EMA airport fine for stopping at double yellow line - court date in near future.

Coupon-mad

san2020 said:
Could I include in my WS that another case of similar nature at Fuel Station at EMA airport is due for which I have submitted the defence. Am I allowed to add in my WS the option to consider both of these cases as one?

YOU MUST add the usual words seen in the all the other zillions of cases with two similar claims (same defendant, same location, same signs, same alleged breach.  This has been done to death and can be found by searching the forum for Henderson duplicate consolidate

Le_Kirk

Your link made live: -
https://www.dropbox.com/s/r472un9j7nf3jjf/_WS_template (1).pdf?dl=0

Fruitcake

Have you received the scammer's WS yet? If so, please show it to us asap. Only redact YOUR personal data. Show us everything, and tell us if they have redacted anything.

With regards to your WS, I would expand on the paragraph concerning PoFA dates by giving the actual date of the alleged event, (day zero) the date of Day 1, the date of Day 28, the issue date and the presumed date the NTK was given (two working days after the date issued.
Do this in a table format to show how the NTK arrived too late for keeper liability to apply.

san2020

Fruitcake said:

Have you received the scammer's WS yet? If so, please show it to us asap. Only redact YOUR personal data. Show us everything, and tell us if they have redacted anything.

With regards to your WS, I would expand on the paragraph concerning PoFA dates by giving the actual date of the alleged event, (day zero) the date of Day 1, the date of Day 28, the issue date and the presumed date the NTK was given (two working days after the date issued.
Do this in a table format to show how the NTK arrived too late for keeper liability to apply.

Not received anything from scammers yet. According to the calendar, I have till 2nd May. Should I send the WS now or wait for few more days? 

As my defence is not strong at all, all I can rely on in the WS. Any guide on that? what can be done afterwards, how likely is the hearing to continue? 

re PoFA, does this looks OK: I don't think It makes sense to me. feel free to rectify me.

10.Furthermore, Section C of the NTK states that notification of driver/hirer/keeper details must be made within 28 days of the Issue Date. Paragraph 9(f) of PoFA Schedule 4states that the response period is “28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice is given” and paragraph 9(6) states the “given” date for a “notice sent by post is to be presumed, ...... to have been delivered (and so “given” for the purposes of sub-paragraph (4))on the second working day after the day on which it is posted;”. As such, the Claimant’sNTK does not meet the requirements of PoFA Schedule4 so they do not have the right to claim unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle

The date of alleged event (Day 0) 04/01/2020 Date of Day 1 05/01/2020 Date of Day 28 01/02/2020 Issue date and date of NTK was given 15/01/2020

san2020

Coupon-mad said:

san2020 said:
Could I include in my WS that another case of similar nature at Fuel Station at EMA airport is due for which I have submitted the defence. Am I allowed to add in my WS the option to consider both of these cases as one?

YOU MUST add the usual words seen in the all the other zillions of cases with two similar claims (same defendant, same location, same signs, same alleged breach.  This has been done to death and can be found by searching the forum for Henderson duplicate consolidate

The Court is invited to take note that the Claimant has issued a new claim, number <CLAIMNR>, against me on the same date, and with substantially identical particulars, for the same cause of action. The issuing of two separate claims, by the same Claimant and for essentially the same cause of action, is an abuse of the civil litigation process. The long-established case law in Henderson -v- Henderson [1843] 67 ER 313, and more recent authorities, establishes the principle that when a matter becomes the subject of litigation, the parties are required to advance their whole case. The Court is invited to consolidate the two claims to be determined together, and to apply appropriate sanctions against the Claimant. 

would this be sufficient?

Umkomaas

The date of alleged event (Day 0)	04/01/2020
Date of Day 1	05/01/2020
Date of Day 28	01/02/2020
Issue date and date of NTK was given	15/01/2020

With a NtK issued via post, Day 28 is irrelevant directly to keeper liability. With an issue date of Wednesday 15/01/2020, the 'Date Given' is Friday 17/01/2020, within PoFA timescale for keeper liability. But there's more to it than dates alone. 

I've not chased back all through the thread, but does the rest of the NtK meet PoFA requirements, particularly the keeper warning as per 9(2)(f)?  Are they even trying to invoke PoFA?

Fruitcake

Yes, the NTK arrived within the PoFA timescales for keeper liability to apply so there is no point in mentioning any dates.
If the wording failed then it is a different matter.

Wait as long as possible before submitting your WS in the hope that you get to see the scammer's WS first so you can show us and then comment on it in your WS.

Coupon-mad

In #9 and again lower down, you call the claimant the 'C' for no reason.  Sometimes we shorten Claimant to 'C' when we type advice but don't copy that in a WS.

I didn't see you say anywhere that you put the Claimant to strict proof of where the car was stopped and whether that was in fact within the purported enforcement boundary.  We have seen cases where the car wasn't on any of the roads the map shows are meant to be enforced.

Also VCS have been shown to have a mess of a landowner authority with muddled company numbers at another Airport, so have you got their WS and landowner authority yet and have you checked their evidence?  

I would remove #10 because they can't be relying on the POFA on non-relevant land anyway because the POFA doesn't allow it.  So who cares about the date of the NTK.

how likely is the hearing to continue? 

Very likely.  Show us their WS and landowner authority, has it arrived?

san2020

Coupon-mad said:

In #9 and again lower down, you call the claimant the 'C' for no reason.  Sometimes we shorten Claimant to 'C' when we type advice but don't copy that in a WS.

I didn't see you say anywhere that you put the Claimant to strict proof of where the car was stopped and whether that was in fact within the purported enforcement boundary.  We have seen cases where the car wasn't on any of the roads the map shows are meant to be enforced.

Also VCS have been shown to have a mess of a landowner authority with muddled company numbers at another Airport, so have you got their WS and landowner authority yet and have you checked their evidence?  

I would remove #10 because they can't be relying on the POFA on non-relevant land anyway because the POFA doesn't allow it.  So who cares about the date of the NTK.

how likely is the hearing to continue? 

Very likely.  Show us their WS and landowner authority, has it arrived?

I will replace the C with Claimant in the word document. remove 10 and adjust the ordering numbers of the doc. 
I am still waiting for WS and any other docs.

san2020

running out of time, just preparing to send the docs (in pdf) to County Court and ELSM (per email) and still not received anything from C or Legal rep.