Ccj and defence

shortysky

Redx said:

As for email addresses , if this is Manchester civil court , check their website for email addresses , ditto for any court , even Stockport etc if it's not Manchester. You chose the court in your DQ , so should know their details

You won't be printing anything , due to the pandemic , it's all email these days

So I have to send them manchester court and not that small claims court I’ve been sending everything else to? I will ring them tomorrow and ask for email address and the one for claimant. Just to be on safe side. 

shortysky

ParkingMad said:

Thanks @Castle. I found a charge for 32-42 Woodford Road registered to Pensioneer Trustees (London) Ltd, company no 01688065, in February 1994. But according to Land Registry they were sold in June 2001, possibly to the Trustees of DRE Group Pension Scheme.

I was originally trying to find an address where the OP could contact the landowner. 

Perhaps it would be easier to do a Land Registry search for £3?
https://www.gov.uk/search-property-information-land-registry

Is getting this information going to help my case for court though? Like isn’t it abit late to contact the land owner now. I would like to be able to get information or proof of when the signs were actually put up. As some images and other people on Facebook groups say they wasn’t signs in mid 2019, I didn’t check till way after I got the ticket. So I was wondering if there ever was sins when I went and that’s why I didn’t see them. 

Redx

shortysky said:

Redx said:

As for email addresses , if this is Manchester civil court , check their website for email addresses , ditto for any court , even Stockport etc if it's not Manchester. You chose the court in your DQ , so should know their details

You won't be printing anything , due to the pandemic , it's all email these days

So I have to send them manchester court and not that small claims court I’ve been sending everything else to? I will ring them tomorrow and ask for email address and the one for claimant. Just to be on safe side. 

There is no small claims court , just the CCBC in Northampton which organises MCOL

When you did your DQ N180 and emailed it to the CCBC , you nominated your local court , at which point the CCBC shovelled the whole case over to Manchester civil court

That letter you showed us recently says Manchester court , the court order came from them

Therefore you email Manchester court ( this is not difficult , but read ( read ) your paperwork and Google Manchester court , the one you nominated , they have a website and deal with this sort of thing every weekday and have numerous email addresses for various reasons

So ditch the baby brain , think !! Then think again ! Lol

Coupon-mad

Everyone else has said the one by @jrhys is easy to copy and adapt.  They've all accessed it and been able to download it as a template.

Redx

Download it as a pdf , try using the free program pdf24 to edit it or open it

Coupon-mad

This person did it fine, to adapt and create their own version:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/78421505/#Comment_78421505

Fruitcake

It is never too late to make a complaint to the landowner.
When referring to the site ownership/landowner, Use the site address 34 - 38 Woodford Rd specifically mentioned in the NTK and other documents.  Do not however use the map from the Land Registry with the property boundary marked on it. 

I hope the reason for this is obvious.

Don't forget that the claim itself does not mention the specific address, only Woodford Rd, which is about six miles long and has several other car parks along it. 
I mentioned this in an earlier post, so one of your jobs is to go back to the beginning of this thread and make notes about all the things the regulars have said.

shortysky

Coupon-mad said:

Everyone else has said the one by @jrhys is easy to copy and adapt.  They've all accessed it and been able to download it as a template.

Well when I downloaded it it said no access. Then I tried copy and pasting it. Wouldn’t do that either.

shortysky

Fruitcake said:

It is never too late to make a complaint to the landowner.
When referring to the site ownership/landowner, Use the site address 34 - 38 Woodford Rd specifically mentioned in the NTK and other documents.  Do not however use the map from the Land Registry with the property boundary marked on it. 

I hope the reason for this is obvious.

Don't forget that the claim itself does not mention the specific address, only Woodford Rd, which is about six miles long and has several other car parks along it. 
I mentioned this in an earlier post, so one of your jobs is to go back to the beginning of this thread and make notes about all the things the regulars have said.

Yes that’s what I plan to do go though it all. It’s just how do I mention the address situation in the WS putting it in writing. Everyone else’s stuff looks so professional. Im not good at that kind of stuff. 

Fruitcake

You state that the address on the NTK etcetera is 34 - 38 Woodford Rd, but the car was parked at number 32 whilst you were inside the Pizza Express restaurant, which is number 32 Woodford Road.
You also mention that the particulars of claim are vague and only refer to Woodford Road which is six miles long and has X number of car parks serving other businesses/properties.
The PoC do not specify the relevant land where the alleged event took place.

Use anything that shows the address 34 -38, or 34 - 42, but not the Land Registry entry that shows and defines the location.

The claimant may pick up on this and show proof of ownership, and that they have a contract with or flowing from the landowner, but it is for them to prove, not you.
You are claiming that the car was not parked on land at 34 - 38 as stated on the claimant's NTK, but not in the court claim particulars.
It is up to them to prove the land they are allegedly authorised to monitor included the space alongside number 32, and also that the vague claim specifically refers to this location, not one of the other car parks along the road.