URI:
   DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
  HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       *****************************************************
   DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
       *****************************************************
       #Post#: 93822--------------------------------------------------
       Re: Parkmaven NtK and unsuccessful appeal
       By: b789 Date: October 12, 2025, 10:40 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       You misunderstand...
       [quote]7.3 Where a claim is based upon a written agreement –
       (1) a copy (or copies) of the contract or documents constituting
       the agreement should be attached to or served with the
       particulars of claim and the original(s) should be available at
       the hearing, and[/quote]
       MCOL is just a way to issue a claim. It doesn’t change what the
       rules say must be in, or go with, the particulars of claim.
       PD 16 paragraph 7.3(1) still bites for a contract claim. If the
       claimant says you breached a contract, they must set out the
       actual terms they rely on. If it’s a written contract, they
       should attach or serve it with the particulars, or at least set
       out the relevant terms verbatim. If it’s oral or by conduct,
       they must plead the terms and when/how they were agreed.
       PD 7E (the MCOL practice direction) only relaxes the need to
       attach documents in the tiny MCOL text box. It does not relieve
       the claimant of proving the contract. If they cannot fit full
       particulars and the contract terms in the MCOL box, they must
       serve separate, fuller particulars within 14 days of service of
       the claim. Those separate particulars must include the contract
       terms said to be breached.
       Bottom line: using MCOL doesn’t excuse a claimant from
       evidencing the contract. They must either provide the terms in
       the MCOL particulars or serve full particulars (with the terms)
       within 14 days. If they don’t, the pleadings are defective and
       open to challenge.
       #Post#: 93825--------------------------------------------------
       Re: Parkmaven NtK and unsuccessful appeal
       By: kgw Date: October 12, 2025, 11:41 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       Thanks for the clarification. The wording of PD 7C is misleading
       to say the least.
       I googled and saw:
       To attach a contract to an MCOL claim, you can upload it during
       the claim issuance process, but it is not sent to the other
       party until the claim is formally issued.
       If this is true, there's no way to know whether the "contract"
       has been attached to the claim (How odd?) and it's premature to
       argue that it hasn't.
       I've submitted an AoS.
       #Post#: 93827--------------------------------------------------
       Re: Parkmaven NtK and unsuccessful appeal
       By: b789 Date: October 12, 2025, 12:09 pm
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       You only needed to submit the AoS if you needed more time to
       file the defence.
       The requirements of PD 7E are confusing. However, they do not
       override the requirement to state the contractual terms
       allegedly breached in a claim. They have failed to do that.
       #Post#: 95550--------------------------------------------------
       Re: Parkmaven NtK and unsuccessful appeal
       By: kgw Date: October 25, 2025, 11:14 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       I've submitted the suggested defence online. It is my
       understanding that I do NOT need to serve it on the claimant.
       #Post#: 95569--------------------------------------------------
       Re: Parkmaven NtK and unsuccessful appeal
       By: b789 Date: October 25, 2025, 2:42 pm
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       Correct. The CNBC will serve it on them.
       #Post#: 97016--------------------------------------------------
       Re: Parkmaven NtK and unsuccessful appeal
       By: kgw Date: November 6, 2025, 4:11 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       Indeed,
       I've received the following letter dated 27 Oct from HMCTS
       "I acknowledge receipt of your defence. A copy is being served
       on the claimant (or the claimant's solicitor).
       The claimant may contact you direct to attempt to resolve any
       dispute. If the dispute cannot be resolved
       informally, the claimant will inform the court that he wishes to
       proceed. The court will then inform you of
       what will happen.
       Where he wishes to proceed, the claimant must contact the court
       within 28 days after receiving a copy of
       your defence. After that period has elapsed, the claim will be
       stayed. The only action the claimant can then
       take will be to apply to a judge for an order lifting the stay."
       (can't post images for some reason)
       #Post#: 97019--------------------------------------------------
       Re: Parkmaven NtK and unsuccessful appeal
       By: jfollows Date: November 6, 2025, 4:26 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
  HTML https://www.ftla.uk/announcements/posting-images/#new
       #Post#: 97021--------------------------------------------------
       Re: Parkmaven NtK and unsuccessful appeal
       By: kgw Date: November 6, 2025, 4:36 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       Thanks.
       Deleting previous uploads made most existing threads pointless.
       #Post#: 97023--------------------------------------------------
       Re: Parkmaven NtK and unsuccessful appeal
       By: DWMB2 Date: November 6, 2025, 4:49 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       [quote author=kgw link=topic=4677.msg97021#msg97021
       date=1762425390]
       Deleting previous uploads made most existing threads pointless.
       [/quote]
       We haven't deleted anything. A lot of images from previous
       threads are unavailable for 2 main reasons:
       [list type=decimal]
       [li]A lot of people post without first reading the 'READ THIS
       FIRST' thread t the top of the forum, and uploaded images
       directly onto the forum software against our advice. At some
       point, the forum software seems to have malfunctioned and these
       attachments are no longer available[/li]
       [li]One of the main image hosting sites, Imgur, removed its
       services from the UK market recently, so any images uploaded
       there are no longer viewable from UK IP addresses[/li]
       [/list]
       #Post#: 97030--------------------------------------------------
       Re: Parkmaven NtK and unsuccessful appeal
       By: kgw Date: November 6, 2025, 5:13 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       Since that's been the policy all along, it's a good thing that
       the upload buttons no longer appear.
       *****************************************************
   DIR Previous Page
   DIR Next Page