Letter of Claim - Napier Parking Limited - BW Legal

Delamarmalade

Just to check, does doing the AOS mean you get more time to do the MCOL bit, i.e. Claim Form states issue date as 3rd July, so response within 14 days would be by c. 16th July. But does AOS extend this? 

Le_Kirk

All this information is on your N1SDT claim form.  If you disagree with the claim, you must send a defence within 14 days of date of service (issue date +5 days) OR if you send/submit the AoS you must send a defence within 28 days of date of service.  There is another proviso and that is that a defence due date can never be a week-end or bank holiday.

Gr1pr

Delamarmalade said:

Just to check, does doing the AOS mean you get more time to do the MCOL bit, i.e. Claim Form states issue date as 3rd July, so response within 14 days would be by c. 16th July. But does AOS extend this? 

Once the AOS has been completed,  your submission deadline is 4pm on 5th August,  plenty of time 

Coupon-mad

Gr1pr said:

Delamarmalade said:

Just to check, does doing the AOS mean you get more time to do the MCOL bit, i.e. Claim Form states issue date as 3rd July, so response within 14 days would be by c. 16th July. But does AOS extend this? 

Once the AOS has been completed,  your submission deadline is 4pm on 5th August,  plenty of time 

Yep and hold off as I will do a newer template defence this week - shorter - as I'm about to go on holiday & am aware it is needed. 

Delamarmalade

Thanks all, will be following the Dropbox instructions for AOS, but should I sign in and complete as if the defendant (who has long term serious health condition). 

Coupon-mad

Yes. This isn't your claim to respond to in your name.

As well as then defending, the Defendant could also then send details/evidence of their long term serious health condition by email to BW Legal, asking them to revert to Napier because they are a vulnerable person who was not the driver and should not be dragged to a court hearing. 

Delamarmalade

The defendant was driving, I’d got the original ‘ticket’ but the advice on here was to give the drivers details. The driver has a long term health condition and the advice here was that under the Equality Act the driver should have had more time after the ticket expired - this is the basis for defence (the driver also couldn’t locate the car and phone battery had died so couldn’t extend the parking remotely). Please can you advise how we approach wording this. 

Coupon-mad

Yes so you adapt what I said above and add the fact that the law says he was entitled to extended time, compared to the fixed policy on offer to all-comers.

Delamarmalade

Thank you. Could the defendant end up in court because he would not be able to do that. I’m a bit concerned with all of this now, as I’ve tried to keep his mind at rest with it all, but a bit worried that it could go that way. Or could I represent him there? 

Coupon-mad

The defendant was driving, I’d got the original ‘ticket’ but the advice on here was to give the drivers details. 

I don't know why you transferred liability to a more vulnerable person, which would never have been our advice.

Still, what's done is done.

You could speak for him at any hearing (as long as he attends too) but that's literally miles off and I already advised you what to put in the defence and what he should email after that, to BW Legal. My advice was given that way to get Napier to drop the case.