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.

Can you please convert this file to PDF as it will not open as it is.

No, the intention of the court is to ensure that justice is done and the right to legal advice/representation is an important aspect of it.

A DS is likely to advise you how to proceed and will err on the side of what is right for you, more so than either the prosecutor or Clerk to the Court.

Even if you plead guilty, an advocate can inform the  court of the depth of your remorse far better than you can.

I think that the court would adjourn in any case so that they can have the benefit of reports if they are minded to impose Community Service Order or even custody (suspended of not).

They would also need details of financial state if considering a fine

Which is why I said that you should request an adjournment until such time as you have been able to see the DS in my previous post.

That legal advisor is there to explain the law to the magistrates, He/she will not assist you in mitigation.

In that case request an adjournment until one is available. It is a tenet of English law that a defendant is entitled to legal advice before  a case is heard and a duty solicitor MUST be available if the defendant has no means of having their own legal representative.

The prosecutor is being disingenuous in saying that as you are pleading guilty, that a DS is not necessary. You are entitled to the best possible mitigation and the DS can advise on that and could present it in such a way as best serve you.

I am having difficulty reading the PCN, as it is lacking contrast. Could you post the exact location so that we can find it on google maps?

Nicky Boy, You say subtle, I would say duplicitous.