Text message from qdrs solicitor stage

Coupon-mad

This is all normal. Of course the hearing will be at your local court.

Nothing has changed and you are simply in the first 12 steps as explained in the Template Defence first post. Those 12 steps cover everything early doors, and are designed to mean that no-one needs advice in the first 3 months after defence.

patient_dream

All i can say that the letter would make a judge howl with laughter

UKPC signs are rubbish. Small letters in the T&C's that you need bincolurs to read 

Judges have dismissed cases because of poor UKPC signage, The legal they normally use being DCBL discontinue such rubbish cases. 
A judge last year said their claim was ridiculous.

To say it is your eyesight is at fault is childish

As a private individual it is your choice which court a case is heard

How the BPA and DVLA  allow them to operate is beyond words

Strebor

Well I've paraphrased. It's got a lot of paragraphs and lines answering all of the defence things......is it the sort of letter that people upload in full.but redacted details?

I'm not sure if they'd howl or pull their hair out?!

Coupon-mad

No we don't need to see it.

Fully expected letter and you are simply in the first 12 steps as explained in the Template Defence first post. Those 12 steps cover everything early doors, and are designed to mean that no-one needs advice in the first 3 months after defence.

fisherjim

You are now seeing UKPC for who they are liars and twisters the know very well that their signs cannot be read easily, they also supply pristine office templates as evidence not photos of the actual signage as it will show them for the liars they are.

The people replying and supplying the evidence are highly unlikely to have ever visited the site, only their sign installer or local ever changing patrols will have ever seen anything in the"flesh".

They want you to use the High Wycombe court because it's about two miles from their new HQ in Wooburn Green just along the A40, don't fall for that one.

The big nasty expert bullies with all their staff and resource complain about a single member of the public using the internet for research and help, most judges think that's perfectly acceptable and resourceful.

Don't let these greedy dimwits get to you.

patient_dream

fisherjim said:

You are now seeing UKPC for who they are liars and twisters the know very well that their signs cannot be read easily, they also supply pristine office templates as evidence not photos of the actual signage as it will show them for the liars they are.

The people replying and supplying the evidence are highly unlikely to have ever visited the site, only their sign installer or local ever changing patrols will have ever seen anything in the"flesh".

They want you to use the High Wycombe court because it's about two miles from their new HQ in Wooburn Green just along the A40, don't fall for that one.

The big nasty expert bullies with all their staff and resource complain about a single member of the public using the internet for research and help, most judges think that's perfectly acceptable and resourceful.

Don't let these greedy dimwits get to you.

Mr Fisherjim ...... your post made my day. what a complete joke they are
As Coupon says ... THE BPA MUST BE SO PROUD

Strebor

Ok, I've found the whole list of email inboxes they are now using via an attachment to that email I quoted below.

I don't know that I can load it up if it was useful?

Here's my initial post question today; (but I solved)

Just tried to submit doc to the court email listed on here, (I did successfully use to send defence to) and got the response below. Help please.......haven't found anywhere as yet.

Also, when known it's an update for the advice.

This mailbox is now closed, your email will not be actioned.

 

Please re-send your document or enquiry to the mailbox dedicated to your query type, from the attached list.

Only use one Mailbox per enquiry.

When sending us documents please ensure you comply with the Practice Direction 5B

https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules/part05/pd_part05b

Documents not complying will not be accepted, in particular if it is over 10MB or 25 printed pages in size.

 

If your query is in relation to IT issues when accessing MCOL or PCOL - Please redirect your query to MCOLITassistance@justice.gov.uk OR PCOLITassistance@justice.gov.uk

 

 

** If your mail relates to a subject access request or freedom of information request, please send your request or query to data.access@justice.gov.uk**

 

 

---

This e-mail and any attachments is intended only for the attention of the addressee(s). Its unauthorised use, disclosure, storage or copying is not permitted. If you are not the intended recipient, please destroy all copies and inform the sender by return e-mail. Internet e-mail is not a secure medium. Any reply to this message could be intercepted and read by someone else. Please bear that in mind when deciding whether to send material in response to this message by e-mail. This e-mail (whether you are the sender or the recipient) may be monitored, recorded and retained by the Ministry of Justice. Monitoring / blocking software may be used, and e-mail content may be read at any time. You have a responsibility to ensure laws are not broken when composing or forwarding e-mails and their contents.

Debszzzz2

Depending on which document you are sending to the CNBC, you have to use the new email address and put the claim number in the subject:

Strebor

Hi all, just a note to say the helpful thread that bargpole created is a little bit out of date re the section letters......D1 for instance isnt the court where you want but suitability for determination without a hearing.....

It wasn't too much bother to work things out, but you know when you sit to get stuff done, something small like that (and the change of email address as above) can throw you off.

I believe the thread is closed, otherwise I would have put this note on there.

Anyway, thanks thus far for the help.

Ps. I added some reasons for not having determination without a hearing.....as per the form notes, and not just the "oppose the claimant" line advised.

Strebor

Looking into the case I've been advised on here that yes unclear signage, small print up high is a defence. However there is also a thread I've found that is about useless defences that says unless they are obscured then you should have seen and read them, so it's no defence.

In my case they are so high you can't make out the small print on the one end of the carpark I used, there are ground level ones on shops far away, one drives past them (too small to read or see even becuse your actually driving through pedestrian area not running over people is what one is concentrating on!) should I have magically seen them whilst driving?

Should I have parked 60m away where the shop I visited is and walked all the way to low sign 60 and then 60m to the shop I was visiting?

So how does one go about showing this in court if they will present their pristine templates? Short of a judge visiting site. Will they just say your word against theirs?

They (internal staff sol I think) seem very adamant they are going to proceed (direction n180 denying all argument (used paste all this below from defence template and my own words on signs,)

They also state I had an appeal to POPLA and was ruled against where I'd actually sent a letter to claim no contract, a reply to which they said it was regarded as and appeal, but time for an appeal has passed so pay up or we'll claim in court.

This post is about trying to understand whether given the above points what in probability will be the outcome. Some of the points are around advice on here vs their solicitors (they bat aside the template.) whereas as one is practical about court and how does one get across sign issues without being there, photos are one thing but readability when up at a height seems harder to.convey? ......As I need to be prepared. I thought people might comment. It would be appreciated grately.