Jump to content

tarm39

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Posts

    93
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Reputation

0 Neutral

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. It doesn’t seem likely they will though they might just say we didn’t do it on MCOL or it’s too late now. And I don’t want to lose £275 only to find I’m then liable for the other amount
  2. My mother in law has had an email back from the court saying about filling out the N244 form and that there is a £275 fee to send it off?!?
  3. I definitely do as I’ve not done all of this so far to then just have to pay it thanks to them!
  4. Thank you, I’m in a difficult position with this I think now. We’re about to start looking for a family car and I don’t know how this will affect me in the immediate future. I also don’t really know exact where I stand and what the steps are now as some people have said I need to send off a form and then others are saying not yet etc and to complain but I don’t know what I need to do as of right now thanks everyone
  5. I’ll send it in writing but not sure how long I have before I need to start panicking and if I need to actually pay this
  6. Is complaining going to help me? I’m now stuck with this letter and almost certainly now I need to pay the fine?
  7. Yeah we both did but we couldn’t get back into MCOL so we sent the defence via email on the 11th October and now we’ve had these letters. Not good
  8. today I got a letter through the post saying I have not replied to the claim form and that I am ordered to pay the claimant £172.49 for debt and interest to date of judgement. And £110 for costs you must pay the claimant £282.49 I sent an email to them and got a receipt of delivery and my mother in law has had the exact same letter and we both sent the defence email to the email address given above by dx100. why have I received this letter?!
  9. She was the registered keeper of the vehicle at the time but she sold the car a few months ago and was wondering if that alters the wording on the defence as I am doing hers as well for her
  10. Thank you for your help. I will try again to log in to respond on MCOL and if it does not work I will just email them my response. Strangely on a side note, my brother in law has not received a court letter like this at all yet and we were all there on the same day. If MCOL does not work I hope email will be suffice as I hate sending emails without proof they received them.
  11. I had that template defence ready to go on the same day i did the AOS. i was just waiting a little to see if they replied or I thought they could turn around and say they weren't given any time to respond if i were to base my defence on them not replying, which i thought was the entire purpose of the CPR, although i must admit my apologies for lack of research on the CPR part
  12. this happened on the weekend as well as during the week last week it simply wont let me go any further than that and the details are 100% correct. I did the AOS perfectly fine but for a week now it is not letting me log in to respond it just keeps saying incorrect claim number or password and i mustve checked it 1000 times now I think i know the details off by heart. I have the template defence saved on a file ready to go he Defendant contends that the particulars of claim are vague and generic in nature which fails to comply with CPR 16.4. The Defendant accordingly sets out its case below and relies on CPR r 16.5 (3) in relation to any particular allegation to which a specific response has not been made. 1. The Defendant is the recorded keeper of [motor vehicle]. 2. It is denied that the Defendant entered into a contract with the Claimant. 3. As held by the Upper Tax Tribunal in Vehicle Control Services Limited v HMRC [2012] UKUT 129 (TCC), any contract requires offer and acceptance. The Claimant was simply contracted by the landowner to provide car-park management services and is not capable of entering into a contract with the Defendant on its own account, as the car park is owned by and the terms of entry set by the landowner. Accordingly, it is denied that the Claimant has authority to bring this claim. 4. In any case it is denied that the Defendant broke the terms of a contract with the Claimant. 5. The Claimant is attempting double recovery by adding an additional sum not included in the original offer. 6. The Particulars of Claim is denied in its entirety. It is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief at all.
×
×
  • Create New...