Moorside Legal - Another case

wp408

Defence submitted last week. Forgot to update the thread. 

Interestingly, NCP have giving back control of the car park in question to Portsmouth Council from the 16th of May. Will this affect there claim against me as they no longer have an interest in the property? 

Gr1pr

wp408 said:

Defence submitted last week. Forgot to update the thread. 

Interestingly, NCP have giving back control of the car park in question to Portsmouth Council from the 16th of May. Will this affect there claim against me as they no longer have an interest in the property? 

None whatsoever,  they were enforcing on the date of the incident 

wp408

Received a letter from the court with the following, I'm sure templated response to the defence submission. Dated the 16th of May.

"I acknowledge receipt of your defence. A copy is being served on the claimant (or the claimant's solicitor).

The claimant may contact you direct to attempt to resolve any dispute. If the dispute cannot be resolved informally, the claimant will inform the court that he wishes to proceed. The court will then inform you of what will happen.

Where he wishes to proceed, the claimant must contact the court within 28 days after receiving a copy of your defence. After that period has elapsed, the claim will be stayed. The only action the claimant can then take will be to apply to a judge for an order lifting the stay"

Coupon-mad

Yep - but that's normal and you know about that from the first 12 steps in the Template Defence thread.

  

patient_dream

Yes ... sounds good

Moorside are still virgins in the parking scam and they still think that BPA/IPC is some sort of law
BOTH ARE UBREGULATED and the fake add-on is called the OSNER scam which was approved by the BPA.

The promlem Moorside has with their comments is there is a much higher authority than Moorside.
It's called the Supreme Court and in the case of Parking Eye and Barry Beavis, the court ruled that the charge set covered the operation of the scheme
That was an £85 charge not £100 ?

Moorside seem to be copying DCBL and their rubbish and the DCBL failures

Moorside should read and understand what the Supreme Court ruled
"that the charge set covered the operation of the scheme"

To rely on an unregaulated ATA  which is not a law is living in fools paradise

County Court judges can only rely on the Supreme Court and not a members club like the BPA/IPC who approve scamming the public
Moorside are misleading the court and you