Probably bilge, and you can certainly ask the court not to allow it as evidence. But please post up. Nice to see them panicking

Well either chinoky has remembered to do the defence for his idle mate ... ... or his idle mate has succeeded in his goal of losing the court claim.

Open.

Open.

All of us on this site have made mistakes when in legal dispute. That's inevitable. The important thing is to learn from the mistake and get it right next time. One of the fleecers' big problems in these cases is that they know who the registered keeper of the vehicle is -- but not who the driver was. Plenty of people drive other people's cars. My son often drives mine. So that leaves the fleecers with no-one to sue. But you've outed yourself as the driver. So you weren't in the wrong at all. Plenty of cases have been won on the basis of insufficient signage. According to Pennine Five's Wikipedia page the building is owned by RBH Properties which seems to tally with their webpage https://penninefive.com/contact/ https://rbhproperties.co.uk/contact/ So e-mail the owners info@rbhproperties.co.uk and point out that you were a blood donor and you did pay but you were caught out by the confusing signage - and request they get the ticket cancelled. Plenty of cases have been won this way. Plenty have not. Nothing ventured ...

I see yesterday was the deadline to file a defence. I take it that was done? If by some horror it wasn't done we need the person in legal dispute - not chinoky, the person who has the claim against them - on the forum sharpish this evening.

Have you read as far as the happy ending?

Yes, best to include the PCN number and vehicle registration, the poor dears won't be able to find the information otherwise. Make sure you get a free Certificate of Posting as NCP are not very good with SARs. In fact if you want a good laugh read this short thread https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/452147-loc-to-ncp-for-failure-to-supply-sar-paid-in-full/#comments

Not at all. It's your right under data protection laws.

One thing. I see there is a residential building behind the sign. Do you recognise it? Are PE trying to state that there is already this sign at the hospital?

What brilliant digging! Well done. However, we have another NCP thread where their rubbish software didn't take payment and where they didn't respect POFA - but they are still taking the motorist to court in the hope the person will buckle and will give in. So I'm afraid it's the long game when it comes to fighting the fleecers. Certainly get the SAR off. There are other things that are probably wrong with the PCN. It's also highly likely that they will try to pretend that POFA applies until they're challenged by which time they'll have tied themselves in knots.

Yeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeees! Well done on your victory!

Well the good news is that there's nothing to worry about "immediately". The letter is not a Letter of Claim, it's just BW Legal trying to scare your relative into thinking the amount has somehow gone up by £70 when it hasn't. However, it's pretty silly to throw away paperwork when you're in legal dispute. It's even sillier when the dispute is with a private parking company. Maybe the company respected the POFA deadlines for keeper liability. Or maybe they didn't. Who knows? The paperwork is in the bin. Therefore they need to get a SAR off today to NCP (not BW Legal) to get the paperwork back. They should stick in a Council Tax bill or something as ID, otherwise NCP will use the lack of ID as an excuse to not cooperate. Get a free Certificate of Posting from the post office. They also need to so some digging and find out if there are bye-laws. i see Cambridge North is a new station so the bye-laws issue isn't cut & dried. Obviously any proof of attempted payment would be useful too.

I've had to hide your post. You've left reference numbers for both BWLegal and NCP showing.

We have other cases where NCP's software has been shown to be useless. Well done your relative on not appealing. They can probably ignore this made-up demand for an extra £70 from BW Legal, but please upload it anyway just so we can make sure it's not a Letter of Claim. While scribbling I see that dx has uploaded the sticky. Yes, please fill it in and upload all the documentation.

Not true, I've just looked through pages & pages of irrelevant tripe you've posted and found the claim form where the solicitors are clearly stated. There are now 42 posts dedicated to filling in a simple form, whereas on every other thread here there are 2 "I got the DQ". "OK, this is how you fill it in"). Everyone here is an unpaid volunteer. We have a lot of people to help, and not much time to do so. If you keep on wasting our time you'll find some of the regulars won't help you any more. Who the hell do you think DCB Legal Ltd, who are representing the claimant, are? A firm of landscape gardeners?

Your question to the court was completely wrong, so logically their reply makes no sense. You need to point out to the court that your defence was originally rejected. You applied to have it reinstated and on XXXXX DDJ Hovington of the CCBC reinstated it (attach paperwork). You therefore do not understand, why, on 10 July 2023 the Dartford County Court fixed a hearing for 15 April 2024 to decide if the defence will be reinstated (attach paperwork). You think the court may have made a mistake and would like clarification. The CCBC has already reinstated the defence. Your mail to the court mentioned absolutely nothing about the question of the reinstated defence so logically the court staff have misunderstood you. BTW, on the 10 July 2023 court order the claim number, the fleecers' PCN number and your name are all easily legible because you haven't followed the simple upload guide and haven't redacted properly. We are anon here. Please sort this out otherwise we'll have to hide the post and half the information will be missing for people trying to help.

dx is spot on so keep your arguments as succinct as possible as explained three posts above. The judge's "default" position will be to grant the set aside but to deny the £275. Your argument to get the £275 back makes sense but it's a real pity it's not included in the WS in a little section with COSTS as the title for clarity for the judge (rather than all the waffle that is included instead). Indeed it's a pity you didn't come here from the start as you would never be at this stage, you would have defended on-line with MCOL like everyone else in every other PPC thread, and there would have been no question of rejected defence or CCJ. Please learn from this for the future. So - fingers crossed - when the judge grants set aside immediately pop up and say you ask for costs as the court made a mistake. If the judge rejects your explanation say you request costs from the fleecers as they deliberately sued the wrong person.

Yep, ignore the fleecers. What about the pix of the signage you said you were going to take?

Right, it's there in black & white that you told the fleecers the identity of the driver on 24 November 2022 but they ignored you and sued the wrong person. The judge will need to be convinced of two things. 1. Why you didn't defend when you had the chance. 2. That you have a reasonable chance of defending the claim during a full hearing. Your chances of winning were already high, but the fleecers' non-attendance just about guarantees it, as dx says. A set aside hearing normally takes about 15 minutes, so just be very brief and to the point. No waffle. Tell the judge that you would like to briefly explain (1) how the default judgement came about, and (2) also to explain that you have a good defence. (1) Explain briefly about the defence mess-up. (2) Then say you were not the driver, you have cooperated with the claimant and supplied details of the driver, but the claimant insists on suing the wrong person. Assuming that goes well, ask for your £275 costs against CEL because of their unreasonable conduct in deliberately suing the wrong person. This should have been in your WS, but, oh well. The judge is highly unlikely to agree, but nothing ventured ...

Great. So the fleecers will file a lot of lies and you won't be in court to be able to counter them. The exact opposite of what dx said to do. It's written on hundreds of threads that the fleecers want a hearing only on the papers and we always oppose that. As well as stopping the lying it means they have to pay to be represented in court and so may discontinue. However, you're winding us up, right? It's impossible for someone to get everything wrong, always.

Yes, the N244 isn't a disaster but it could easily have been so much better and I'm bemused as to why you didn't come here earlier. I'm at work now but will have a careful read through everything later and be back on the forum this evening.

How to deal with a Directions Questionnaire/N180 is explained on every single claimform thread here. That includes this one which takes you through the whole court process https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/406892-highview-parking-anpr-pcn-claimform-urban-exchange-manchester-claim-dismissed/#comments

Thread of 25 pointless posts which wasted everyone's time merged with the original thread. You have one active case - all you had to do was check the claim form number.