Esst Midlands Airport-Civil National Business Centre Letter- Elm Legal- Vehicle Control Services

Longis

I had a Notice of Proposed Allocation to Small claims Track. and to complete a N180 and send to CNBC by a date, and copy other party. Has option of referring to mediation.

Coupon-mad

Longis said:

I had a Notice of Proposed Allocation to Small claims Track. and to complete a N180 and send to CNBC by a date, and copy other party. Has option of referring to mediation.

Ring and ask the CNBC what was taken to be your defence. You need to know.

Longis

Thanks, I have done this...They have my info including the defence document. So sending back to them the NI80 and copies of it to the Claimant

Longis

Mediation seems optional, though not sure what it would achieve as I will not pay unless ruled to, and doubt Claimant would.

LDast

@Longis, is English not your first language? You need to know what you put in your defence, verbatim. We know that the CNBC has received your defence. You don't seem to be able to comprehend that you need to know what you wrote. We need to know in order to be able to provide the best advice.

Coupon-mad

Longis said:

Mediation seems optional, though not sure what it would achieve as I will not pay unless ruled to, and doubt Claimant would.

Tick NO to Mediation if the N180 lets you. 

Longis

LDast said:

@Longis, is English not your first language? You need to know what you put in your defence, verbatim. We know that the CNBC has received your defence. You don't seem to be able to comprehend that you need to know what you wrote. We need to know in order to be able to provide the best advice.

So you want me to paste my full defence here, in this thread?

• I have a word document with my full defence, based on standard response from elsewhere on this forum. I have added my circumstances and also information about previous bye-law comments.
  
•  I know what I wrote in the online box...it was simply that my defence document was sent seperately 
• This was sent to the CNBC attached to an email
• I have spoken to CNBC (actually before someone on this Forum advised I should) and CNBC say they have my full defence, to complete the N180 and send to the Court and Claimant

What else do you need to know?
Whate else do I need to know?

Is that clear enough for advice?

Longis

Coupon-mad said:

Longis said:

Mediation seems optional, though not sure what it would achieve as I will not pay unless ruled to, and doubt Claimant would.

Tick NO to Mediation if the N180 lets you. 

Thanks. It would be good to know you reasoning for this.

Coupon-mad

As per the NEWBIES thread, explained by @bargepole in his 'Court Procedures' thread that I link there. Beware his thread is old so things like CNBC email addresses (if he mentions those) won't be up to date but his advice is sound and he's legally trained.

I also said "if the N180 lets you" because the form has changed for new claims filed after the last week in May and people can no longer say no.  But if you have the older form, then you can and should say no.

Re your defence, not the whole defence, no.  Can you just show us paragraphs 2-4 (if you used the Template, those will have your facts).

Seeing your 'defence facts' section helps us to help you develop your Witness Statement, a later stage that is covered in the NEWBIES thread 'important: know what happens when' section and explained as well, by bargepole in his thread linked there. 

Longis

2. The facts in this defense come from the Defendant's own knowledge and honest belief.  Conversely, the Claimant sets out a cut-and-paste incoherent and sparse statement of case. The POC appears to be in breach of CPR 16.4, 16PD3 and 16PD7, and fail to 'state all facts necessary for the purpose of formulating a complete cause of action'. The Defendant is unable, on the basis of the POC, to understand with certainty what case, allegation(s) and what heads of cost are being pursued, making it difficult to respond. However, the vehicle is recognised and it is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper and driver.

3.The Defendant had set out to pick up a parcel from DHL on East Midlands Airport on the evening in question, and believed the location of DHL was on the main site after googling.. 

On entering the main site of the airport the Defendant became lost and could see no signs for DHL. They navigated after a few false turns to the area where they thought DHL was located.

There the Defendant stopped off the main road and in what appeared to be parking bay where they took a minute or two to look up the DHL site. At which point the Defendant realised the DHL pick up point was in fact located further down the A453 accessed by a different road. The defendant then exited the airport and carried on down the A453 to pick up the package, just before they closed the desk.

During the time on the airport site (in the evening when it was dark) the defendant noticed no signs about parking restrictions, so Defendant disputes any signs or road markings were prominently displayed and reasonably visible on entering or elsewhere.

The defendant has a receipt that proves the time of picking up the package from the DHL site.

4. The Claimant will concede that no financial loss has arisen and that in order to impose an inflated parking charge, as well as proving a term was breached, there must be:

(i). a strong 'legitimate interest' extending beyond mere compensation for loss, and

(Ii). 'adequate notice' of the 'penalty clause' charge which, in the case of a car park, requires prominent signs and lines.