MCOL defence ignored- Mediation Next

oldandconfused

Yes in hindsight I messed up. I hope never to need you guys again but will definitely come here first next time. By failed I meant I was hoping that they would just see I had not breached their terms and cancelled it.

You're clearly super experienced and have a wealth of knowledge but I'm sure you understand that that this amount of information is hard to understand and navigate when you have no clue?

My wife is still the defendant as they appeared to have ignored my initial appeal.

I will look again at the templates and look at the sections you're referring too. Thank you.

Coupon-mad

"My wife is still the defendant as they appeared to have ignored my initial appeal."

Brilliant! She has a perfect defence. Horizon couldn't hold keepers liable in 2024 because they didn't ever use the statutory wording.

Show us the defence she put in.

Verbatim please. Did she use the Gladstones defence with Chan & Akande?

We need to see what she can expand on at WS and exhibits stage. Read post 2 of the NEWBIES thread; the red heading: IMPORTANT, KNOW WHAT HAPPENS WHEN

You are in safe hands with us.

By the ,way you can be nominated to take the mediation call you know. But she has to attend any hearing but it'll be fine: she CANNOT LOSE as long as she explains the lack of POFA keeper liability.

oldandconfused

As said I do not have access to my original wording but I put the defence in via MCOL (my own login) which I will post below with some identity sanitisation. Clearly it is not good enough. I did not respond to any other correspondence. I will have to print out the information you're referencing and study it and see that if we are going to court that I can make it better.

XXXXXXXXXX, my wife, is the registered keeper of the vehicle
XXXXXXXX. However she was not the driver on the 2/11/24. I was.
The claimant was made aware of this via their online portal as
soon as the PCN was issued, but have failed to amend their
records.
They were also made aware that I was at the site on both 2/11/24
and 3/11/24, in my capacity as the Commanding Officer of XXXXXXXX
Cadet Forces and a member of the Royal British Legion, selling poppies for
their annual charity appeal. I was informed by the Tesco staff
that the electronic visitors book (used to avoid incurring a
penalty charge) was not functioning on 2/11/24 so I instead
completed the paper version. On 3/11/24 the electronic
version was once again functioning.
As I did not hear from the claimant for nearly a year after my
appeal of the PCN, I reasonably assumed it had been upheld. The
portal is no longer accessible to me, but I am still able to
provide evidence from both the XXXXXXXXXXX and the Royal
British Legion as to my valid reasons for parking longer than is
usually allowed.
I have also yesterday, 22/12/25, asked the manager of Tesco to
contact the claimant asking for my charge to be cancelled. They
have confirmed that they support my
request for cancellation of this charge and that they agree it is
not valid.

Given the above facts: Incorrect driver identification, legitimate
presence at the site for charitable purposes, procedural delay,
and confirmation from the site manager that the charge is invalid,
I respectfully request that this PCN be cancelled in full.

Gr1pr

If your wife is the defendant,  she has no liability in law,  so at mediation follow what I said,  no offer,  goodbye

Do not discuss the case 

Your wife is going to need a really good witness statement in a few months time,  so we can help her with the content and evidence 

You are not involved,  but you are helping her,  same as we are , as assistants, helpers,  elves

Worry ye not

Coupon-mad

oldandconfused said:

As said I do not have access to my original wording but I put the defence in via MCOL (my own login) which I will post below with some identity sanitisation. Clearly it is not good enough. I did not respond to any other correspondence. I will have to print out the information you're referencing and study it and see that if we are going to court that I can make it better.

XXXXXXXXXX, my wife, is the registered keeper of the vehicle
XXXXXXXX. However she was not the driver on the 2/11/24. I was.
The claimant was made aware of this via their online portal as
soon as the PCN was issued, but have failed to amend their
records.
They were also made aware that I was at the site on both 2/11/24
and 3/11/24, in my capacity as the Commanding Officer of XXXXXXXX
Cadet Forces and a member of the Royal British Legion, selling poppies for
their annual charity appeal. I was informed by the Tesco staff
that the electronic visitors book (used to avoid incurring a
penalty charge) was not functioning on 2/11/24 so I instead
completed the paper version. On 3/11/24 the electronic
version was once again functioning.
As I did not hear from the claimant for nearly a year after my
appeal of the PCN, I reasonably assumed it had been upheld. The
portal is no longer accessible to me, but I am still able to
provide evidence from both the XXXXXXXXXXX and the Royal
British Legion as to my valid reasons for parking longer than is
usually allowed.
I have also yesterday, 22/12/25, asked the manager of Tesco to
contact the claimant asking for my charge to be cancelled. They
have confirmed that they support my
request for cancellation of this charge and that they agree it is
not valid.

Given the above facts: Incorrect driver identification, legitimate
presence at the site for charitable purposes, procedural delay,
and confirmation from the site manager that the charge is invalid,
I respectfully request that this PCN be cancelled in full.

OMG that will be struck out because you appear to have defended the case.

Did you sign this, not the Defendant?

This isn't your case. You aren't a party to it and you could not respond to it. Looks like you have left your wife with no defence in her name at all. This had to be written by her.

I think the only way to unpick this is that she files a defence NOW with the CNBC by email and she points out that she never yet defended the case, so here is her defence.

By doing that, they can't then get a default CCJ.

As I read this she currently has no defence in and that will be spotted soon.