Show Posts - Tronster321

Quote from: b789 on 19 Nov, 2025 11:47Paying £27 trial fee is nothing to them. They push this all the way to the limit in the hope you are too gullible to understand there process. We only get to dal with a tiny number of these cases. Remember, these firms issue over 40,000 PCNs a day.In the vast majority of these cases, the recipients just pay at the mugs discount rate or appeal and then pay. Tens of hundreds of thousands of these go all the way to a claim every year. Sadly, the vast majority of these recipients are too ignorant or fearful and end up paying these firms, what is by then an inflated sum when, if they did actually go to court and were unlucky enough to lose, they would not pay the fake added on fees.In this case, you followed the advice, stood your ground and they folded at the last minute. A win and hopefully a life lesson.Please show us the N279 Notice of Discontinuance.It's a shame really, was one of the few ones who was looking forward to ging to court and them having to explain why they are taking someone with disabilities to court for a case they know in their mind had no basis or merit, such a shame really, but oh wellLink to NoD below,https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/04dhs4tcp2si4m8rqdmzj/M3FC91C1-Notice-of-Discontinuance.pdf?rlkey=cer792qc82dm7lsz1s314vqiu&dl=0Again guys, thank you for ALL your help, any for anyone reading this. KEEP YOUR NERVE!!!! It worked for me, even when i F**KED up my defence as they said FUBAR! Can be fixed even when you make a mistake like i did haha

So woke up to a notice of discontinuance this morning, which seems weird as they paid for the trail fee. What's the next steps that I need to do?

Quote from: b789 on 11 Nov, 2025 17:00Nice first attempt. However, it is all over the place and the single most important thing is that you have not identified the driver and because the location is subject to byelaws, it is not relevant land for the purposes of PoFA which means that you cannot be liable as the Keeper. That should be the very first point. Additionally, if you want to argue other procedural failures, then these should also be right at the beginning. The rest of the narrative can follow.You want the judge to look at it and before having to trudge through the rest of it, decide whether there is a case for you to answer. If there isn't, because they agree that the location is no relevant land and the driver is not identified, then there is nothing else other to deal with and they can finish early and go haver a cup of tea, or whatever. Judges want an easy life. Especially in the small claims track, they don't need overly complex argument for a simple matter.Before you do any more, wait to see if they submit their WS by the deadline.Having reviewed the court order against, I note so many inconsistencies and errors:1. Contradictory deadlines and sequencingThe trial fee deadline is set as 14 November 2025, but the hearing date is listed as 12 December 2025 — less than a month later. That’s unusually tight and inconsistent with the usual 21–28 day minimum gap courts maintain between a trial fee deadline and the hearing date.It leaves no practical time for the court to process a potential strike-out and notify parties before the scheduled hearing.2. Inconsistent timeline for evidence exchangeThe order requires parties to serve and file witness statements by 30 December 2025 — after the hearing date (12 December 2025). That is a fundamental procedural error.Witness evidence obviously must be served before the hearing, typically 14 or 21 days in advance under CPR 27.4(3). Having a filing date after the hearing invalidates the order’s practical effect.3. Possible clerical or cut-and-paste errorThe text appears to be a hybrid of two separate orders:• A trial fee order (about payment by 14 November 2025), and• A directions order setting the evidence timetable (dated 30 December 2025).This likely indicates the court staff used a template from another case or reused an earlier draft without adjusting the dates to fit this specific hearing.4. Lack of consistency between hearing listing and directionsThe “Notice of Allocation to the Small Claims Track (Hearing)” dated 2 October 2025 confirms the hearing on 12 December 2025.The subsequent order dated 10 September 2025 (an earlier date) contains post-hearing directions (filing by 30 December 2025).Chronologically, a 10 September order could not refer to a 12 December hearing set later in October.Therefore, the two documents are out of sequence — the later “allocation” notice appears to supersede the earlier general directions, yet the later one doesn’t correct the erroneous post-hearing dates.5. Failure to specify service method and compliance under CPR 27The order requires that parties “serve and file” witness statements but omits:• The standard requirement that they be exchanged simultaneously.• Any reference to CPR 27.4(3) or Practice Direction 27A para 7.3 (which normally govern small claims evidence).6. Ambiguous consequence wordingIt states: “If your claim has been struck out, it will no longer exist. The hearing will be vacated unless a counterclaim survives.” While legally correct, this wording is non-standard and confusingly placed before the payment instructions rather than after the consequence section, which may confuse litigants in person.I would suggest you take the initial five in this and send the following to the court and CC the claimant and yourself as follows:QuoteSubject: Claim [NUMBER] – Order (two pages) – URGENT clarification/correction under CPR 40.12 and CPR 3.1Dear Listing Office,I refer to the single two-page Order in this matter. The Order is internally inconsistent and incapable of compliance unless corrected. In particular:1. Internal dating conflictThe Order’s heading states 2 October 2025, whereas the signature/footer states 10 September 2025. Please confirm which is the date of the Order and which governs the timetable.2. Witness statements due after the hearingThe Order requires parties to “serve and file” witness statements and documents by 4:00 pm on 30 December 2025, i.e. after the listed hearing at 10:00 am on 12 December 2025. That is impossible and contrary to the small-claims regime (CPR 27.4; PD 27A para 7.3), which requires evidence in advance of the hearing.3. Mediation extension that defeats the listingThe provision extending filing to seven days after any mediation would, in any scenario, push filing beyond the listed hearing. As drafted, the timetable cannot be complied with.These are not trivial slips. Left uncorrected, they invite ambush, adjournment and wasted court time, contrary to the Overriding Objective.Relief sought:A. Identify the correct date of the Order and amend the document accordingly.B. Vary the directions so that witness statements and documents are exchanged simultaneously no later than 14 days before the hearing (i.e. by 4:00 pm on 28 November 2025). If preferred, a 21-day timetable (21 November 2025) is also workable.C. Disapply the “+7 days after mediation” filing provision as incompatible with the fixed 12 December hearing.D. Direct that any party wishing to rely on material served after the corrected deadline must apply for relief, with costs consequences reserved.Case-management notice:Absent prompt clarification, the Defendant will proceed on a 14-day pre-hearing timetable to minimise prejudice. If the current defect necessitates an adjournment, the Defendant will invite the Court to give appropriate directions and deal with costs on a neutral basis (no order, or reserved), as the situation arises from the Order’s wording rather than any party default.Given the proximity of the hearing, I request that corrected directions issue urgently.Yours faithfully,[Full name][Address][Email]Personally, I would have just gone for a strike out application with costs. Had you gone for a summary judgment before allocation, you could have had £750 fixed costs plus the application and then an additional hearing for unreasonable behaviour costs on to of that.The claimant does not have a case against the keeper if the driver is not identified.Thanks for this, I see where you're coming from, but here we are and i am very thankful for all your help Email has been sent.

Quote from: DWMB2 on 10 Nov, 2025 16:37As per b789's previous comment, we'll be better able to advise on a WS when ParkingEye produce theirs. In the meantime, from a quick skim there are some holes in your proposed WS... In section 13 of your WS for example, you say "I have never identified the driver", but further up in section 4 of the same document you identify the driver.See what others say but I'd be minded to wait and see what ParkingEye come up with before writing much more.Makes sense, just wanted to be prepared due to them not having to file a WS until AFTER the hearing date, don't wanna get caught with my pants down basically at the last minute.

Quote from: b789 on 16 Oct, 2025 22:19For now, do nothing. Let's see if the Claimant notices and makes a request to the court to correct the deadline dates. On Monday 17th November, call the court and see if the claimant has paid the trial fee. If they have, you can start preparing your own Witness Statement (WS) but don't submit anything until you've seen the claimants WS first, if at all.If you hear anything else about the hearing in the meantime, come back and let us know.Hi there, So went passed the court today and popped in, they have paid the trail fee so it will go ahead on the 12th of December. So i have drafted an Witness statement belowhttps://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/n2cbtz0powtwqgtm34pp9/Defendant-WS.docx?rlkey=b2x19la30arqq1odh24670v0y&dl=0and A skeleton Argumenthttps://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/atmwo9az6evbkgavv5ysb/Defendant-SA.docx?rlkey=3wxce5qmkmpxfomqojmayjgen&dl=0What do i need to do next?

Quote from: jfollows on 16 Oct, 2025 15:21“This link does not exist”https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/f2t0fpma04xp8zuol83fb/Court-Order-10-9-25.docx?rlkey=6oc1b44fl9xtswx7186xudocd&st=gabbmvmz&dl=0try this one maybe?

Quote from: jfollows on 16 Oct, 2025 15:19Quote from: Tronster321 on 16 Oct, 2025 15:16Hi again, after a long wait, they finally sent the court order but i'm confused by it, it says we have to file evidence AFTER the hearin date though, or am i reading it wrong?Show it to us perhaps?I edited the comment, it's in my drop box, sorry again

Hi again, after a long wait, they finally sent the court order but i'm confused by it, it says we have to file evidence AFTER the hearin date though, or am i reading it wrong?order is in Dropboxhttps://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/mhj6us9xjfs21vv6140py/P.E-Reply-to-Defence.pdf?rlkey=ah8vsj882xjhxijimj7kkqlhb&st=g41o788x&dl=0

Quote from: Enceladus on 20 Jun, 2025 09:51I notice that the CEO has seemingly avoided showing the area beside your car in any of the photos.Is there a painted over or burnt-off DISABLED legend on the carriageway beside the bay? Are you able to get a photo?I don't remember seeing one there, however i will check tomorrow when i'm back after the weekend

Quote from: stamfordman on 19 Jun, 2025 23:51I would make it more direct as it's no mystery who changed the sign. -------I am challenging this PCN because you changed the parking sign from a disabled bay to a loading bay when my car was parked legally in the bay displaying my blue badge, as your pictures confirm. You issued the PCN on 11/6/25 at 08:45am, but I parked my car in that bay on 5/6/25 in good faith. I can see that you have placed no road markings along with the changed sign, probably because you could not move my car owing to the blue badge. Therefore I trust you will cancel this PCN as you cannot expect me to return to a bay every day to see if you have changed the signage and there was at most a gap of 6 days.Maybe say something about your disability here if it supports not checking...I look forward to your acceptance of my challenge.Sent, also mentioned my disability as you recommended, fingers crossed

Quote from: b789 on 14 Jun, 2025 13:08Yes, that is another option. However, do you really want the claim 'stayed'. Requesting a stay of proceedings (instead of immediate strike-out) can serve as a strategic move in certain situations. In your case, it would primarily be used to pause the case and force the Claimant to explain and correct procedural failings — rather than asking the court to dismiss the claim outright. A strike-out application is cleaner and more final. If the court considers the late Reply to Defence as harmless (which can happen in small claims), a stay might just delay the inevitable. If you don’t make the stay request through a formal N244 application, the court is unlikely to act on it.Are you eligible for assistance with court fees? If you are, then you should definitely make an N244 application for strike out. You could incorporate all of the arguments into a single N244 application, asking for:• The claim to be struck out under CPR 3.4(2)(a) as disclosing no reasonable grounds (due to PoFA not applying and no driver pleaded), and/or• The Claimant’s Reply to Defence to be struck out or disregarded due to late filing and failure to comply with CPR 15.8 and PD15 para 6 and/or• A stay of proceedings pending clarification or permission from the court.This all has to be done before the claim is allocated to track otherwise it is not likely to be considered within the time constraints of an actual hearing. Once it is allocated, you can please everything in your WS but most judges will not have the time or inclination to do more than skim read it.This is the reasoning for making the application:The 14-day expectation for replying to a defence comes from Practice Direction 15, paragraph 6. The requirement to include the Directions Questionnaire is found in CPR 15.8(a). The ability to file further pleadings after a Reply is restricted under CPR 15.9.So, if ParkingEye waited 63 days to file their Reply to Defence without applying for an extension and without complying with CPR 15.8, they have breached procedural expectations and potentially the rules.Hi again, thank you so much for your advice, i wish i had come sooner but oh well we are here now,Gonna go with the trial (my partner earns too much to get discounded fees, Feel i wanna fight this, even if i lose it wont be too bad, just pay within 28 days, Just hoping they discontiue like other cases but i'm probably that 1% you keep mentioning hahaGonna get ready for my witness statement, but i'm going to point out the procedual defects in their claim in my witness statement (late filling, incorrect infomation provided etc.)Quote from: b789 on 14 Jun, 2025 13:08The second option is to do nothing for now, wait for the court to set a hearing date, and defend the claim at the final hearing. You’ll be able to raise all the same points — that PoFA doesn’t apply, that you haven’t been identified as the driver, and that there’s no valid claim. Small claims hearings are informal, and costs are limited, so this route avoids the upfront cost and still gives you a good chance of winning. The downside is you’ll need to prepare a witness statement and attend a hearing, which might take a few months.So with my Witness statement, how exactly do i plead this? Got my mediation appointment on 21/7/25 for 3 hours. So lets see what happens there i suppose.

Quote from: stamfordman on 14 Jun, 2025 19:07Draft a short challenge on the lines of what you said and post here first.To whom it may concernI am challenging this ticket due to the fact the signage has changed while the vehile was already parked thereThe ticket was issued on 11/6/25 at 08:45am, the vehicle itself has been parked in that space since 5/6/25During that time, the signage of the space has changed from a disability bay to a loading bay, no road markings have been placed on the roads like other areas where parking has been changed, I feel this has happened due to my car being parked there and no one wanting to damage my vehicle. Therefore, i feel this parking fine should be cancelled, you cannot expect me to return to a space every day to see if signage has changed. It is highly unrealistic to expect thatYou can also see from the photos i have a valid Blue Badge on display, showing this was complying with the original Disabled bay signage.

PCN attached [ Guests cannot view attachments ]

Quote from: b789 on 14 Jun, 2025 11:19Having reviewed this case and considering it is one that only came to us after the defence had been filed, here is my view on the options you have before you right now if you intend challenge the claim:The Claimant's pleaded cause of action is a breach of contract by either the driver (not identified) or the keeper (not liable under PoFA due to statutory land), for failing to pay a parking charge incurred on private land.You have two main options now that the weaknesses in the claim are clear.First, you can apply to the court to have the claim struck out before it goes any further. This is done by filling in form N244 and asking the court to strike out the claim because it has no legal basis. The argument is that the claim relies on keeper liability under the Protection of Freedoms Act, but that Act doesn’t apply here because the land is covered by byelaws. The claim also doesn’t say you were the driver, so there’s no other basis for liability. The court might agree and strike out the claim, which would end the case now. The downside is you’ll need to pay a court fee of £313, and if the court refuses the application, you won’t get that money back. There’s also a small risk you might be ordered to pay a bit of the claimant’s costs for the hearing.The second option is to do nothing for now, wait for the court to set a hearing date, and defend the claim at the final hearing. You’ll be able to raise all the same points — that PoFA doesn’t apply, that you haven’t been identified as the driver, and that there’s no valid claim. Small claims hearings are informal, and costs are limited, so this route avoids the upfront cost and still gives you a good chance of winning. The downside is you’ll need to prepare a witness statement and attend a hearing, which might take a few months.In short, one option gives you a shot at ending the case early but costs more and carries a small risk. The other option takes longer but is cheaper and still gives you a strong defence at the hearing.Hi, thank you so much for thisI don't mind waiting so i think option 2 will be the one for me. However i've done a little reading and was wondering if there is maybe a 3rd optionWhich is to ask the court to have the claim "stayed" and force the claimant to explain why it took 63 days to file this when it should have been 14 days to send a "reply to defence". According to CPR 15.8 it must be accompinied by an additional DQ 15.8  If a claimant files a reply to the defence—(a)the claimant must—(i)file the reply with a directions questionnaire; and(ii)serve the reply on the other parties at the same time as it is filed; and(b)the reply should form one document with any defence to counterclaim, with the defence to counterclaim following the reply, unless the dates on which they are due to be filed differ from one another.Thoughts?

Hi guysSo they have filed a "reply to defence" didn't know they was allowed to do this without permission of the courtDrop box link belowhttps://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/mhj6us9xjfs21vv6140py/P.E-Reply-to-Defence.pdf?rlkey=ah8vsj882xjhxijimj7kkqlhb&st=g41o788x&dl=0Just a few things1. i've highlighted on page 22 the area i parked, adn the photos posted before show no signage in that area depsite them stating there is. 2. should i reply to this or not?