On Mon, 29 Mar 2010 18:32:09 +0100, Arthur Figgis
wrote:

On 29/03/2010 16:52, Paul Stevenson wrote:

"Adrian" wrote in message
...
"Paul Stevenson" gurgled happily, sounding
much like they were saying:

Why did he go to the court in Bristol when the incident happended in
London?

Because, as the text you quoted said...

claimed he did not
hear from SWT until a year later — after he had moved to Bristol

But the case had not moved to Bristol so the court there would not know
anything about it.

Perhaps there is a mechanism for declaring you have "received no
court correspondence" at a convenient location? Presumably the court
system has access to a phone or carrier pigeon or something.

The "address for service" will almost certainly be the one he supplied
when the whole palaver started. As with parking penalties, moving
without the new address being notified to someone (validly) pursuing
you does not get you off the hook. OTOH there is a vague hint in the
words from HMCS that his pursuers might not have done things by the
book; presumably time limits apply to communications in a way that is
at least similar to those involved with chasing up parking charges
where a letter being _posted_ one day late (even if it arrives within
time) can kill the process.

A friend once got sent a fine for cycling without lights at a time he
could prove he was out the country. He was able to make some kind of
formal declaration that he knew nothing at all about it (it was
suspected that someone else had been stopped and had given his name).

And it isn't entirely unknown for people to say bailiffs have made
legally questionable claims.

Of course none of this means I'd take anything in the Standard at face
value....

Face value WRT the Evening Standard is the square root of bugger all.