Show Posts - Lynch004

Thank you for that. So would the defendant need to pay the £313 fee to set aside and counter claim if the case is reopened? or not be required to pay the fee?What are your thoughts on the claimants process handling. They contacted the defendant with in 14 days but provided a blank N180 as a claimants completed DQ. They stated that this had also been filed with the court.DQ Questionnaire wasn't actually file with the court until 3 weeks later and upon the defendant 4 weeks later (so a week later than the court). I am of opinion that if the defendant had not emailed them querying the blank N180 they would not have been aware of the failure in the process.The MCOL history states the Case stay lifted, is this because the claimant requested it, or is this just common case terminology?Sorry for all the questions, they may not be relevant at this stage if indeed relevant.Does anyone else have any additional advice?Thanks

Relevant documents.https://ibb.co/ynx07gpdhttps://ibb.co/Xk4Hm3SJhttps://ibb.co/yFx8RvCfhttps://ibb.co/84LjmZWZhttps://ibb.co/Sw8Bd8b7https://ibb.co/xKGqG0F8https://ibb.co/yFgxdsMDhttps://ibb.co/FLv2BsxFhttps://ibb.co/7dVWjvW0https://ibb.co/spmF8fgMhttps://ibb.co/Zzxs02Fshttps://ibb.co/svvWPFshhttps://ibb.co/XrrSwFqS

Hi all,I was hoping someone could assist me As it stands Judgement has been passed, defence was struck out because defendant has not replied to the claim for.Defendant acknowledges the DQ N180 was filed late but as soon as the became aware of the Judgement Order. Defendant is adamant that they never received a Notice of Proposal Allocation to Track.From my own uneducated point of view the claimants case handling has been poor to the point where I question if it was intentionally.I have bullet pointed the Case History in an attempt to make it easier to understand. Further details will be present on the correspondence. This will follow tomorrow as I have had to redact and also blank out defendants comments. In summary, I guess what we would like to know is…Is it worth trying to get the case set aside? Can the fee required to forward an N244 and to try and have the case set aside be claimed back if successful, and would this have to be filed as a counter claim.If the Court allow for the Judgement to be set aside, what are the chances of contesting the claim successfully?MCOL StatusClaim  was issued 03/12/25 Defence submitted 27/12/25Defence received 29/12/25Correspondence • 03/12/25 Claim Form from CNBC.• 29/12/25 Letter from CNBC to Defendant acknowledging receipt of Defence. A copy is being served on the Claimants Sol. The court will then inform the defendant on what will happen next.Where he wishes to proceed the claimant must contact the court within 28 days after receipt of defence.• 13/02/26 from Gladstones the Claimants Solicitor.State they have notified the Court of the claimants intention to proceed. Please find enclosed a copy of the claimant’s completed Directions Questionnaire, which has also been filed with the Court. The DQ N180 was blank and it obviously wasn’t filed with the Court as MCOL states it was filed on the 03/02/26. Three weeks after Filing a blank N180 and 30+ days after defence being served.• 01/02/26 Acting in good faith the Defendant contacted the Claimants Solicitors via email (exhibit)  Advising that the DQ N180 they had provided was blank and that they were open to mediation.• 09/02/26 Claimant provides a copy of their completed DQ N180. With no instruction or response to any of the concerns the defendant raised.MCOL status 03/02/26 Case Stay lifted03/02/26 DQ sent to you03/02/26 DQ filed by claimantCorrespondence • 18/03/26 General Form of Judgement/Order letter. Which states “the Defendant, you have been sent Notice of Proposal Allocation to Track which specified the date by which you were required to return the Directions Questionnaire. You have failed to file the Directions Questionnaire with the CNBC by the date specified in the Notice.” been sent a Notice of Proposal Allocation to Track which specified a date for them (Defendant) to return.It is ordered that the Defendant must file the DQ with the CNBC on or before 7 days of this service.Defendant is adamant that they never received the Notice of Proposal. As the Defendant works away, they only became aware of the General Form of Judgement upon returning home on the 27/03/26.Defendant still does not know the actual date they were required to file the DQ N180 originally.• 27/03/26 Defendant emailed the DQ N180 to both parties on the 27/03/26. Receiving automatic responses from both parties informing them that the Email had been received.The Defendant regularly checked MCOL for an update and concerned that MCOL had not been updated called the CNBC number. The automated system stated that it could take upto 10/11 weeks for them to respond to emails. Although not ideal, this allayed the defendants concerns about the lack of update on MCOL.• 20/04/26 Defendant received Judgement for Claimant (in default) dated 20/04/26. The judgement stated that the defendant had failed to reply to the claim form. Defendant has since called the CNBC number and they still could not find the Filed DQ N180 but that it was irrelevant as it had not been filed in time.Defendant was told they had to pay the Fee stated in the Judgement or pay £313 and complete an N244 asking for the judgement to be set aside.Photos to followThanks in advance.D

Quote from: FuzzyDuck on 04 Feb, 2026 10:46Quote from: Lynch004 on 04 Feb, 2026 01:13Which going by your logic, why have they bothered putting the signs up along the other 155 miles of my route?  Who is "they"? I suspect over that 155 mile route you have passed through several police force areas and councils. I think this horse has been flogged enough, let it RIP.My comment was meant in jest, hence the tone and the use of an emoji. Sorry if this was lost in translation.Anyhow, thank you for your advice and time in responding

Anyhow, moving on from the Signage. I have a few questions about the evidence on the Constabulary's website.Can I challenge on any of the following?Images of Vehicle Reg. are not very clear.Calibration certificate of Device, just not state that it has been Distance checked at the distance of the actual devices recording. It has been tested upto 150m the evidence states 300m.There are no training certificates for the Operating Officer.Thanks

Quote from: FuzzyDuck on 04 Feb, 2026 01:08Quote from: Lynch004 on 04 Feb, 2026 01:04But why stop encouraging people to slow down on this particular stretch of road? Surely, the signage should still be there?Signs cost money, so why put them up if you don't have too?Which going by your logic, why have they bothered putting the signs up along the other 155 miles of my route? 

I just question why the Constabularies bother with the signage in the first place if it is not required. The whole 165 miles of my journey has Speed camera warnings/in operation signs apart from the said section of the M50.[/quote]Presumably because it's a cheaper way of encouraging people to slow down than having the cameras everywhere.[/quote]I appreciate your point is probably a good assessment. But why stop encouraging people to slow down on this particular stretch of road? Surely, the signage should still be there?Anyhow not trying to justify my speeding, I am just surprised that they are not a legal obligation.

Quote from: andy_foster on 01 Feb, 2026 06:38There was a popular misconception many years ago, that there was a requirement for speed cameras to be conspicuous in order for the speeding offence to be prosecuted. This was largely due to Tony Blair saying that that was going to be the case. Surprisingly enough, it was a big fat lie.What the rules actually were, before they were rescinded many years ago, at first glance at least, that in order for the safety camera partnerships to be able to retain the income from the fixed penalties (and return any surplus they hadn't managed to fiddle to the exchequer), 85% of enforcement sites had to meet the conspicuity requirements. This had no bearing whatsoever on the admissibility of the evidence, it was just a rule regarding keeping the money. Except that the rules were enforced by the safety camera partnerships themselves - if they became aware that they were not complying with the rules, they had the power to report themselves to themselves and then decide whether or not they still ought to keep the money.Nothing like a bit of self regulation  The Journey I take M5, M50, A40 has a couple of Camera Vans on its route, The locations of which I am familiar with. So for me to receive the NIP without any expectance really did surprise me, the camera was definitely discreet,Also, the 20+ miles of the M50 has no Speed Camera signs displayed.As I have mentioned, I am not excusing the fact I was speeding, obviously I would ideally like to avoid the fine and points but hey ho. I just question why the Constabularies bother with the signage in the first place if it is not required. The whole 165 miles of my journey has Speed camera warnings/in operation signs apart from the said section of the M50. 

Quote from: JustLoveCars on 01 Feb, 2026 10:38Quote from: Lynch004 on 01 Feb, 2026 02:30...was just seeing if there was a quick resolution.Absent any actual defence (nothing you've said so far hints at one) then the quickest resolution will be a course to avoid the points or a fixed penalty (3 points £100).Thank you for your time in responding.I genuinely don't dispute that I was speeding, it is just annoying because I genuinely try to abide by the speed limit. Whilst not an excuse, I was over taking another motor vehicle, my bad. Cheers

Quote from: Incandescent on 01 Feb, 2026 11:39Is there no video on their website ? Most councils have photos and video. The photos are, of course, frames from the video which is the sole evidence.If you want full and proper advice from the experts, please read this and update your thread accordingly:-https://www.ftla.uk/civil-penalty-charge-notices-(councils-tfl-and-so-on)/read-this-first-before-posting-your-case!-this-section-is-for-council-tfl-dartme/As regards getting reps rejected, do be aware that councils reject >95% of reps because they know that most people then just cough-up. Don't just assume the council rejection means the signage is adequate; in the council world, all signage is perfect. Experience of this forum is that it isn't in a great many cases !Thank you for your time replying.All evidence is from a head on view, video/stills just show a car driving. I think you have answered my main concern, that being using the CCTV request after failed reps.

Morning,Basically, I have received a NIP for Speeding - exceed 70mph Motorway limit - Manned equipment. Vehicle speed 80mph.The stretch of the M50 in question has no Speed Camera/warning signage. Haven driven this stretch of road a few times since, the manned camera appears to be a Male operating out of a Grey people carrier, on the opposite side of the road, with no Hi-Viz signage, both personally or on vehicle.Happy to scan and post correspondence, was just seeing if there was a quick resolution.Many thanksLynch

Morning,From my limited/primitive "Man search" I probably should address this email to @hypprocates.Basically, my better half received a Bus Lane PCN for a 34J being in a Bus lane, on Arundel Gate (Northeast Bound). She appealed this before I became aware of the incident. The appeal was on the basis of the following:Poor SignageNo adequate means to/or warning to turn aroundNot being from the areaFirst offenceThe offence is for a Bus lane contravention, yet it is actually for allegedly passing through a bus gate.These representations were duly dismissed by Sheffield City Council.So....I have viewed the Evidence, which shows nothing more than a vehicle driving along a road, from a head on view and it does not show any of the signage it has allegedly passed.So my question is what is the best form of defence, the request of CCTV for driving through the alledged signage.happy to post copies of paperwork, just thought I would clarify first. ThanksLynch