BW Legal County court claim

Coupon-mad

Yes and yes!

Redx

On a pedantic side note , it is hypocritical to focus on the date issue caused by incorrect use by the legals acting for the claimant and yet using the word OF instead of the correct word HAVE , as in would have , or would've

My Point ?  Ensure you are beyond reproach in your own submissions , so you do not detract from the core issues , a spell checker may help , as I know from my own shortcomings , yet let the claimant fail due to their own shortcomings 👍👍

CaH27

I think Redx makes a point, shouldn't I set out my stall (defence) of the events of that day?

Then, if the claimant decides to change the date, this would show to the judge just how incompetent these parking firms are!

Also, wouldn't the judge respect my honesty?

Coupon-mad

But as @Johnersh says, and he is a solicitor, you can only respond to the particulars of claim you are presented with.

CaH27

However, I have asked for a SAR from VCS for the date 12/02/2016. Would this change things? As I am acknowledging a PCN for that date?

Or should I ask for a new SAR from them for 02/12/2016?

Again, thanks for everybody's help. 

Johnersh

What does it change?

No one is denying that you have actual knowledge and have corresponded regarding a possible claim on another date. We are simply saying that it doesn't appear to be the matter which the ppc have made the subject of *this* claim.

If you know you weren't there, what is an SAR going to do? If they think you are asking for the same information, they will also refuse it. 

There are numerous examples on here of defendants defending 2 or 3 separately issued claims. They have a professional presenting their claim who has apparently checked and been authorised to present that case.  The pleading is their case. Serve a defence that responds to it. 

As I recall this is not merely a transposing of month and day, but the actual date is different, so the "you know what I meant" argument should be robustly defended. Were it otherwise defendants might be expected to serve hypothetical responses for the other 364 days in case of typos. 

Le_Kirk

CaH27 said:

However, I have asked for a SAR from VCS for the date 12/02/2016. Would this change things? As I am acknowledging a PCN for that date?

Or should I ask for a new SAR from them for 02/12/2016?

Again, thanks for everybody's help. 

You submit a SAR and it is not date specific; it should ask for ALL the data the PPC holds on you and/or your vehicle with VRM of AB/12/CDE.

CaH27

Thank you Johnersh.

I have received my SAR today via email from VCS.

They contain photographs of my car, in pitch black, dated 12/02/2016.

A NTK dated 12/02/2016. Issue date 29/03/2016.

A case management file, basically, showing the timeline of their actions.

No photographs of any signs or "contracts"

I have double checked the N1 form from CCBC and it does state 02/12/2016.

What would happen if it was to continue to court, without them realising their error or amending it? Would it likely be thrown out?

Johnersh

I can only say what I would do.  You must decide what to do.

Understand that this is litigation, which involves a balancing of risks. There are no guarantees. In general terms:

* I suspect they'll realise the error once a defence is filed, long before the court door. Indeed, this is an open forum, they may already know. 

* They would then have the option to amend or to issue a fresh claim. If it were me, I would resist any efforts to "style it out"  -  I'd make them apply: but you must decide. The claimant could file a reply to your defence, but arguably that would be an abuse if it essentially tried to reframe the whole case. 

* If a claimant is permitted to amend, then a defendant should be given permission to serve a new defence. The error is theirs and the usual order is that the party requesting the amendment pays costs. 

* it cannot be unreasonable to file a defence pertaining to the case as it is put in formal proceedings. It cannot be otherwise. 

* There is no obligation in law to point out error. That's CA authority in Woodward, as I'm sure you know from google  
https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2019/985.html
(Para 15 (172) refers.)

Redx

To CaH27

Mse does not allow people to seek legal advice nor for any member to give legal advice , you pay a lawyer for legal services

They do allow opinion's though , so you have an opinion or opinions , as in what the respondent would do

I would use that opinion above in its entirety , meaning my opinion is that I agree totally with the opinion above !!  👍👍

Capiche ??