Help please with County Court letter for Moto Parking fine

nosferatu1001

But please, PLEASE, there is a set process, dont step outside of it
Nooone told you to email the CCBC with anything other than you actual defence

rxbfm

KeithP said:

Please can you show us the full Claim History copy and pasted from the MCOL website?

Claim Status

A claim was issued against you on 14/01/2021

Your acknowledgment of service was submitted on 24/01/2021 at 10:44:25

Your acknowledgment of service was received on 25/01/2021 at 01:13:12

Your defence was received on 08/02/2021

Your defence was rejected on 08/02/2021

*eek* :-/

KeithP

That's good. Just what I (you) were hoping to see.

Back on track then.

Read again my post of 7 February at 5:44PM and subsequent posts.

rxbfm

KeithP said:

That's good. Just what I (you) were hoping to see.

Back on track then.

Read again my post of 7 February at 5:44PM and subsequent posts.

How do we feel about this? 

The facts as known to the Defendant:
2.      It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle in question but liability is denied. The defendant was driving.

3.      On the occasion in which a violation of contract is alleged to have occurred the driver had overstayed due to being asleep and most likely did not leave the vehicle to see signage. The brief overstay was due to sleeping to recover from fatigue from driving a long distance trip from Brighton to Manchester and was not used for any other purpose than rest.  It was also late at night and therefore dark, so the driver’s likelihood of seeing signage was further reduced. However due to this event being over 4 years ago the driver is unable to recall any further specifics.

The defendant has contacted Ken McMeikan (CEO of MOTO – the landowner) and he has agreed in writing that in cases where a driver has inadvertently overstayed the 2 hours to rest, it is customary for the PCN to be cancelled once an explanation has been given.  The defendant had previously done this in June 2020 however an unusual response saw MOTO refer the appeal to CP Plus (GroupNexus) and the claim has therefore continued to the Court stage.

Despite this claim having already reached the Court, Ken McMeikan has agreed that he will make arrangements to have the PCN cancelled and that he will write to CP Plus (GroupNexus) and inform them of his views.  This PCN is now showing as cancelled on the appealpcn.co.uk website. 

The defendant has also written to both CP Plus (GroupNexus) and DCBL to provided them with a copy of Mr McMeikan’s email.  DCBL have agreed to take further instruction from their client, which will likely take longer than the deadlines granted by the Court.  However, it is already evident that the claimant has no commercial justification for the claim.

KeithP

Change para 2 to read...
2.      It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper and driver of the vehicle in question but liability is denied.

The un-numbered paragraphs need numbering 4, 5 and 6, and all later paragraphs renumbered to suit.

rxbfm

D'oh
I thought the numbers were for sections, not paragraphs ! - both changes made, thank you @KeithP

Coupon-mad

Crack on and get that emailed so the CCBC can't get more confused. 

Put something in the covering email to explain it and have 'URGENT DEFENCE - CLAIM NUMBER XXXXXX' in the subject line.

rxbfm

Ok thanks all, that bit's done!!