IMPORTANT: Please make sure your posts do not contain any personally identifiable information (both your own and that of others). When uploading images, please take care that you have redacted all personal information including QR codes, number plates and reference numbers.

Set-Aside Hearing Tomorrow....need help!

Options
1679111216

Comments

  • Chloe_Meow
    Chloe_Meow Posts: 80 Forumite
    First Post Name Dropper
    Options
    Thank you C-M, I also found out about the existence of a 'middle-man' which is all new to me and I was willing to pursue as you had listed, but I agree with the consensus now that the small-track Judge may not be interested. So, without wasting more time investigating the postal issue, I will only reference it in my WS and mention some of the points you guys have addressed above. I'm with you B789, the rules shouldn't be compromised. But, it is insightful for me to learn that Judges apply human nuances to the rules.Thank you, guys.

    I'm attaching the 'amended' PoC sent by DCBL. The only amendment I'm aware of is the claim amount which is now £248 whereas in the original claim it was £273. Since I don't have the original PoC, I do not know of any other amendments.
  • B789
    B789 Posts: 3,441 Forumite
    First Anniversary First Post Name Dropper Photogenic
    Options
    Compare those PoC with what was in the original, very similar to this:
    The pcn was issued on private land or managed by C. 
    The vehicle was parked in breached of the terms and C signs. (the contract)
    thus incurring the PCNS. 
    4. the driver agreed to pay within 8 days but did not. D Is liable as the driver or keeper. Despite requests the PCNS 
    is outstanding. The contract entitles C to damages. 
    AND THE CLAIMANT CLAIMS
    1. £XXX Being the total of the PCNS and damages
    2. interest at a rate of 8% per year per annum pursuant to 69 of the county court act 1984. 
    3. Costs and court fees.
    Remember to highlight in your defence that their PCN was not PoFA complaint and that their claim in their amended PoC that it is, is not true. Also, they cannot add the "contractual costs" of £60 because the "contract" has to specify the amount. They cannot just invent a sum if it is not specified on the signs.

    I am not sure, but as these are "amended" PoC, don't they have to be verified with a statement of truth or does the original statement of truth (not) by Yasmin Mia still stand? Surely if they are "amended" they require a new statement of truth?
  • B789
    B789 Posts: 3,441 Forumite
    First Anniversary First Post Name Dropper Photogenic
    Options
    B789 said:
    As a matter of concern, I have just sent the following message to the MoJ using their online service for complaints:
    I am writing to express my serious concern regarding the County Court Business Centre's (CCBC) use of an unapproved intermediary service to send court documents. I understand that the CCBC is breaching the Civil Procedure Rules and Practice Direction Part 6 - Service of Documents, specifically CPR 6.3(1)(a), by using an intermediary service that is not one of the CPR-approved methods of service.

    I have discovered that the documents, including time-sensitive ones such as claim forms, are being sent through an unapproved intermediary service and do not have any postmark or other evidence of the actual date of posting. This lack of proof of posting can cause confusion and distress to defendants in civil claims and prevent a "deemed" date of service from being calculated, as required by the CPR.

    As you may know, CPR 6.3(1)(a) requires first-class post, document exchange, or other service that provides for delivery on the next business day to be used for sending court documents unless there is a good reason to use an alternative method. The CCBC's use of an unapproved intermediary service that does not provide proof of posting is a clear breach of the CPR.

    Therefore, I request that the MoJ instruct the CCBC to immediately cease using the unapproved intermediary service and take steps to ensure that all court documents are sent through CPR-approved methods of service that provide evidence of posting. It appears to be a general policy of the CCBC management to use an unapproved intermediary that does not provide the required evidence of "date of posting" and this should be urgently addressed.
    I have also sent a very similar email to the CCBC for the attention of their management and to my own MP.

    If you don't hear back from me, please send food parcels c/o Tower of London.  :/

    I also wrote to the CCBC who have responded with:

    Do you have a case or claim number, please? I need this to examine the possible reason/s for your message.

    I am in the process of replying that I do not have any claim number but I am reporting it based on pictures I have been shown by defendants of envelopes that bear no postmark or any other evidence of date of posting. If anyone would like to offer their claim number and a photo of the envelope, I would be happy to use those for them to use as a part of their investigation.

     I am aware of quite a few defendants on the forum stating that they have no postmarks on correspondence from the CCBC.
  • Fruitcake
    Fruitcake Posts: 58,402 Forumite
    Name Dropper Photogenic First Anniversary First Post
    Options
    B789 said:
    B789 said:
    As a matter of concern, I have just sent the following message to the MoJ using their online service for complaints:
    I am writing to express my serious concern regarding the County Court Business Centre's (CCBC) use of an unapproved intermediary service to send court documents. I understand that the CCBC is breaching the Civil Procedure Rules and Practice Direction Part 6 - Service of Documents, specifically CPR 6.3(1)(a), by using an intermediary service that is not one of the CPR-approved methods of service.

    I have discovered that the documents, including time-sensitive ones such as claim forms, are being sent through an unapproved intermediary service and do not have any postmark or other evidence of the actual date of posting. This lack of proof of posting can cause confusion and distress to defendants in civil claims and prevent a "deemed" date of service from being calculated, as required by the CPR.

    As you may know, CPR 6.3(1)(a) requires first-class post, document exchange, or other service that provides for delivery on the next business day to be used for sending court documents unless there is a good reason to use an alternative method. The CCBC's use of an unapproved intermediary service that does not provide proof of posting is a clear breach of the CPR.

    Therefore, I request that the MoJ instruct the CCBC to immediately cease using the unapproved intermediary service and take steps to ensure that all court documents are sent through CPR-approved methods of service that provide evidence of posting. It appears to be a general policy of the CCBC management to use an unapproved intermediary that does not provide the required evidence of "date of posting" and this should be urgently addressed.
    I have also sent a very similar email to the CCBC for the attention of their management and to my own MP.

    If you don't hear back from me, please send food parcels c/o Tower of London.  :/

    I also wrote to the CCBC who have responded with:

    Do you have a case or claim number, please? I need this to examine the possible reason/s for your message.

    I am in the process of replying that I do not have any claim number but I am reporting it based on pictures I have been shown by defendants of envelopes that bear no postmark or any other evidence of date of posting. If anyone would like to offer their claim number and a photo of the envelope, I would be happy to use those for them to use as a part of their investigation.

     I am aware of quite a few defendants on the forum stating that they have no postmarks on correspondence from the CCBC.
    Perhaps you could start a thread asking for case numbers and explaining what it is all about.
    I married my cousin. I had to...
    I don't have a sister. :D
    All my screwdrivers are cordless.
    "You're Safety Is My Primary Concern Dear" - Laks
  • Chloe_Meow
    Chloe_Meow Posts: 80 Forumite
    First Post Name Dropper
    Options
    There was a statement of truth on the reverse of the last page and only that, so I didn't bother taking a snap. I can do it this evening if you want me to upload it too.

    B789, The PoC and the response pack were sent to me by DCBL or CCBC? I thought it was DCBL or was it forwarded onto CCBC to send to me? I'm confused. I'll be happy to pass on the claim number and you already have the pic of the envelope. But, can I hold off for now please, lot on my plate already.

    Thank you Johnersh and B789, I'll make a note of those points for the write-up. I was thinking of keeping the DCBL people busy and working. Are there any questions I can be asking or making requests for anything? I did ask for information regarding the change of signage and location and ticket machine installation dates and locations in my SAR from the Claimant directly but it was not provided. Can I demand this from DCBL now? Would they be under any obligation to provide it? I ask because I know the signage/ticket machine and locations have changed since the PCN was issued.

    I've also browsed Reading Council planning applications and cannot find any applications for the car park signage or machine.
  • Le_Kirk
    Le_Kirk Posts: 22,438 Forumite
    First Anniversary First Post Photogenic Name Dropper
    Options
    You can only ask for your own data via a SAR but you can "put the claimant to strict proof" about signage etc in defence or witness statement.
  • Chloe_Meow
    Chloe_Meow Posts: 80 Forumite
    First Post Name Dropper
    Options
    I was hoping to make a start on my defence a week and a half ago but it didn't happen. I've been dealing with a bereavement and having to come back to this, I just don't feel I have the energy or momentum anymore. Life and car parks...something not right there. Anyway.

    My minds blank and I see a mountain before me. I've started re-reading from the Newbies thread all over again. I got to the part where "Here are some cases won or in progress which should help you with ideas as to what to put in as 'case specific facts' at #2 and #3 of the above linked template defence, if your case is not a ParkingEye one: ", but there's no links to example cases, only ParkingEye. Can someone please give me some good examples I can learn from to word my Defence. Thank you.

    Thank you Le_Kirk, I will definitely do that.  
  • KeithP
    KeithP Posts: 37,990 Forumite
    Name Dropper First Post First Anniversary
    edited 25 May 2023 at 11:25PM
    Options
    I was hoping to make a start on my defence a week and a half ago...
    I've just read back and see that you must file and serve a Defence by 4:00pm on 30 May 2023.

    30th May is next Tuesday.
  • Coupon-mad
    Coupon-mad Posts: 133,061 Forumite
    Name Dropper First Post Photogenic First Anniversary
    Options
    Why not just read a few current claim/defence threads and see what they put?
    PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT (except N.Ireland).
    CLICK at the top of this/any page where it says:
    Forum Home»Motoring»Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD
Meet your Ambassadors

Categories

  • All Categories
  • 343.8K Banking & Borrowing
  • 250.3K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
  • 450K Spending & Discounts
  • 235.9K Work, Benefits & Business
  • 609.1K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
  • 173.4K Life & Family
  • 248.5K Travel & Transport
  • 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
  • 15.9K Discuss & Feedback
  • 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards