County Court Business Centre query

davemdavid

Ralph-y said:

yes redact anything that outs your GF ...

what is the court like ...

 Have a look at this short video:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=n93eoaxhzpU

As stated earlier you may well get help on the day from CM ..... you would be absolutely bonkers not to take any such offers of help.

Ralph

In that case i've barely made any changes - anyway here is the redacted version. 

Redx

davemdavid said:

Le_Kirk said:

Quickly take down that document, it contains your case reference and the defendant's name - unless it is a dummy name.  It needs redacting!!!!

I was told I could post the defence - so I need to blank out the name etc? 

Yes , but it's her draft defence , whereby identifiers are removed or xxxx out until the final version , nobody on here wants to know her VRM, or court case number , or PCN reference , or her name and address etc

I hope your job in life is not data protection lol 😉

davemdavid

Coupon-mad said:

davemdavid said:

Ok spoken to her again. She is happy to proceed with the defence and see if it makes the other party drop their claim. She still has no intention of going to court though, even if in Brighton (where she lives) - at that point she/we would back out and pay the outstanding invoice owed. 

Given the above, is there any point in me filing a defence for her? ie what are the chances that : a) the claimant will back down; b) if not (a), the chances of her having to go to court? 

Even if I go with her (I am a retired local-ish woman who used to work in a school) and if I speak for her, arguing her case for her (the Defendant has to sit with me)? 

I do that at Brighton court, free, for posters here.   It's like being in a formal meeting.  That's why I asked you in March if it was in Sussex, because I help people in court.

It is DEFINITELY worth putting the defence in.  DEFINITELY.  It saves her £60 straight away by virtue of removing the fake sum, and might even see the case struck out or discontinued with no hearing at all, in the end.  

No point folding now.  No costs escalate and she has every chance of winning.

Coupon-mad said:

davemdavid said:

Ok spoken to her again. She is happy to proceed with the defence and see if it makes the other party drop their claim. She still has no intention of going to court though, even if in Brighton (where she lives) - at that point she/we would back out and pay the outstanding invoice owed. 

Given the above, is there any point in me filing a defence for her? ie what are the chances that : a) the claimant will back down; b) if not (a), the chances of her having to go to court? 

Even if I go with her (I am a retired local-ish woman who used to work in a school) and if I speak for her, arguing her case for her (the Defendant has to sit with me)? 

I do that at Brighton court, free, for posters here.   It's like being in a formal meeting.  That's why I asked you in March if it was in Sussex, because I help people in court.

It is DEFINITELY worth putting the defence in.  DEFINITELY.  It saves her £60 straight away by virtue of removing the fake sum, and might even see the case struck out or discontinued with no hearing at all, in the end.  

No point folding now.  No costs escalate and she has every chance of winning.

Ok wow, thanks. Sounds too good to be true, but I won't ask why. I'll move things forward then, no harm other my own time! -  I'm meant to be at work. Appreciate all the help though. Ive just posted a redacted defence, it took me 10 mins, so I have a feeling I have missed something (no doubt ). 

davemdavid

Redx said:

davemdavid said:

Le_Kirk said:

Quickly take down that document, it contains your case reference and the defendant's name - unless it is a dummy name.  It needs redacting!!!!

I was told I could post the defence - so I need to blank out the name etc? 

Yes , but it's her draft defence , whereby identifiers are removed or xxxx out until the final version , nobody on here wants to know her VRM, or court case number , or PCN reference , or her name and address etc

I hope your job in life is not data protection lol 😉

Thankfully not! 

Coupon-mad

this Claimant is claiming a global sum of £177.51

Change back to £160, unless the bit on the LEFT (not the right) of the claim form says £170?

Your case is the same as all the other OPS ones and has added £60 on the left, surely?   Your gf's defence is not objecting to the interest.  That's why the template defence says it is 'usually £160 and is a figure in whole pounds'.

Also change all the red to black of course.  It's not meant to be in bold/red in the finished defence.

You haven't added any facts for #16 and #17. 
She needs to say what happened, admit to driving and talk in that part about some basic facts - e.g. what sort of car park or space this is, was she visiting the doctor or just briefly collecting something (loading)? not parked for a period of time?  Did she have permission from a resident or the surgery and believe this was an authorised stop?   

Did they only take pics for a few minutes in which case she can say they allowed no fair 'grace period'?

Is it true to say the bit in bold that she received NO LETTERS OR PCN?  If not, of course she removes that as it is untrue and sh eneeds to remove this final line as if she was the driver, it's best to defend like that v OPS:

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.

Redx

I thought the OP davem was driving ? Not the defendant

One of the biggest obstacles in this thread is we are dealing with davem and not dealing with the actual defendant

I think that the global figure is probably £160 , which is a £100 PCN plus £60 unlawfully added charges

davemdavid

Redx said:

I thought the OP davem was driving ? Not the defendant

This is correct, I was the driver. I was playing a gig, and the venue said I could park outside, with other band members. All of which got parking tickets from OPS, but none escalated other than mine (my gf's)

Redx

So the defendant talks about herself and what happened as per herself

I was not the driver etc , I did not park the vehicle , as rk I am not responsible and have no liability unless the claimant complied with POFA. The driver was given permission to park there by the venue itself , so promissory estoppel is in force

davemdavid

Coupon-mad said:

this Claimant is claiming a global sum of £177.51

Change back to £160, unless the bit on the LEFT (not the right) of the claim form says £170?

Your case is the same as all the other OPS ones and has added £60 on the left, surely?   Your gf's defence is not objecting to the interest.  That's why the template defence says it is 'usually £160 and is a figure in whole pounds'.

Also change all the red to black of course.  It's not meant to be in bold/red in the finished defence.

You haven't added any facts for #16 and #17. 
She needs to say what happened, admit to driving and talk in that part about some basic facts - e.g. what sort of car park or space this is, was she visiting the doctor or just briefly collecting something (loading)? not parked for a period of time?  Did she have permission from a resident or the surgery and believe this was an authorised stop?   

Did they only take pics for a few minutes in which case she can say they allowed no fair 'grace period'?

Is it true to say the bit in bold that she received NO LETTERS OR PCN?  If not, of course she removes that as it is untrue and sh eneeds to remove this final line as if she was the driver, it's best to defend like that v OPS:

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.

Coupon-mad said:

this Claimant is claiming a global sum of £177.51

Change back to £160, unless the bit on the LEFT (not the right) of the claim form says £170?

Your case is the same as all the other OPS ones and has added £60 on the left, surely?   Your gf's defence is not objecting to the interest.  That's why the template defence says it is 'usually £160 and is a figure in whole pounds'.

Also change all the red to black of course.  It's not meant to be in bold/red in the finished defence.

You haven't added any facts for #16 and #17. 
She needs to say what happened, admit to driving and talk in that part about some basic facts - e.g. what sort of car park or space this is, was she visiting the doctor or just briefly collecting something (loading)? not parked for a period of time?  Did she have permission from a resident or the surgery and believe this was an authorised stop?   

Did they only take pics for a few minutes in which case she can say they allowed no fair 'grace period'?

Is it true to say the bit in bold that she received NO LETTERS OR PCN?  If not, of course she removes that as it is untrue and sh eneeds to remove this final line as if she was the driver, it's best to defend like that v OPS:

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.

Thanks for this. I was driving the car btw


Change back to £160, unless the bit on the LEFT (not the right) of the claim form says £170?

Yes, it says £160 on the left (original fine was £100) in the right 'amount claimed' 177.51 (presumably they have added interest etc). I'll change to 160 on the defence 

You haven't added any facts for #16 and #17.  
She needs to say what happened, admit to driving and talk in that part about some basic facts - e.g. what sort of car park or space this is, was she visiting the doctor or just briefly collecting something (loading)? not parked for a period of time?  Did she have permission from a resident or the surgery and believe this was an authorised stop?    

I could say that briefly unloading for a gig? I think it was a residential parking space, managed by OPS - not 100% sure though. I was given permission by the venue. 


Did they only take pics for a few minutes in which case she can say they allowed no fair 'grace period'?

Pretty sure I (we) asked for additional photos when I received the original fine. Only photo provide on the original fine. I guess this 'grace period' could apply 

Is it true to say the bit in bold that she received NO LETTERS OR PCN?  If not, of course she removes that as it is untrue and sh eneeds to remove this final line as if she was the driver, it's best to defend like that v OPS:

No, I will removed this 

davemdavid

Redx said:

So the defendant talks about herself and what happened as per herself

I was not the driver etc , I did not park the vehicle , as rk I am not responsible and have no liability unless the claimant complied with POFA. The driver was given permission to park there by the venue itself , so promissory estoppel is in force

Ok thanks for this . I'll add this to para 16/17 etc