So if the CPR 31.14 is ignored then what would be the next step? Does a judge order the claimant to respond? Can the claim be struck out for non compliance?

Is it a waste of time issuing the CPR 31.14 for proof of details mentioned in the poc? There has been no response from the claimant, what next?

They are going after the RK as they can if no driver is named, the RK is being taken to court, the process is going ahead unless the PPC pulls out at the last minute. The advice being sought now is what is the procedure next as the PPC has failed to comply with a CPR 31.14.

Yes contract requested but not received, PPC response was all documents required by court will be supplied when required in accordance with court. What a lot of hot air bs. Main argument for PPC is the bay parked in and the blue badge not being displayed. I think PPC can pursue RK if no driver is named under freedoms act.

hello again, a small update but hoping someone can advise too. the RK issued a CPR 31.14 received by recorded delivery over 1 week ago now. There has been no response from the claimant so wondering if it was worded correctly and if someone wants to have a look and advise its appreciated. The other matter is the court made an error and a letter that was cc to them was actually taken by the court as a defence or part of, the court was informed of this error and they advised to still issue the CPR 31.14 while the error on the paperwork was sorted out, could this be any reason for non compliance of the order and/or does it create any issues on the RK part. If that makes no difference then what is the next step. Thanks

Would be good to know how he will dig his way out of this one

In front of a judge too surely not...... hehe

So under what law is the RK being taken to court on here? Or would seeing the terms and conditions explain that. Does the so called infringement come into play at all regarding the bay or is it the argument of if the PPC had the right in the first place.

I mean the contract that gives PPC rights to prosecute on land owners behalf, or am I being a bit dumb and you have answered it...

Debate is good anyway back on topic, can anyone suggest how a copy of the contract between the PPC & landowner can be seen as its not mentioned in PoC, request was met with non compliance. P

Yes but Ibbotson used the upper tier decision which is why the Judge said to VCS their case was struck out. It would still be using the upper tier decision using the Ibbotson case but could still use the case as a guide certainly without telling a judge how to suck eggs though!!

yes there are very good arguments for the issue of the BB and the possibility of endless arguments in court whatever way it is defined how persons with disabilities are treated whatever level the disability might be. In this case as with many the straight forward option might be the best course of action for many reasons, believe me I think the RK would like to get their teeth into the DDA/Equality act to raise the issue.

?? Yes understand the VCS and it is in hand, the PPC are bringing it in their own name, I do not believe any company in their right mind would allow a PPC to take up a court case on their behalf and sign a contract fo them to do so. If the RK used DDA then would have to issue on behalf of passenger, not sure what this would do though as VCS is the binding law.

does Mr Reynolds still work at the BPA and where was this statement made? this is useful but could it be used to challenge the POC on the claim?

yes keeping a note of time expenses etc. not sure what grounds for a counter claim Read the transcript and while providing a good read it has helped, a request was made and a response received which was a fob off. No CPR 31.14 was mad which i guess is a demand that they cant ignore or fob off? As for the PPC I would not want to jeopardise the RK's case as I hear how PPC's monitor forums and have heard stories of them using threads, posts etc as part of their evidence etc.