I WON!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Grimghast

Also just re reading everything paragraph 86 of claimants WS states " the claimant submits that the notice to keeper was posted out late and not in the strict parameters of POFA wheras 14 days is the limit therefore not in the parameters of POFA. so the claimant cannot rely on said legislation"

Are the y trying to circumvent POFA here and is it something I can use against them?

D_P_Dance

Wait all day. One poster lost a court case recently because they weren't contacted initially and gave up after a couple of hours, missing the hearing later in the afternoon.

IMO that person behaved perfectly correctly.  that judge should be reprimanded and the defendant compensated.  Tails do not wag dogs..  

nosferatu1001

No, that persoin did the equivalent of walking out of court, having not been released. You are there at their timetable, not yours. 
Grimghast - nothing about that sentence makes sense. because the second "claimant" doesnt make sense. Maybe give it another look, and give us more context

Grimghast

Thats exactly how it written in their witness statement, looks like they basically admit to not following POFA the next paragraph goes on to state that the defendent had ample correspondance in respect of the unpaid PCN and that the defendent did not respond,
 so basically trying to justify not following POFA is how it looks to me?

Grimghast

this is the paragraph in question

nosferatu1001

Wow. that is so terribly worded its unreal
They confirm they cannot use POFA to chase the keeper
They submit there are "legal remedies" that would allow them to chase the Keeper defendant, but fail to actually state what they are hgere or elsewhere
They then correctly state it is their cliaim to prove , yet havent done so
TEAR THEEM A NEW ONE

Grimghast

lol exactly what i was thinking :P still waiting for that call.........

Snakes_Belly

VCS and Excel witness statements are quite generic. The WS that they produced for my hearing did not make sense in places and much of it was irrelevant. TBH I don't think that the judge read it.

nosferatu1001

This does mean you need to check there is no actual submission further on, however you would be asking why, since they admit they cannot chase you as the keeper of the vehicle, they haven't felt the need to actually file any proof? They admit they need to prove their claim, yet have failed to do so - by their own submissions, their claim must fail!

Grimghast

preliminary dispute call judge is saying that im likely to lose going forward to a full hearing they hear these cases all the time, suprise suprise they made and offer of £125 all in I have refused and requested a full hearing.
She agrees with the parking firm that their signs are ok and also the contract with the land owner aka properrty management company is all legit despite it breaking companies act 2006, she did say they were unlikely to be awarded the additional £60 but that they would more than likely get the £100 plus costs their scamlicitor did also mention they would apply for additional costs due to my unreasonable behaviour! 

It is now going to be listed for a full hearing but it's not looking good from where I am sitting