URGENT: Court letter Parallel Parking- please help!

KeithP

You told us on your other thread that the Issue Date for this Claim was also on 9th February.

With a Claim Issue Date of 9th February, you had until Monday 28th February to file an Acknowledgment of Service. Hopefully you did that. Please confirm.

Having filed an AoS in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Monday 14th March 2022 to file your Defence.

That's four days away. Plenty of time to produce a Defence, but please don't leave it to the last minute.

To create a Defence, and then file a Defence by email, look at the second post in the NEWBIES thread.

Don't miss the deadline for filing an Acknowledgment of Service, nor that for filing a Defence.

Do not try and file a Defence via the MoneyClaimOnline website. Once an Acknowledgment of Service has been filed, the MCOL website should be treated as 'read only'.

Of course everywhere I have written 'you' or 'your' I mean the named Defendant.

star1800

KeithP said:

You told us on your other thread that the Issue Date for this Claim was also on 9th February.

With a Claim Issue Date of 9th February, you had until Monday 28th February to file an Acknowledgment of Service. Hopefully you did that. Please confirm.

Having filed an AoS in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Monday 14th March 2022 to file your Defence.

That's four weeks away. Plenty of time to produce a Defence, but please don't leave it to the last minute.

To create a Defence, and then file a Defence by email, look at the second post in the NEWBIES thread.

Don't miss the deadline for filing an Acknowledgment of Service, nor that for filing a Defence.

Do not try and file a Defence via the MoneyClaimOnline website. Once an Acknowledgment of Service has been filed, the MCOL website should be treated as 'read only'.

Of course everywhere I have written 'you' or 'your' I mean the named Defendant.

For my grandma defence As they’re saying there was NO parking ticket purchased. , I will be stating she is short sighted  so may have entered the wrong registration into the machine. 

Or Either that she did pay for the ticket but not sure why it didn’t show up on their end ? 

My grandma is adamant she purchased a ticket.  Iv received the machine data for that day, but It’s all censored so can’t see if there is number plate with a typo. 

Really stuck here guys! Pls help!

Trainerman

For clarity, have they redacted every digit on every vrm or just a couple on each one? If the latter, is there anything that looks similar to the correct one?

If they have just sent you a piece of paper that has everything redacted, that would seem to be deliberately obtuse.

You might have a defence depending on the answer to all that, another helpful strand would be that she uses this car park a lot, always pays so there must have been a simple error

star1800

Yess they redacted all the digits on every vrm. Sent me 9 pages of vrm with all of it redacted

Trainerman

star1800 said:

Yess they redacted all the digits on every vrm. Sent me 9 pages of vrm with all of it redacted

Very helpful !! Deliberately obtuse. I see that you have to get a defence in soon. See what the real experts think , but firstly you should be able to get rid of the scam addition of debt fees etc by using the new template which is in itself a very strong defence. The defendant just needs to fill a couple of paragraphs at the beginning .

I would suggest you  say they must prove it was not paid for. In an attempt to narrow the issues, you suggested it was a keying error  but they just sent you nine totally redacted pages . So now you put them to strict proof that there was not a similar vrm.

There maybe other ideas too, so see what the experts say but have a good weekend and get that defence in

star1800

 Trainerman said:

star1800 said:

Yess they redacted all the digits on every vrm. Sent me 9 pages of vrm with all of it redacted

Very helpful !! Deliberately obtuse. I see that you have to get a defence in soon. See what the real experts think , but firstly you should be able to get rid of the scam addition of debt fees etc by using the new template which is in itself a very strong defence. The defendant just needs to fill a couple of paragraphs at the beginning .

I would suggest you  say they must prove it was not paid for. In an attempt to narrow the issues, you suggested it was a keying error  but they just sent you nine totally redacted pages . So now you put them to strict proof that there was not a similar vrm.

There maybe other ideas too, so see what the experts say but have a good weekend and get that defence in

Thanks alot for your help. Speaking to my grandma, she clearly remembers she did pay for the ticket but made a typo, shes 100% sure it was that.

This is my first draf:

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. 

3. The did pay for the ticket, however a keying error was made when entering the car registration number in the machine. This is due to the defendant being elderly and long sighted. The defendant did not remember to carry reading glasses.  

4. The defendant has used the same car park multiple times and has always paid for parking ticket, so the claim of not paying and accusing the defendant of being dishonest is out of question.

Coupon-mad

That's very good.  You could add that:

The Defendant asked the Claimant for records showing partially redacted and otherwise unmatched payments around that time, in order to narrow the issues, highlight the keying error and avoid court (because such errors should now simply see a PCN cancelled).  Astonishingly - and this is surely unreasonable conduct at the pre-action stage - this 'professional' parking firm responded with nine pages of VRMs with every single digit redacted, then issued this claim.

1505grandad

Typo  -  "3. The did pay..."  -  She?

star1800

Coupon-mad said:

That's very good.  You could add that:

The Defendant asked the Claimant for records showing partially redacted and otherwise unmatched payments around that time, in order to narrow the issues, highlight the keying error and avoid court (because such errors should now simply see a PCN cancelled).  Astonishingly - and this is surely unreasonable conduct at the pre-action stage - this 'professional' parking firm responded with nine pages of VRMs with every single digit redacted, then issued this claim.

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. 

 

3. The defendant did pay for the ticket, however a keying error was made when entering the car registration number in the machine. This is due to the defendant being elderly and long sighted. The defendant did not remember to carry reading glasses.  

 

4. The defendant has used the same car park multiple times and has always paid for parking ticket, so the claim of not paying and accusing the defendant of being dishonest is out of question.

 

5. The Defendant asked the Claimant for records showing partially redacted and otherwise unmatched payments around that time in order to narrow the issues and highlight the keying error and avoid court (because such errors should now simply see a PCN cancelled).  Astonishingly, and this is surely unreasonable conduct at the pre-action stage - this 'professional' parking firm responded with nine pages of VRMs with every single digit redacted, then issued this claim.

thats my final draft, will save it and sign it etc etc.

Im just wondering can i remove paragraph 24, as I dont really want to claim for my cost if claimant drops the case. Il be happy if claimant cancels without going to court. Let me know if that would be ok to remove paragraph 24?

thanks

Le_Kirk

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

Isn't it the case that Grandma was driving?  If so, better to admit being driver and then, at Witness Statement stage, can give an honest first person witness account.