Defence review

Help_a_girl_out

Am I sending it to CCBCAQ@justice.gov.uk?

Help_a_girl_out

ccbcaq@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk

I'm getting all flustered.  And struggling to find the instructions for submission.  I read it somewhere, but can't find it all now.

Umkomaas

Help_a_girl_out said:

Am I sending it to CCBCAQ@justice.gov.uk?

The Template Defence Announcement, bullet point #4, tells you what to do and to whom a Defence is sent. Please, please check that out - all the procedures are there. Saves regulars having to answer the same questions all the time, every day, bogging them down when other posters are at critical points in their case and need urgent advice. 

Help_a_girl_out

Thank you, I do understand how time consuming it must be.

Coupon-mad

Help_a_girl_out said:

Could you please help me further with what wording from PACE v LENYEL I should be be referring to?  I have had a look at the court document, but am unsure on it.  I have updated with the guidance from Coupon-Mad, but mainly in my own words:

2. It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle in question.  It is denied the Defendant was driving the vehicle in question at the time the Parking Charge Notice was issued. The driver of the vehicle was, in fact, the Husband of the Defendant.

3. On 28/04/2017 the driver of the vehicle in question was attending the local shopping centre.  On receiving the NTK (Notice to Keeper), the Defendant enquired with the driver, who stated they did not see any external signage upon entry to the car park, nor did they see any obvious signage in the vicinity of where the vehicle was parked.  Having used the adjacent car park a number of times previously (and with no conspicuous signage to suggest otherwise) the driver believed that this car park operated under the same contract. 

4. From the grainy images supplied by UKPC on the date the PCN was issued it is hard to distinguish how the driver was able obtain a permit for the site and the term appears void for impossibility. The signage appears overly cluttered and wordy.  Using the zoom function and squinting, it appears that drivers can park for 4 hours for free as long as they remain on site. The crucial term about a permit is not clear from this image.

You haven't added anything about what I said about relying on a similar case: Pace v Lengyel.

We rarely write stuff from scratch, we want you to write it so you understand it, OR you can copy from other threads you find when searching for Lengyel.

You need to copy from other threads or just write something based on what I told you about Pace v Lengyel (check your spelling when searching or you won't find results).

Help_a_girl_out

I appreciate your input Coupon-mad.

To be honest I don’t have time on my side and it’s taking all I have not to just pay up and be done with it.

I’d love to spend the time scrolling through various threads to find what’s needed to give a good solid defence.

Thanks to everyone who has assist me in getting this far.

Coupon-mad

If you don't have time to search for that keyword (and hit 'newest') you could just add that you will rely on similar cases such as PACE v Lengyel.

Your defence been 99% written already so it's a tiny addition I'm suggesting.

Help_a_girl_out

Good News…

Court date was set for May and received this today.

Thanks for all your help!

Coupon-mad

That took a while since the claim was defended in August 2022!   Wow.  What a waste of time.

Anyway - you won!  As predicted but great to hear.  I've added you to @Umkomaas disco thread

ANOTHER ONE BITES THE DUST!