Napier Parking/BW Legal, CCBS Claim Form received. Help and guidance very much needed!

KeithP

Dotage said:

Thanks Redx, can not check V5C details because car was sold about a year ago, but I think they were probably correct.

Why can't you write to the DVLA, SubjectAccess.Requests@dvla.gov.uk, asking them between what dates did the V5c show you as the Registered Keeper?

Enclose proof of your address(s) at the time together with that for your current address.

Also ask the DVLA who asked for keeper details while you were the Registered Keeper.

Redx

Dotage said:

Thanks Redx, can not check V5C details because car was sold about a year ago, but I think they were probably correct.

Irrelevant , the DVLA database has those records which you are entitled to

If it was correct , then the letters probably did arrive , despite your protestations to the contrary in your defence paragraphs

But the claimant has to show a 51% probability that they were sent , or higher , so as it is their daily business to do so , the court will assume that they posted them to that DVLA registered address

In which case , what are you inferring in 5 ?

Coupon-mad

You can see from the SAR, which address the letters were sent to.  Was it an old address, or not?

I think submit your defence by email as it is.  The SAR has disclosed gaps in evidence but don't tip them off about that or they'll have put their ducks in a row by WS stage, which is when you should point out those gaps (i.e. later).

Dotage

Thanks Redx and Coupon-mad
Bearing in mind your observations, would removing 5 be prudent before submitting my Defence? 

Fruitcake

If you have evidence that the scammers failed to comply with the PoFA and cannot therefore hold the keeper liable, then you need to leave it in. You will then need to explain in your WS how the scammers failed PoFA.

Redx

Dotage said:

Thanks Redx and Coupon-mad
Bearing in mind your observations, would removing 5 be prudent before submitting my Defence? 

Yes , because it's not a factual statement and it does not improve the defence either

Dotage

Hello again Guys
Following your guidance my defence was submitted and so too was the N180.
I have now received the Notice of Allocation to the Small Claims Track (Hearing), this states that the Final Hearing has been allocated 90 minutes of Court time, and that the hearing will take place by video conference (have no idea how that is supposed to work).
By a certain time and date in July both parties must notify the Court in writing whether they agree to the Small Claim being determined by a judge on the basis of their documentary evidence and written submissions without attending a hearing at Court.
If both parties agree, the Court will then notify the parties that the Small Claim is to be determined on the papers and give further directions.
Witness statements and documents must be sent to the Court and the other party, no later than 28 days before the final hearing. The hearing has been set for a date in September.
I have not copied all the information from this Notice, because I am assuming that it is all pretty standard stuff that you are all familiar with.
As ever, I would much appreciate further guidance from yourselves on how to proceed, or where to look on the forum for the relevant information.
I now have a further parking problem, or should I say three further parking problems, that fell through the letter box on Saturday, from dcbl for Parkingeye, three notices of intended legal action, concerning three separate vehicles, on three separate dates in August 2018, in the same car park!
Would it be best if I started a new thread for each of these new problems or stay with this one?
Yes I must have done something pretty bad in a previous life!!!!
 

Umkomaas

By a certain time and date in July both parties must notify the Court in writing whether they agree to the Small Claim being determined by a judge on the basis of their documentary evidence and written submissions without attending a hearing at Court.
If both parties agree, the Court will then notify the parties that the Small Claim is to be determined on the papers and give further directions.

Do not agree to your case being determined 'on the papers' as you are almost certainly bound to lose. Remember that solicitors are trained in writing legal papers and do this as a day job. There is a thread on the forum by @Coupon-mad with a template response to the court to reject the proposal. There is no detriment to you in rejecting it.

I now have a further parking problem, or should I say three further parking problems, that fell through the letter box on Saturday, from dcbl for Parkingeye, three notices of intended legal action, concerning three separate vehicles, on three separate dates in August 2018, in the same car park!
Would it be best if I started a new thread for each of these new problems or stay with this one?

Is it DCB Limited or DCB Legal writing on these?  Whichever, ParkingEye do not pass out their unpaid PCNs to third parties to issue court proceedings, they have their own legal department to do that, and they don't hold back on doing it themselves if there's any prospect of a court win. They seem only to pass PCNs out to third parties where they have more or less given up on any recovery, but are giving it one more chance with a 'no win, no fee' debt collecting outfit. 

Subject to your confirmation of which DCBL, the likely advice is to just file the papers and ignore anything else, unless there is a vanishingly unlikely formal Letter Before Claim from DCB Legal or PE themselves, or a N1 court claim via the Northampton CCBC. At this stage no need for any new thread(s) for these, but create a new one should you receive a LBC or N1. 

Dotage

Thanks for your very prompt response to my problems Umkomaas. I have found a lot of information from Coupon-mad in the telephone hearings re parking firm claims thread.
Am I right in thinking the following:-
1/  The reason I can not agree to my case being determined 'on the papers', is because I strongly believe that I must be afforded a fair opportunity to rebut the inaccuracies in the 'evidence' provided by the Claimant.
2/  I should ask at this time for the Claim to be struck out, (as an abuse of process), using the template provided by Coupon-mad, in the telephone hearings re parking firm claims thread.
3/  I should  also write a draft order, again as per coupon-mad's guidelines.
4/  None of the above falls into the category of, set aside, varied or stayed, thus incurring fees. 
The other three parking problem letters originate from Debit Collection Bailiffs Ltd (dcbi), so I guess, from what you say, I do not need to worry about them for the moment, and can concentrate on dealing with Napier Parking.
Thanks again for your timely and helpful guidance.

Umkomaas

1. Agree. 

2. On what basis are you arguing 'Abuse of Process'?  The claimant will probably argue the Semark-Jullienn case, so you need to be clear what it is you are putting forward. 

3. Let's see what you are proposing. 

Concentrate on Napier. Only come back on ParkingEye if it turns in any other direction than basic debt beggar hassle.