Parking ticket - One Parking Solution Ltd help with Defence County Court

D_P_Dance

Nine  posts about trivia, another red herring from Scrapit.  Why are people giving this poster the attention he/she obviously craves.

beamerguy

D_P_Dance said:

Nine  posts about trivia, another red herring from Scrapit.  Why are people giving this poster the attention he/she obviously craves.

Guess it's boredom during lockdown

Scrapit

Or coversely, they are of the opinion that something that can be referred to is quoted verbatum rather than something thats thirdhand. Thats my reasoning and logic anyway.

Johnersh

🙄 There's a thread here somewhere... 

SKT29

Hi , I have received info from QRDS and they are asking as below

• "Please confirm the meaning of PDT machine. We note this request appears to include commentary notes referring to redaction of the same, presumably from a templated request. Please confirm whether this was therefore intended to form part of your email"

Other points to note

• The landowner agreement has been sent with the name of the freeholder or authorised party blanked out.
• Also just checked on land registry that part of the car park belongs to local council and part belongs to some retirement benefit scheme and not the one stated on the agreement.
• Also my car is a leased car and the claim is made on my company name, if it makes any difference.

Any help would be welcome and appreciated 

 

Coupon-mad

"Please confirm the meaning of PDT machine. We note this request appears to include commentary notes referring to redaction of the same, presumably from a templated request. Please confirm whether this was therefore intended to form part of your email"

What did you write? 
Did you copy & paste and include commentary from one of us?!

The landowner agreement has been sent with the name of the freeholder or authorised party blanked out.

Please send me a link to look at it by pm.   In the Lewes case, OPS presented with their WS, a redacted signature 'landowner authority' which we exposed was actually signed by OPS (twice) and not the landowner.

Also just checked on land registry that part of the car park belongs to local council and part belongs to some retirement benefit scheme and not the one stated on the agreement

Ask the Local Authority who pays the non-domestic rates for that parcel of land (some Councils show a list on non-dom ratepayers and land on the Council website so look first).  DO NOT say you are asking under FOI.  You are not!

Also my car is a leased car and the claim is made on my company name, if it makes any difference.

Huge difference.  So, your defence that you are seeking to amend, did you sign it and put YOUR NAME as an individual as the defendant on the paperwork/online o MCOL or did you reply as the 'company'? 

Your amended defence needs to be from the COMPANY.

It also needs to adduce 'no hirer liability' and state that the driver was not engaged in work 'on behalf of' the company defendant at that time so any suggestion of liability is unsupported by any applicable law or rule of law.  There is no liability under the POFA because no compliant NTH with enclosures was served to the company, and there is no liability under the law of agency when a driver is not conducting themselves as agents, but just driving somewhere in their personal time of their own volition.

SKT29

Thanks CM

What did you write? 
Did you copy & paste and include commentary from one of us?!
As below..

May request below please,

- ALL photos taken

- all letters/emails sent and received, including any appeal correspondence earlier

- PDT machine record from that day, of payments made 

- All data held, all evidence they will rely on, and a full copy of the PCN, NTK

- The contract with the landowner that allows you to issue claims.

SKT29

Also my car is a leased car and the claim is made on my company name, if it makes any difference.

Huge difference.  So, your defence that you are seeking to amend, did you sign it and put YOUR NAME as an individual as the defendant on the paperwork/online o MCOL or did you reply as the 'company'? 

Your amended defence needs to be from the COMPANY.
The claim was issued to the company and I replied as a company.

Coupon-mad

Good that you responded as the company but you definitely need to amend that defence!    Have you sent the application off now to the CCBC, to ask?

SKT29

I have already sent permission to amend defence but not updated on MCOL as yet