Claim Form received - no NTK, no LBA received before

The footer in those links looks to reveal your identity.

If you are that person then take the pictures down and remove the links

LGTH wrote: »

Not the name which appears on the claim form, so should be ok?

Yes, that's OK.

You think a TEMPLATE response has ripped your defence apart, LOL?! Look at the link to tidegu's one he/she received:

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?p=72749330#post72749330

...recognise the Witness Statement wording? Exact same style/wording. Load of rubbish.

See my reply to tidegu, an example of a Witness Statement which rips into their drivel (e.g. Elliott v Loake, and their assertion that you were 'required' to name the driver - you absolutely and categorically were not).

Now, stop giving in and see this for what it is, exactly the pile of BS we expected.

LGTH wrote: »

Couple of questions have been on my mind:

When you submit your WS with evidence, is it normal "practice" with Parking companies to bring some more evidence to court, like maybe documents obtained elsewhere and posts from forums, etc.
Or is it only evidence from WS?

Not posts from forums, but things like:

- the Beavis case sign as an example of a clear sign with the parking charge of £85 in the largest lettering, as a comparison.

- And Henry Greenslade's words about 'understanding keeper liability' from the POPLA Annual Report 2015.

- a copy of your car insurance if it shows more than one named driver - showing that the keeper might not have been the driver, on the balance of probabilities.

- transcripts from useful cases on the Parking Prankster's case law page, such as Excel v Lamoureux & Pace v Lengyel.

Since the Claimant is stating that more than likely RK was the driver, should they have also included in the evidence pack NTD stuck on the vehicle at the time of the event? Is that of any importance or not?

Yes they should have included it (both sides), if there was a NTD placed on the car. Because if they then sent a NTK between day 29 and day 56, they must also show a NTD was served first - in accordance with para 7 and 8 of the POFA Sch4.

In regard to grace period: what would be the reasonable amount of time to read the sign and /or get permit?

At least ten minutes, as per the Code of Practice.

So if the images they have sent show there was a yellow sticker with something inside on the windscreen and they did not include it the evidence pack (can they do that at the hearing?).
Is it something to point out to the judge?

Yes, because a NTD is required, under the POFA, unless the NTK was issued by post within 14 days, as a postal PCN instead.

How do you know there 'was something inside' the yellow packet? You can't assume there ever was. Sounds like an empty envelope and 'ghost ticketing' which UKCPS (another IPC firm) were banned for, a year ago. It happens.