Conditions of CCJ staying my record

Nospiders123

Gr1pr said:

Nospiders123 said:

Thanks everyone for your feedback and sharing appropriate links. 

I will send the AoS and get the ball rolling. I will check back in once I progress with the defense.

Many thanks 

You dont send the AOS,  no paperwork is involved here 

Login to MCOL via the government gateway and complete only the AOS section on MCOL,  then logout again,  do nothing else on MCOL,  a 10 minute job, by following the advice in the 2nd post in the newbies sticky thread in announcements near the top of the forum by coupon mad 

So no posting anything at all, and it's NOT a CCJ , its a claim form from the CNBC in Northampton using MCOL 

Then check your private message from troublemaker22 above

Thank you all done.

Nospiders123

Hi everyone, just as a little update. 
I have now received 3 more letters from ZZPS on behalf of smart parking requesting payment following over free time penalties. All different penalties.
Any advice of how I can handle this. 

I was worried about this and not sure if this is linked to the AoS i completed last week for a different penalty claim.

ChirpyChicken

No you ignore ZZPS

Coupon-mad

Ignore that. All good as long as you aren't about to move house and as long as Smart don't hold more than one address for you.

Defend the claim. See the Template Defence.

Nospiders123

Thanks got it ! 

Nospiders123

Hi, so I have been reading the threads and trying to come up with some points to add to the defence template.  With the POC having very little detail and the PCN being from 2023, this has been tricky. 

I would really appreciate your feedback on the points below. I wish I had more to add and hope this alongside the other 30 points already in the template will be sufficient.

  Regarding the Particulars of Claim paragraph 3, The Claimant has never used the POFA 2012 and has never been able to hold registered keepers liable, so the solicitor signatory of the statement of truth on this claim is misleading the court by citing that law. 3.1Due to the length of time, the Defendant has no recollection of the day in question. The Defendant has parked in this car park many times while shopping in Tottenham hale retail park with evidence of transactions available to submit when required. This PCN undermines the purpose of customer parking as delays in leaving the retail park could have been down to a number of factors such as store queues and children. The Defendant was unaware that parking restrictions applied to customers. The Defendant had not noticed any ‘Prominent’ signage close to where the vehicle was parked, showing the terms and conditions for use. The small signage posted at great height was not suitable to alert a motorist, leading to an unawareness of the parking restrictions.

• 3.2 The Defendant does not recall receiving the original PCN. Therefore, this was not appealed at the time and it is difficult to know if the Claimant failed to allow the mandatory grace period, making the charge potentially unfair and non-compliant with industry standards.

Thanks 

Coupon-mad

Yep that'll do. Easy innit?!

doubledotcom

I appreciate that the defendant is trying to point out that the person who signed the SoT may not be truthful, but if the defendant is saying that the claimant cannot rely on PoFA but then goes on to admit to being the driver, what's the point of that?

Nospiders123 said:

Regarding the Particulars of Claim paragraph 3, The Claimant has never used the POFA 2012 and has never been able to hold registered keepers liable, so the solicitor signatory of the statement of truth on this claim is misleading the court by citing that law. 3.1Due to the length of time, the Defendant has no recollection of the day in question. The Defendant has parked in this car park many times while shopping in Tottenham hale retail park with evidence of transactions available to submit when required. This PCN undermines the purpose of customer parking as delays in leaving the retail park could have been down to a number of factors such as store queues and children. The Defendant was unaware that parking restrictions applied to customers. The Defendant had not noticed any ‘Prominent’ signage close to where the vehicle was parked, showing the terms and conditions for use. The small signage posted at great height was not suitable to alert a motorist, leading to an unawareness of the parking restrictions.

• 3.2 The Defendant does not recall receiving the original PCN. Therefore, this was not appealed at the time and it is difficult to know if the Claimant failed to allow the mandatory grace period, making the charge potentially unfair and non-compliant with industry standards.

Coupon-mad

Ah - how dd I miss that error?! Ta.

Nospiders123

doubledotcom said:

I appreciate that the defendant is trying to point out that the person who signed the SoT may not be truthful, but if the defendant is saying that the claimant cannot rely on PoFA but then goes on to admit to being the driver, what's the point of that?

Nospiders123 said:

Regarding the Particulars of Claim paragraph 3, The Claimant has never used the POFA 2012 and has never been able to hold registered keepers liable, so the solicitor signatory of the statement of truth on this claim is misleading the court by citing that law. 3.1Due to the length of time, the Defendant has no recollection of the day in question. The Defendant has parked in this car park many times while shopping in Tottenham hale retail park with evidence of transactions available to submit when required. This PCN undermines the purpose of customer parking as delays in leaving the retail park could have been down to a number of factors such as store queues and children. The Defendant was unaware that parking restrictions applied to customers. The Defendant had not noticed any ‘Prominent’ signage close to where the vehicle was parked, showing the terms and conditions for use. The small signage posted at great height was not suitable to alert a motorist, leading to an unawareness of the parking restrictions.

• 3.2 The Defendant does not recall receiving the original PCN. Therefore, this was not appealed at the time and it is difficult to know if the Claimant failed to allow the mandatory grace period, making the charge potentially unfair and non-compliant with industry standards.

Humm, thanks for pointing this out. Can I please be guided by the forum on this. Is it worth removing point 3 or 3.1 which do you think carries more weight. ?