DCB Legal/MET Parking claim received

Romstav

Coupon-mad said:

It'll do the job but you could have just scrolled down my recent posts/comments on my profile and adopted the reply I told you I'd made in the Smart Parking gym thread.

Even if you couldn't easily spot that specific reply, half my replies last week were on Smart Parking threads. All of which have a defence posted by now. All of which make the point about the signatory lying about the POFA 2012.. Yours misses that extra point.

(I know your case isn't v Smart. But the argument is similar to all Smart defences).

  

I have found case you are talking about but seriously cannot put it together...may be i have read too many threads and got confused...that is why i was and still asking asking for help with this case...

Thank you

///////////////////(is it the right defense you were talking about?)

4. Further, regarding the Particulars of Claim paragraph 3, research has proved that this Claimant has never used the POFA 2012 and has never been able to hold registered keepers liable. This is important because the Defendant was not driving and, in fact, the solicitor signatory of the statement of truth on this claim is knowingly or negligently misleading the court by citing that law. Despite tens of thousands of boilerplate claims from DCB Legal causing inflated default CCJs this year - as they have reportedly filed a 'job lot' of template bulk claims for this Claimant, all repeating the untruth about the POFA 2012 - Smart Parking has no cause of action against any registered keeper.

/////////////////

Gr1pr

It is, but needs adapting to suit your MET case

Coupon-mad

Romstav said:

Coupon-mad said:

It'll do the job but you could have just scrolled down my recent posts/comments on my profile and adopted the reply I told you I'd made in the Smart Parking gym thread.

Even if you couldn't easily spot that specific reply, half my replies last week were on Smart Parking threads. All of which have a defence posted by now. All of which make the point about the signatory lying about the POFA 2012.. Yours misses that extra point.

(I know your case isn't v Smart. But the argument is similar to all Smart defences).

  

I have found case you are talking about but seriously cannot put it together...may be i have read too many threads and got confused...that is why i was and still asking asking for help with this case...

Thank you

///////////////////(is it the right defense you were talking about?)

4. Further, regarding the Particulars of Claim paragraph 3, research has proved that this Claimant has never used the POFA 2012 and has never been able to hold registered keepers liable. This is important because the Defendant was not driving and, in fact, the solicitor signatory of the statement of truth on this claim is knowingly or negligently misleading the court by citing that law. Despite tens of thousands of boilerplate claims from DCB Legal causing inflated default CCJs this year - as they have reportedly filed a 'job lot' of template bulk claims for this Claimant, all repeating the untruth about the POFA 2012 - Smart Parking has no cause of action against any registered keeper.

/////////////////

Yes but I already advised you exactly how to adapt that para 4. Read my earlier replies which tell you which bits of that para 4 to replace.

Then of course you renumber the template as you will have 11 paragraphs.

Romstav

Thank you
Do i need to put this at the top?

IN THE COUNTY COURT

Claim No:  

Between

MET PARKING SERVICES LTD

(Claimant) 

- and -  

xxxxx                  

 (Defendant)

Coupon-mad

No because you are using MCOL.

Romstav

Coupon-mad said:

No because you are using MCOL.

Thank you for your help…

Le_Kirk

You do need to change it to be in the third person, so NOT "I" but "the defendant".