Hopefully the undoubted fact the vehicle was unloading, POFA c not met so cannot transfer to keeper notwithstanding their contract excludes unloading, so whole thing was a disaster. If they don't discontinue, might not be good for them.

Agree with Nicky Boy's suggetion regarding Judge Harris's examples, i it reinforces the argument that it was loading/unloading not parking.

Excellent DCBL looking ever more like a cowboy outfit.

So long as its made clear that the vehicle was delivering therefore not parked in a manner to ground any contract o breach their greed will be their undoing Just as a matter of interest was the van plain or liveried not that it makes any difference if you have proof it was delivering..

You are not dealing with honest brokers here.

As LFI suggests the vehicle was not parked it was delivering, so Jopson V Homeguard might well apply also.

Excellent They are on a sticky wicket, however they might still be silly with a driver is keeper argument, however CPS v AJH Films and Elliott V Loakethje cases they might try in the absence of POFA to claim Keeper is Driver were discredited years ago

The questionnaire is important, two things your appeal likely removed POFA protection as you likely outed yourself as the driver, all is not lost though so long as you provide the info requested,.

Nicky Boy is correct you pay up or do court sadly

Letter from PE as per Dave and the original PCN if possible there are flaws as LFI indicatyes in their case and if it ends up in court the 30 minute allowance of itself would not be in their favour

Yes that letter with Dave and Nicky's amendments should leave the CEO with no illusions as to their ability to cancel. The original snotty letter is evidence that PE should have pulled back at that point.

Yes that should do the trick, they can't say they weren't warned that their position is hopeless, as that letter would also be useful in a WS pack if they were stupid, any Judge would see that greed clouded their brain.

Could also add that it will look very bad and rebound on the University Trust and any PPC if the press get hold of the fact they are seeking a CCJ against a Keeper who cannot defend as has no capacity to do so due to Alzheimer's and likely the Guardian, and Telegraph not to mention the Sun and Mirror if they were to send a Letter of Cllaim as there is a cast iron defence to rebut their case anyway, so they should cancel and stop the sillyness now before they end up looking downright stupid petty and nasty. If they did ignore the letter LFI suggests Nicky Boy#s suggestion is best way, then kick them into touch with an absolute defence.

Yes tells them why they are wasting their time, excellent.

Excellent yes you nailed it you give no inkling why yo know claim is pants Gladstones aren't the brightest lamp. by any means.

Great sorted.

If they are stupid enough to ignore the letter and keep pushing LFI's post gives an absolute defence that would get them laughed out of court.

You could ask to lower it anyway if it helps you going forward, also get the writ and the HCEO gone

Do as DX suggests don't engage in phone calls at moment you could put as part of reason for variation that debt was subject to CCA so use of HCEO should not have occurred as Fees higher than a Court Bailiff as used for CCA debt The HCEO hasn't visited yet have they? its a Compliance letter you have

Its ok to say you don't know who is driving, its not like a police speeding ticket where you are legally bound to name the driver. Just don't admit to being the driver yourself There is no way the fleecers can force a keeper to name a driver, one did try to use threat of a Norwich Pharmaceutical order a few years back but it would be overkill and court would likely regard application in a Private parking case as vexatious.

No you never counterclaim, in any case its just a Letter of Claim could you post it up please Now the mention of Counterclaim rings a warning bell, is it actiually a Claim Form from Northampton County Court you have?

It needs to succinct with no mention of why you think their case is pants just that you know that they know now you know, as previously mentioned read up on a few.

If they did take someone to court as Bylaws apply they would likely lose anyway.

Another ThreatOgram not na Letter of Claim ignore.

Certainly tell te court what your availability or lack of it is there are delays and backlogs so they might schedule for when you know you will be back.