Jump to content


Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited


2 Neutral

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. Good evening. I sent my DQ back on 19th April (copy to court and copy to sols). It's still not showing on MCOL. Is that standard procedure? I posted them both next day delivery, signature required, so I have proof they were received if necessary. Thanks in advance.
  2. Thanks DX. Completing the form now to print and post tomorrow at the Post Office. Is it worth me listing my wife/passenger as a witness?
  3. Hi all, Been sick for a while, just seen PEye issued N180 on 5th April by post and showing on MCOL. I have to submit by 22nd April. Can I do this by email tonight? Do I need to post as well? Should I agree to mediation?
  4. Thank you DX. I'll keep checking MCOL and report any developments.
  5. MCOL status doesn't show PEye N180 that they said had been submitted, just showing my ack and defence submitted. It's not asking me to complete a N180 myself so not sure what to do.
  6. It's a paper copy from PEye of the one they've submitted electronically. I now have to go to Money Claim and submit my own I assume. Want to make sure I don't make a mistake completing it, or missing a deadline for submission.
  7. Good evening. I received ParkingEye's Directions Questionnaire (N180) today. Seems pretty straightforward, I just need to fill out D1 and put the name of my local County Court. Anything I should know before submitting it online?
  8. I've put in my defence (minus point 5) and got confirmation it's been accepted. Thanks for all the help, will post up any response. If I don't hear anything by the end of March can I assume they're not pursuing it?
  9. Thanks FTMDave, will delete point 5 and will file on the 9th and confirm on here when done.
  10. Thanks DX I didn't realise I'd be able to provide a witness statement later on.
  11. Thank you DX. Suggested defence: The 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. Do I not need to mention the poor signage/lighting and lack of payment machines?
  12. Good afternoon. Here is my suggested Defence. Any help much appreciated. [removed - dx] The claim relates to an alleged breach of contract, which is denied. It is further denied that there was any agreement to pay the Claimant a £100 parking charge as the Defendant had no knowledge of such parking charge. Defendant submits that there was inadequate signage to form a contract and attaches 12 photographs showing signage in order from entering the services to the car park. Photos are taken in daylight, however Defendant arrived in darkness. Only one sign refers to paid parking and is not lit and very easy to miss at night. Photo XX shows how far this sign is from street lighting and its confusing positioning. On arrival at the car parking area there are no barriers or payment machines to show that it is a paid car park. Subsequent telephone enquiries reveal that parking can be paid at W H Smith inside the services, however there is no signage visible in the car park stating this. The Claimant is put to strict proof that it has sufficient proprietary interest in the land, or that it has the necessary authorisation from the landowner to issue parking charge notices in these circumstances, and to pursue payment in the court in their own name.
  • Create New...