else appear to be in difficulty so that the driver stopped to help?

valrossi

John464 said:

... or did someone else appear to be in difficulty so that the driver stopped to help?

I haven’t gone into the reason for stopping at this stage, I wasn’t driving. I have mentioned there was no clear directions to a set down/pick up spot.

valrossi

Coupon-mad said:

Nice - let;s hit VCS with a 52 point defence and three appendices to try to get this struck out.

Re-send the appendices at DQ stage as well, asking again for a Judge to strike the claim out for abuse of process as per the appendices.

Thanks, in the process of assembling it all and will send it off in the next few days.
Thanks for all your help.

valrossi

I submitted my defence on Sunday and received my DQ today with a date of submission by 26/03/20. I thought at first it was VCS as per the sticky but it was blank and stated to be filled out by the defendant. I will resubmit appendices as well.

valrossi

One question, I am going to serve my DQ and I’m going to include the abuse of process orders. I have to serve the DQ on VCS, do I serve the the abuse of process orders as well.

nosferatu1001

A general principle is of open dealing, so the court AND the claimant see all documents. 

TNA.Music

valrossi said:

16.      The Defendant is not the main/only driver of this vehicle and has no knowledge of any parking charge notice (‘PCN’) or letters. It is not established thus far, whether the car was parked or just stopped momentarily and caught by predatory ticketing.  It is not accepted that the location included prominent signs giving ‘adequate notice’ of the onerous parking charge. A compliant Notice to Keeper (‘NTK’) was not properly served in strict accordance with section 8 or 9 (as the case may be) of the POFA. 

Working on my defence based on this one and wandering if the statement "has no knowledge of any parking charge notice (‘PCN’) or letters" can stand if you are referring to these documents in later points? Am I missing something?

Coupon-mad

You are missing that underneath that, I say something like 'only use the above if true for your case'. 

It's not, so change that first sentence; admit to driving and say what happened if you want to take that stance.   Or don't admit to driving - your choice.

  #16 and #17 are for you to put in the facts (signage is already covered beneath it).  The facts are about what sort of car park it is and what the driver did (if you know) and what the contravention was, what letters arrived and when you first learned about it, etc.

TNA.Music

@Coupon-mad - Apologies, I obviously was not clear. Trying to point out what I think is a contradiction in @valrossi defence. In particular point 16, the statement "has no knowledge of any parking charge notice (‘PCN’) or letters". Further in his/hers defence valrossi refers to the content of these documents countering the above statement and the same is in you template. A bit confusing for me.

Coupon-mad

Then valrossi should have removed one or the other.  Certainly make yours make sense!