You need to either clean the lense of whatever you are using to take this photos or else use a higher resolution as they are extremely difficult to read. I'm assuming I misread the date of the old claim as 06/06/2018 rather than 06/08/2018. So, you are correct the claim is not statute barred.
Either way, it will not make any difference to the fact that the claims will be discontinued before any hearing.
The pictures of "the contract" that the driver allegedly agreed to could be from anywhere. They are not proof of the signage in place at the location on the date in question. They could show a picture of a sign that says "if your vehicle is not bright green and it is a Wednesday, the driver is liable for a charge of £1 million". It wouldn't mean anything.
Who responded to your CPR 31.14 request? The Claimant or DCB Legal? A response reminding them that they gave not responded fully to the CPR 31.14 request will be highlighted to the court and appropriate sanctions requested.
Regarding the N180 DQ, are you sure it is not a copy of the Claimants DQ? It is rare these days for an N180 to be sent out so soon. It is common for DCB Legal to send you a copy of their N180 even though it has not been requested yet. Your MCOL history will show if/when a DQ has been sent to you.
If it is the latest version of the N180, mediation is compulsory. It involves a phone call with a court appointed mediator who will try and see if the both sides can reach an agreement to settle. It is a complete waste of time for a PPC debt claim but you are now obliged to go through the motions. You will not interact with the claimant. The mediator will go back and forth between you. I would suggest that you simply tell the mediator that you are not in any position to agree to anything as the claimant has failed to fully disclose all necessary documents and information relating to the claim. Agree that you will only settle for a payment of £25 from the Claimant.
As for question D1, you do NOT want a hearing on the papers. Not that it'll ever get to a hearing but you need tick "NO" and put the following in the text box (a text overlay in Arial or Helvetica 9pt will fit):
I am not content for the case to be heard 'on the papers' because that seems to disproportionately give an advantage to a legally represented party. I feel strongly after all the intimidating demands from this aggressive parking firm and its agents, that I need a voice at an attended hearing.
I wish to question the Claimant about their evidence at a hearing in person and to expose omissions and any misleading or incorrect evidence or assertions.
Given the Claimant is a firm who complete cut & paste parking case paperwork for a living, having this case heard solely on papers would appear to put the Claimant at an unfair advantage, especially as they would no doubt prefer the Defendant not to have the opportunity to expose the issues in the Claimants template submissions or speak as the only true witness to events in question.
So sorry about the poor quality of the pictures uploaded, too much screen time is causing me to not notice.I will take more care moving forward.
Yes, 100O% agree. The pictures provided does not evidence a thing. In fact, I googled the Car Park and can only see pictures of signage from last August, it was so much writing and so small it was impossible to read, even when zoomed into.
DCB Legal were the ones who responded to the CPR 31:14 request.
I am pretty sure it was the court who sent the Directions Questionnaire as I have already received the Directions Questionnaire from DCB Legal, as I realised it was to the same as the one the court sent to me. I have attached copy via the link.
https://imgur.com/a/vlupZgD
The MCL site appears to be down at the moment but I will double check when they are up.
Thank you for the advise of what to put in D1. I Will be sure to do this, can this be done by email to both parties? Or should this be done by post too?
Thank you once again, I am really appreciative.
You need to either clean the lense of whatever you are using to take this photos or else use a higher resolution as they are extremely difficult to read. I'm assuming I misread the date of the old claim as 06/06/2018 rather than 06/08/2018. So, you are correct the claim is not statute barred.
Either way, it will not make any difference to the fact that the claims will be discontinued before any hearing.
The pictures of "the contract" that the driver allegedly agreed to could be from anywhere. They are not proof of the signage in place at the location on the date in question. They could show a picture of a sign that says "if your vehicle is not bright green and it is a Wednesday, the driver is liable for a charge of £1 million". It wouldn't mean anything.
Who responded to your CPR 31.14 request? The Claimant or DCB Legal? A response reminding them that they gave not responded fully to the CPR 31.14 request will be highlighted to the court and appropriate sanctions requested.
Regarding the N180 DQ, are you sure it is not a copy of the Claimants DQ? It is rare these days for an N180 to be sent out so soon. It is common for DCB Legal to send you a copy of their N180 even though it has not been requested yet. Your MCOL history will show if/when a DQ has been sent to you.
If it is the latest version of the N180, mediation is compulsory. It involves a phone call with a court appointed mediator who will try and see if the both sides can reach an agreement to settle. It is a complete waste of time for a PPC debt claim but you are now obliged to go through the motions. You will not interact with the claimant. The mediator will go back and forth between you. I would suggest that you simply tell the mediator that you are not in any position to agree to anything as the claimant has failed to fully disclose all necessary documents and information relating to the claim. Agree that you will only settle for a payment of £25 from the Claimant.
As for question D1, you do NOT want a hearing on the papers. Not that it'll ever get to a hearing but you need tick "NO" and put the following in the text box (a text overlay in Arial or Helvetica 9pt will fit):
I am not content for the case to be heard 'on the papers' because that seems to disproportionately give an advantage to a legally represented party. I feel strongly after all the intimidating demands from this aggressive parking firm and its agents, that I need a voice at an attended hearing.
I wish to question the Claimant about their evidence at a hearing in person and to expose omissions and any misleading or incorrect evidence or assertions.
Given the Claimant is a firm who complete cut & paste parking case paperwork for a living, having this case heard solely on papers would appear to put the Claimant at an unfair advantage, especially as they would no doubt prefer the Defendant not to have the opportunity to expose the issues in the Claimants template submissions or speak as the only true witness to events in question.