AOS done - i have 2 weeks for defence but confused about steps - pls advise

Coupon-mad

Looks fine except they aren't 'traffic wardens'. These are private firms trying to extort money from you.

Instead, call the person a predatory ticketer and point out that this was obviously 'ghost ticketing' done behind the Defendant's back; a rogue practice which is banned by both Trade Bodies.

Also in England we don't have windshields.  That's American.  Change to windscreen.

Also admit to being the driver in paragraph 2.

Mouse007

Mouse007 said:

mrstingy2022 said:

3 my collegue is willing to confirm on paper his statement that he saw traffic wardens then i walked out to swap permits and came back saying i had no ticket at the time?

It would be better if he said you when you went to check your permit you came back and said all good no ticket (Don't mention a swap)

I don't think you understood my point above

DON'T admit to the permit being hidded - it's for the Claimant to prove their case, not for you to help them - this is a car crash waiting to happen

mrstingy2022 said:

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

3.    Defendant parked properly in the allocated space as allowed by the company that employs defendant. Defendant was given by his company a letter confirming employment and the right to park in the allocated space which can be presented later to the court. 

4.    On the day date when the PCN ticket was given issued a colleague of the defendant noticed saw through the office window, traffic wardens a parking attendant checking the cars on the car park. This prompted the defendant to check his own car - which had 2 permits – one which has expired and the second permit which was valid but was obscured by the expired one.  After correcting their permit was on checking the windshield windscreen. While doing so the defendant and not noticing any ticket given observered that no PCN was on their car. The defendant then returned to his work office and told colleague that no parking ticket had been was received (Collegue can confirm this). However, several days later PCN ticket arrived with pictures showing a loose paper placed on the windshield which must have been removed after taking the picture. During checking his permit defendant was walking very near traffic wardens which could have prompted him to explain the situation which would have been resolved at the time.

5.   Defendant appealed against PCN ticket explaining his right to park there but his appeal was dismissed.

Or something similar. Be factual, but don't add stuff in which they can not possibly know.

Boat_to_Bolivia

Mouse007 said:

DON'T admit to the permit being hidded - it's for the Claimant to prove their case, not for you to help them - this is a car crash waiting to happen

'hidded' that made me laugh 

Mouse007

Boat_to_Bolivia said:

Mouse007 said:

DON'T admit to the permit being hidded - it's for the Claimant to prove their case, not for you to help them - this is a car crash waiting to happen

'hidded' that made me laugh 

That's what happeds when being nagged elsewhere whilst trying to type

mrstingy2022

Coupon-mad said:

Looks fine except they aren't 'traffic wardens'. These are private firms trying to extort money from you.

Can I just call them "VCS warden" or something else neutral - i am angry at them wasting my time\your time and courts time but is it not against my interest to call them "predatory ticketer" as the judge might not like it?

Also admit to being the driver in paragraph 2.

I wrote in paragraph 2:
It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper and driver of the vehicle in question.
OMG i thought that was already the admission ? shall i say instead:
Defendant admits to being the registered keeper and driver of the vehicle in question

Instead, call the person a predatory ticketer and point out that this was obviously 'ghost ticketing' done behind the Defendant's back; a rogue practice which is banned by both Trade Bodies.

Any chance you help to word it properly in a sentence or two?

Also in England we don't have windshields.  That's American.  Change to windscreen.

I will correct that. Thanks

mrstingy2022

Mouse007 said:

Boat_to_Bolivia said:

Mouse007 said:

DON'T admit to the permit being hidded - it's for the Claimant to prove their case, not for you to help them - this is a car crash waiting to happen

'hidded' that made me laugh 

That's what happeds when being nagged elsewhere whilst trying to type

I did use spoiler instead of quote which i was correcting
Well impressed how active this forum is

mrstingy2022

Mouse007 said:

Mouse007 said:

mrstingy2022 said:

3 my collegue is willing to confirm on paper his statement that he saw traffic wardens then i walked out to swap permits and came back saying i had no ticket at the time?

It would be better if he said you when you went to check your permit you came back and said all good no ticket (Don't mention a swap)

I don't think you understood my point above

DON'T admit to the permit being hidded - it's for the Claimant to prove their case, not for you to help them - this is a car crash waiting to happen

mrstingy2022 said:

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

3.    Defendant parked properly in the allocated space as allowed by the company that employs defendant. Defendant was given by his company a letter confirming employment and the right to park in the allocated space which can be presented later to the court. 

4.    On the day date when the PCN ticket was given issued a colleague of the defendant noticed saw through the office window, traffic wardens a parking attendant checking the cars on the car park. This prompted the defendant to check his own car - which had 2 permits – one which has expired and the second permit which was valid but was obscured by the expired one.  After correcting their permit was on checking the windshield windscreen. While doing so the defendant and not noticing any ticket given observered that no PCN was on their car. The defendant then returned to his work office and told colleague that no parking ticket had been was received (Collegue can confirm this). However, several days later PCN ticket arrived with pictures showing a loose paper placed on the windshield which must have been removed after taking the picture. During checking his permit defendant was walking very near traffic wardens which could have prompted him to explain the situation which would have been resolved at the time.

5.   Defendant appealed against PCN ticket explaining his right to park there but his appeal was dismissed.

Or something similar. Be factual, but don't add stuff in which they can not possibly know.

I don't think you understood my point above

Massive thanks for reminding. I will follow the advice

mrstingy2022

Mouse007 said:

Mouse007 said:

mrstingy2022 said:

3 my collegue is willing to confirm on paper his statement that he saw traffic wardens then i walked out to swap permits and came back saying i had no ticket at the time?

It would be better if he said you when you went to check your permit you came back and said all good no ticket (Don't mention a swap)

I don't think you understood my point above

DON'T admit to the permit being hidded - it's for the Claimant to prove their case, not for you to help them - this is a car crash waiting to happen

mrstingy2022 said:

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

3.    Defendant parked properly in the allocated space as allowed by the company that employs defendant. Defendant was given by his company a letter confirming employment and the right to park in the allocated space which can be presented later to the court. 

4.    On the day date when the PCN ticket was given issued a colleague of the defendant noticed saw through the office window, traffic wardens a parking attendant checking the cars on the car park. This prompted the defendant to check his own car - which had 2 permits – one which has expired and the second permit which was valid but was obscured by the expired one.  After correcting their permit was on checking the windshield windscreen. While doing so the defendant and not noticing any ticket given observered that no PCN was on their car. The defendant then returned to his work office and told colleague that no parking ticket had been was received (Collegue can confirm this). However, several days later PCN ticket arrived with pictures showing a loose paper placed on the windshield which must have been removed after taking the picture. During checking his permit defendant was walking very near traffic wardens which could have prompted him to explain the situation which would have been resolved at the time.

5.   Defendant appealed against PCN ticket explaining his right to park there but his appeal was dismissed.

Or something similar. Be factual, but don't add stuff in which they can not possibly know.

Also massive thanks for making my statements more understandable. I guess courts are very detailed and word choosing is important.

Boat_to_Bolivia

mrstingy2022 said:

Mouse007 said:

Boat_to_Bolivia said:

Mouse007 said:

DON'T admit to the permit being hidded - it's for the Claimant to prove their case, not for you to help them - this is a car crash waiting to happen

'hidded' that made me laugh 

That's what happeds when being nagged elsewhere whilst trying to type

I did use spoiler instead of quote which i was correcting
Well impressed how active this forum is

In my defence, I have been out for drinks and a curry with friends this evening, and felt duty bound to have a nightcap once home 

Boat_to_Bolivia

mrstingy2022 said:

Mouse007 said:

Boat_to_Bolivia said:

Mouse007 said:

DON'T admit to the permit being hidded - it's for the Claimant to prove their case, not for you to help them - this is a car crash waiting to happen

'hidded' that made me laugh 

That's what happeds when being nagged elsewhere whilst trying to type

I did use spoiler instead of quote which i was correcting
Well impressed how active this forum is

CM, the absolute and honoured expert, would normally be around, but I expect she's celebrating the seagull's epic win