Jump to content


Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1 Neutral

About daftinvoice123

  • Rank
    Basic Account Holder
  1. With the issue date being the 9th of November. I logged in and completed the acknowledgement of service on the 10th and that was received on the 12/11. Am i right in think i should have submitted this already? Or is it 33 days from the 9th? (12th december)
  2. How would you suggest i complete my defence knowing all the facts from the information? Simply just "No breach of contract so it is denied that the defendaant owes the claimant anything"? or should i add anything else to it at this stage?
  3. The one of the rear of the car (in a different space that i'm 99% sure has been taken on a different day) shows 12:47. The close up shows 13:54 which was clearly taken before the shoppers went into the store to which the receipt which has a timestamp of 13:59. And you're correct, these images were not included on the NTK.
  4. Gladdys have responded. (attached). The only thing i've left out is the NTK which matches the one uploaded. Interestingly, there is more photo's of which the car is somehow in another space than pictured the second time. I'm assuming i'll just use the receipt and go with that there was no breach as previously advised? Thank you 3rd time lucky.pdf
  5. Thanks ericsbrother, i am in the process of contacting lidl direct in different ways to get this matter dropped but i'm just getting the usual copy and paste responses with no human interaction. Based on this information how would file your defence? The images are time stamped but they both say 14:14 and tiny writing in the bottom left
  6. I’ve managed to find the NTK. the reason for issue is: parking for patrons whilst on the premises only. Interestingly also it’s states period of parking as 12:44:43 to 14:13:48 which is definitely incorrect. NTK attached ntk pdf.pdf
  7. Thanks for the replies. I've looked everywhere and i'm unable to find the NTK. The signage states "90 minutes stay whilst your remain on the premises", is this not enough for them to say it exists in terms of a contract? As a whole so far the points that can be used in the defense look to be; -The claim is based on a non existent contractual condition so there is no breach to create a debt. (Courtesy of gladstones and their roboclaims) + (in any case - VCS v Ibbotson) -The entrance signage is an invitation to treat and that means i don't have to be bound by the terms offered by indivi
  8. Apologies, i can only find those images that i took a while back of the form and not the form itself. I will however turn the house upside down later to try and find it. I think i remember the breach stating "leaving the site" while parked on the NTK.
  9. Thanks guys, entrance and signs attached. I also took a couple to show how small the signs were as well. From what i can see there isn't any cameras. When i went back yesterday on foot, they still just have a chap there with a phone to take the photo's. I don't know the date as i can't find the NTK letter but i know they sent it about a couple of weeks after. You can see from my photo's of the letter both timestamps of the photo's are done by a person and timestamped 14:14. The address for the store is Lower St, Newcastle-under-Lyme, Newcastle Under Lyme ST5 2RS
  10. After reading a lot of threads i want to defend this. I've already done the following. pop up on the MCOL website detailed on the claim form. . register as an individual note the long gateway number given then log in . select respond to a claim and select the start AOS box. . then using the details required from the claimform . defend all leave jurisdiction unticked. click thru to the end confirm and exit MCOL. . get a CPR 3114 request running to the solicitors type your name ONLY no need to sign anything. (will be posted to them on monday) Ot
  • Create New...