Ready to Defend! Southgate Park MET McDonalds

Le_Kirk

I've adjusted my post and date.

Blobmeister

Thank you all so far for your advice.

I've now completed the Money Claim Online 'AOS'. Do I understand right, that I now complete the defence form and send by post or can I complete that on the MCOL system?  

Car1980

The new template will fit into the online system.

Blobmeister

Sorry Car1980...you mean the forms I've recieved are replicated on MCOL online system so can be filed there?

Le_Kirk

Blobmeister said:

Sorry Car1980...you mean the forms I've received are replicated on MCOL online system so can be filed there?

Exactly that, log in to GOV.UK using your Government Gateway details and then find the claim using the claim number and password on the claim form. 

Blobmeister

After reading a few Southgate Park / MET 'defence' threads, it looks as though some people have successfully had this thrown out simply because the keeper was not the driver. Should I use this as the (first) main defence and still include the remarks I stated in my first paragraph of this thread?....

'b)    My defence against the claim had always been that the car parks (Starbucks and McDonalds) are not seperated distinctly enough, That the signage was too small and (at 2am in the morning) too similar to the McDonalds signage to differntiate and that Starbucks was closed. Starbucks being closed means that parking cannot be paid for with a valid purchase. There are also no Pay and Display payment machines in the car park - so their argument that I hadn't paid is invalid as it was not possible'.

Obviously, I would word and format it a little more professionally 

Also, does its state anywhere what the defence deadline is after completing the AOS? 
I assume you just make notes of the date of issue and project accordingly.

It does prove one thing. People get daunted by the process but once you get into it, it is straight forward...
but the amount of hoops you have to jump through 

Coupon-mad

Yep that's worth stating (if you were the driver? The end bit of your words includes "I" so it suggests you were. Did you mean that?).

Blobmeister

Oh yeah, I see what you mean.

But yes, I was. So...include the excuses, but lead with the fact that she (the keeper) was not the driver.

I could word it to the effect that she was there but was not driving, that's fair isn't it?

Coupon-mad

lead with the fact that she (the keeper) was not the driver.

Definitely. Be clear if she was the passenger.

doubledotcom

Who is the DEFENDANT named on the claim form? It is not clear from all the ramblings about you being the driver or your wife being the Keeper, who is being sued here.

If it is in your wife's name they you lead with no Keeper liability. If it is in your name, as the driver, probably because you were either thrown under the bus with a wasted transfer of liability  or you somehow threw away the best possible defence by admitting to being the driver, inadvertently or otherwise.

So, who is being sued here? You as the driver or your wife as the Keeper?