Theclaw 123. As you will have realised by the above query from Honeybee, your post contained an important error that totally changed the meaning of what you were saying.

It is important that when dealing with legal/government matters, that you check and recheck, what you are writing. I have noticed that errors have appeared in your previous posts, be they typo's or missed words, so I would again urge you to check what you are typing before submitting. When writing something of true import, I find it best to compose in a Word document so as to be able to correct, add or delete as necessary, before 'copy and pasting' into the relevant box/form.

I can understand that you are under pressure, stress, due to current personal situations, so it is even more important to pause, take time to check and allow your brain to regather its thoughts when composing important replies; as the person on the other end of the communication is not interested in your personal situation, just what you are writing in relation to the offences disclosed.

15 hours ago, FTMDave said:

There must be a term in English that combines "doing superb detective work" with "lazing on the beach".

I think that the TV program 'Death in Paradise' sums it up! or on the Island of Saint Marie 'Mort au Paradis'

Again shows that the template can be confusing to some posters, perhaps my suggestion of TWO templates for dx to use according to the forum chosen by the OP, would not go amiss?

I'm sorry Andyorch, I don't think that it is clearly stated not to agree to mediation. 

For 'newbies' the first words are 'YES to nediation. Yes it does add a caviate but this can be lost in the plethora of information.' I have long thought that DX should create two templates, one being specific to Parking issues, clearly stating 'NO to mediation', thus avoiding an error which is increasingly common. I note that dx has highlighted the section in red in his above post, this was not highlighted in his previous posts

It is easy for regulars to forget how confusing it can be for those new to CAG to digest the nuances, when filling in forms that they have never before faced.

Whilst I concur with  'ignore', please bear in mind that if you revisit Italy with the same vehicle, it is possible that their system could flag up your visit with possible clamping.

I do not know the mechanism in Italy, but it is something to bear in mind should a subsequent visit be contemplated. Perhaps someone more familiar with Italian procedures could advise?

Can I point out to Billy Williams that the Bulk Centre in Northampton is not a County Court in the normal terms, it is merely and Administrative office situated in St Katherin's House with a number of computer terminals and operators. It is a means of streamlining civil claims relieving County Courts around the country from having to deal with the repetitive  initial claims of some types such a parking which can then be dealt with through Money Claims Online (MCOL).

All that I can see from your thread is that you have picked up, from some unknown sources, a hash mash of terms, many of which do not apply to Private Parking .

Much of this could have been dealt with had you complied with the repeated request to

1) read other threads here, in particular the Success thread, which will answer much that you are asking (we have seen these questions many times, the site is self help too)

2) Scan any paperwork that you have, redacting all personal information and reference numbers, posting to give the experienced Caggers a chance to see what is applicable to your situation.  Most of your questions seem to be hypothetical.

I would remind you that all of the team, (site team and members alike) on Consumer Action Group are volunteers  and we just like to help.

One of the main reasons for not appealing to a PPC is that it is easy to inadvertently identify yourself as the driver and thus lose the protection that you as registered keeper have under Pofa 2012. (referred to by Lookingforinfo @#11)

So if you write to a landowner or occupier, it is important to only refer to "the driver did this or that, " NOT "i did this or that"

Monday is a Bank Holiday, so wait until Tuesday. 

DX can be quite cryptic in his replies!

You are correct in that you do not have to disclose whom is the driver.

Unless the PPC complies with the Protection of Freedom Act 2012 in all respects, the indebtedness of the driver cannot be transferred to the Registered Keeper. The fleecers will still try to claim (often by assuming that they are one and the same - something that the Courts do not allow) so, providing that you do not identify yourself as the driver by use of 'I parked' or similar,  the claim can be batted off.

Interesting that DCBL are charging for an alleged contravention in September    er      2023! See second paragraph of the attachment above.

ONLY A COURT CAN ISSUE FINES.

Councils can issue Penalty Charge Notices, Police can issue Fixed Penalty Notices, neither of which is a Fine. 

Private Parking Companies can only issue Parking Charge Notices ie. 'Speculative Invoices'

Lookinforinfo

As Nicky Boy said they sent out the Notice to keeper in time to comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. This means that only the driver is responsible for the debt and should the driver not pay, the charge cannot be transferred to the keeper.

I think that you meant did NOT send the......  in time  etc

When you write to MOTO, be careful not to disclose that you were the driver as they could well forward your letter to the fleecers. Something like :-

"On  (day date) a party in my vehicle (Reg) visited your premises for a period within the published permitted limit. The following day we were returning home and also visited. Unfortunately CP plus have confused the two visits as one continuous stay. I do have evidence that the party were elsewhere during the intervening period.

I ask that you use your kind offices to have CPplus cancel the PCN and I would suggest that you request that they update their system to avoid other of your valued customers having the stress of being wrongly accused in this manner."

Worry ye not. The fact is that you informed the seller of the vehicle that it had a problem within the 6 months, so that has preserved your rights under CRA 2015

DX I think that you will find that the WS and documents were to be submitted to the court by 4 pm on 23/1/23, not that the hearing was being held on that date.  I expect that the OP will receive a date for the hearing shortly

I see that this is a Conservation Area, so that is perhaps why the council is enforcing.

Unfortunately councils in general are reluctant to spend the costs of this action when not forced to by complaints.

Has it actually been written off, or has the insurance coy simply said that it Will be deemed an uneconomic repair and offered a sum in settlement? Until they have paid the agreed sum, it still belongs to you (or a finance coy if applicable).

Unfortunately any recovery costs will be down to you unless there is a clause in your policy that covers them - don't know of any companies that have such a term, but it is always a possibility with some specialist insurers such classic cars.

If you explain the circumstance more accurate  opinions can be formed.

Broken Arrow a Mackenzie friend is a term used in CRIMINAL cases, where a person (not being authorised to have right of audience such as solicitor) can sit with a defendant and assist them by handing them documents, look up legal books, suggest questions to ask witnesses (written notes) etc. They cannot address the court.

May I point out that in point 11, you are using a double negative and it would be better to state 'Neither ..........can not be compared to this claim'

I believe that section 14 would read better if instead of '14.   It is contended that a thorough check through the windscreen and side windows took place and the ticket must have been seen.

It was  changed to 14.   It is contended that IF a thorough check through the windscreen and side windows took place, and the ticket must have been seen.

CPR = Court Procedure Rules.

CPR 31.14 is a request for information that appertains to a court claim; the recipient is not obliged to honour that request, but failure can be used in your witness statement. They will however need to provide the information in THEIR Witness Statement if they wish to rely on it in court.

Sorry LFI 48 months is 4 years according to all calendars that I have seen. 

Hitman: post #97 'My personal view is that the burden of proving a defendant guilty in law always rests with the prosecution (or claimant in this case) and must be beyond reasonable doubt.'

Unfortunately you are trying to apply the Criminal requirement to a Civil case where the the onus  on the claimant is actually only to prove probability' to the satisfaction of the adjudicator/judge.

Dave, I think you mean SRA in para  4, 

The Cat08 Change SAR to SRA in Para 4.  (Solicitors Regulation Authority. not Subject Access Request. 

Depends if you asked the repairer to fit OEM parts or if you chose exchange items (refurbished) as a cheaper option. 

If the latter, then yes, as they will be charged by the refurbishing company as they will not have items to refurbish.