Excel PCN help

ab2000

Coupon-mad said:

1.  If you received an LBC from Excel over 30 days ago, and haven't already, you cannot ask for a 30 day 'hold' for debt advice as the window has closed.

No it hasn't. There is no window.

You are entitled under the PAP to seek debt advice and ask for the case to be on hold as long as the claim hasn't been filed.

It would be a brave and stupid roboclaim firm who replied 'tough: too late for debt advice'!

Deleted my post due to misleading advice.

bs1998

So sometihng like this? I don't know if name dropping the MP has any bearing, though.

Hello,

I am in receipt of your Notification of Instruction.

I request that you provide your client's images of the sign taken on the day.

I also ask for strict proof that at the time, all the signage was compliant with current codes of practice

I do hope that Excel has provided all the background on this case.

Excel may have mentioned that my MP, ********, is involved, and I will be relaying this information to him.

I also ask for a 30 day extension for debt advice.

Coupon-mad

Looks fine. 

Le_Kirk

bs1998 said:

Correct, and I believe that is when I asked for the SARS

You didn't ask for SARS, you wouldn't want that (ask Auntie Google and she will tell you it is a respiratory disease) what you did was submit a SAR and hopefully by now you have received all the data they hold on you.  If you submitted your SAR more than 30 days ago and have received nothing, you should be complaining to the ICO.

bs1998

Well, now the 'Claim Form' has arrived from Elms Legal, dated the 13th, so as I have to respond within 14 days to the court, that means this week! I have read some of the posts about replying, so now I will need to narrow it down for the response.

It says 'money claims online, county court business centre'. Is this a real court, or just another collection agency?

KeithP

bs1998 said:

Well, now the 'Claim Form' has arrived from Elms Legal, dated the 13th, so as I have to respond within 14 days to the court, that means this week! I have read some of the posts about replying, so now I will need to narrow it down for the response.

It says 'money claims online, county court business centre'. Is this a real court, or just another collection agency?

It's a real court - well actually it's the County Court Business Centre.

With a Claim Issue Date of 13th December, you have until Tuesday 3rd January 2023 to file an Acknowledgment of Service but there is nothing to be gained by delaying it. 

To file an Acknowledgment of Service, follow the guidance in the Dropbox file linked from the second post in the NEWBIES thread.

Having filed an Acknowledgment of Service in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Monday 16th January 2023 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 again at the second post on the NEWBIES thread - immediately following where you found the Acknowledgment of Service guidance.

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'.

bs1998

Thank you Keith, AOS submitted, now comes the lengthier bit. I hope I get it correct!

bs1998

Hello, is it okay to post the 2 paragraphs that I edit on the template for review?

Le_Kirk

Yes we will critique them for you. 

bs1998

That's what I want!

2. It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle in question.

The vehicle in question is a work vehicle, and more than one person could have been the driver. Due to the amount of time between the date of the photo and the date of notice, and the lack of photo of the driver, it cannot be stated who the driver was.

 

3. After notice was received, the defendant had difficulty in finding the address, as it is without a number reference, and only a postcode and street on a high street.

 

Upon inspection, the signage would have been difficult for a driver to see as a driver turns off a busy high street, as the signage is on a side wall, and a driver would need to pull across a busy pavement and stop on the pavement and look to the right hand wall to see and read it.

Photos are available to show this.

 

There also would be little indication that it was a parking lot, as there are no clearly marked parking bays, and no disabled parking bays.

 

The defendant has tried to engage with the claimant on these issues, and due to a lack of engagement by the claimant, has also involved the local MP, XXXXXXXX, who has also written to the claimant about this case.