Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Apologies if this has already been covered elsewhere but I haven't found a direct answer so here's my question.   Both my daughter and my partner have today each received a Letter of Claim from NPS. Both refer to 'incidents' in 2017 - my daughter's in March and my partner's in April. I remember these only vaguely but can't remember what (if any) action we took.   I remember my partner's more clearly because in their PCN where they claimed she'd overstayed (Cross Street, Long Eaton) there was something drastically wrong with their 'evidence'. I can't remember exactly but either their stated times contradicted or -and this is more likely from conversation today - they only provided one photo which was of her car leaving but nothing showing her entering the car park.   I have a feeling my daughter just chose to ignore hers, based on 'urban myth' from friends.   So anyway, today - more than two years on - both suddenly receive these letters from NPS with the usual rhetoric. I want to make sure these are both managed appropriately so I'm not sure what to do next and would appreciate any advice. I'm also particularly interested to read elsewhere on this forum that another case from said car park was rejected by POPLA in May 2017 due to insufficient signage and lack of planning permission for the relevant equipment:     This being the case, the same would have to apply to both our cases since this rejected case occurred just weeks after both of ours.   Not sure how much bearing this may have but I'm hopeful and your advice will be both very welcome and much appreciated.        
    • There will be no issues with a course offer if the dates are as you say. The usual cut off is four months from the date of the offence. This is so as to give the driver the time to accept the offer and take the course before prosecution becomes "timed out" at six months.   However, if the NIPs really were the first to be issued and there are no issues with the address details then both have a cast iron defence to the speeding allegation. The first is dated 20 days after the alleged offence and the second 23 days after the alleged offence. The Road Traffic Offenders' Act makes it quite clear that if a NIP is not served within 14 days of the alleged offence then no prosecution can take place. But as I said, late first NIPs are very rare and both need to check all the details I have mentioned before they decline any out of court offers of a course or Fixed Penalty.    For information, courses are normally offered for speeds up to (Limit +10% + 9mph). Only one course of any type can be taken in three years (with the date of the offences being used to calculate that period) and courses are not offered in Scotland. However, if a driver is not offered a course for any reason when he would normally qualify (including late NIPs) he has no right of appeal to have one offered. If the matter goes to court the court has no power to order a course.
    • My grievance against my manager is on Wednesday at 12.00 noon. A union officer is representing me. The representative for my manager is a product manager. I was told today that she is the Daughter or a Step-Daughter of the manager. Is this a conflict of interest? Am I correct in saying that, because the manager is the subject, the hearing has to be carried out by a person higher than the manager such as a director? if so, the product manager is not entitled to carry out the hearing. I'm pretty certain that I read this in law books. My Brother is a licensed union chairman but has since left his previous employment.  He is certain that I am correct . Any help would be gratefully appreciated.   diecastdave
    • Ok cool many thanks!  Much appreciated...I will check everything out now and answer all those questions!
    • Sorry,  its regular outgoings of payments. It’s income related they’re on, not contribution based.  Mum and applicant were totally unaware of the rules in regards to deprivation of capital.   On income related ESA but claim housing benefit and council tax support.   He hasn’t came into a huge chunk of money. It’s been spent over a duration of four years. appointee’s livid, and worried that he’ll be homeless.  
  • Our picks

DBinder1974

How to complete N510 form (service out of jurisdiction)

style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 2488 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

Recommended Posts

Hello!

 

This is my first thread so look forward to reading the responses.

 

I wish to file a claim (c£3,000) against my previous landlady. She agreed to pay costs we directly bore (moving, hotel, storage, etc) because the house was not in move-in condition at the start of our lease. She then reneged after we bore these costs and moved in. We withheld rent which she in turn withheld from our deposit when we moved out, and we have been unable to reach an agreement since.

 

The landlady is Brazilian and resides in, and is domiciled in, Brazil. I know I need to file an N510 form but am unsure how to complete it. I need to tick a box on the form to explain the basis for why the claim form can be served out of jurisdiction without the permission of the court.

 

Can someone please advise? My best guess is either 6.33(1)(b)(ii) or 6.33(2)(b)(ii) but I can't tell why I would prefer one over the other, or if either is correct!

 

 

The form reads as follows:

 

Please tick one of the following boxes as your statement of why the claim form can be served out of the jurisdiction without the permission of the court. Also delete anything in square brackets that does not apply.

 

In proceedings to which rule 6.32(1)(b)(i) or 6.33(2)(b)(i) applies, the statement is —

“I state that the [High Court of England and Wales] [ County Court] has power under the [Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982] [Judgments Regulation (as defined in CPR rule 6.31(d))] to hear this claim, that the defendant is domiciled in [the United

Kingdom] [a Member State] and that no proceedings are pending between the parties in the courts of any other part of the United Kingdom or any other Member State.”

 

In proceedings to which rule 6.32(1)(b)(ii) applies, the statement is —

“I state that the [High Court of England and Wales] [ County Court] has power under the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982, the claim being one to which paragraph 11 of Schedule 4 to that Act applies, to hear this claim and that no proceedings are

pending between the parties in the courts of any other part of the United Kingdom.”

 

In proceedings to which rule 6.32(1)(b)(iii) applies, the statement is —

“I state that the [High Court of England and Wales] [ County Court] has power under the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982, the defendant being a party to an agreement conferring jurisdiction to which paragraph 12 of Schedule 4 to that Act applies, to hear this claim and that no proceedings are pending between the parties in the courts of any other part of the United Kingdom.”

 

In proceedings to which rule 6.32(2) or 6.33(3) applies, the statement is —

“I state that the [High Court of England and Wales] [ County Court] has the power to hear this claim under [state the provisions of the relevant enactment or Community instrument] which satisfies the requirements of [CPR rule 6.32(2)] [CPR rule 6.33(3)] and that no proceedings are pending between the parties in the courts of any other part of the United Kingdom, in any other Convention territory of any Contracting State (as defined in section 1(3) of the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982) or in any other Member State.”

 

In proceedings to which rule 6.33(1)(b)(ii) applies, the statement is —

“I state that the [High Court of England and Wales] [ County Court] has power under the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982, the claim being one to which article 16 of Schedule 1 or article 16 of Schedule 3C to that Act applies, to hear this claim and that no proceedings are pending between the parties in the courts of any other part of the United Kingdom or any other Convention territory of any Contracting State (as defined in section 1(3) of that Act).”

 

In proceedings to which rule 6.33(1)(b)(iii) applies, the statement is —

“I state that the [High Court of England and Wales] [ County Court] has power under the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982, the defendant being a party to an agreement conferring jurisdiction to which article 17 of Schedule 1 or article 17 of Schedule 3C to that Act applies, to hear this claim and that no proceedings are pending between the parties in the courts of any other part of the United Kingdom or in any other Convention territory of any Contracting State (as defined in section 1(3) of that Act).”

 

In proceedings to which rule 6.33(2)(b)(ii) applies, the statement is —

“I state that the [High Court of England and Wales] [ County Court] has power under the Judgments Regulation (as defined in CPR rule 6.31(d)), the claim being one to which article 22 of that Regulation applies, to hear this claim and that no proceedings are pending between the parties in the courts of any other part of the United Kingdom or any other Member State.”

 

In proceedings to which rule 6.33(2)(b)(iii) applies, the statement is —

“I state that the [High Court of England and Wales] [ County Court] has power under the Judgments Regulation (as defined in CPR rule 6.31(d)), the defendant being a party to an agreement conferring jurisdiction to which article 23 of that Regulation applies, to hear this claim and that no proceedings are pending between the parties in the courts of any other part of the United Kingdom or any other Member State.”

 

In proceedings to which rule 6.33(1)(b)(i) applies, the statement is—

“I state that the [High Court of England and Wales][ County Court] has power under the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982 to hear this claim, that the defendant is domiciled in [the United Kingdom] [a Convention territory of a Contracting State (as defined in section 1(3) of the Act)] and that no proceedings are pending between the parties in the courts of any other part of the United Kingdom or any other Convention territory of any Contracting State.

 

 

Many thanks!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...