Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@.

Search
  • FIRST POST
    • thismakemesad
    • By thismakemesad 25th Jan 17, 12:49 PM
    • 35Posts
    • 6Thanks
    thismakemesad
    SIP Parking / Gladstones Court Claim / Defence Stage
    • #1
    • 25th Jan 17, 12:49 PM
    SIP Parking / Gladstones Court Claim / Defence Stage 25th Jan 17 at 12:49 PM
    Good afternoon all,

    A parking ticket was received last year (14/10/16) on Cable Street Manchester - In this circumstance the driver was in Manchester and paid for 3 hours parking. the driver was late back due to a hold up at work, But they made it back within the hour. There is now a final reminder on the ticket.
    The bill now stands at £125 but because it has been left so long I don't think they will listen to anything as it is so far past the ticket. Any advice??

    Does anybody know the landowner so I could email and explain the situation? I've heard that gets better results?
    Last edited by thismakemesad; 10-05-2017 at 11:52 PM. Reason: New information
Page 3
    • thismakemesad
    • By thismakemesad 23rd May 17, 1:29 PM
    • 35 Posts
    • 6 Thanks
    thismakemesad
    Okay after a read of the above, and trying to apply it, I'm struggling to work it in without it sounding like the below point?:

    5. After complying to the claimant’s letter, I responded with a request for evidence and proof towards the claim. The Claimant has failed to supply evidence or proof that there is sufficient interest in the land or that there are specific terms in its contract to bring the claim. The proper claimant is the landowner.
    5a.As a third-party agent, it is the responsibility of the Claimant to provide evidence of their strict legal right to bring a claim either as the landowner or as agent of the landholder. The Claimant has failed to supply any forthcoming evidence that they are the landowner or that they are authorised;
    “under or by virtue of arrangements made by the owner or occupier of the land, to enter into a contract with the driver requiring the payment of parking charges in respect of the parking of the vehicle on the land” under PoFA 2012, Schedule 4.2.
    5b. If the driver on the date of the event was considered to be a trespasser if not allowed to park there, then only the landowner can pursue a case under the tort of trespass not this Claimant, and as the Supreme Court in the Beavis vs ParkingEye (2015) [2015] UKSC 67 case confirmed, such a matter would be limited to the landowner themselves claiming for a nominal sum.


    I'm not sure if I'm misunderstanding what it is about, but does this suggest I have asked for evidence or do I need to state more bluntly on a separate point?

    Final question, would it be possible to list the points in an order you feel would be strongest? I think maybe it is weakening my defence by not having the order correct, but I am unsure on what order court takes things strongest?
    For example:
    5, 3, 1, 2 etc.
    I can then reorder accordingly
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 23rd May 17, 9:08 PM
    • 48,133 Posts
    • 61,570 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    To make it clear that you require evidence, you can say:

    The Claimant has failed to supply any evidence and as such, they are put to strict proof that they are the landowner or that they are authorised;
    Your changes look OK to me and your order of points is fine, too. There is no right & wrong answer but cases are (to my memory of forum wins) most often won on 'unclear signage terms/no contract agreed' or 'no keeper liability' (if the defendant wasn't the driver and the PPC hasn't followed the POFA).

    You need a statement of truth & your signature and date at the end, and format the entire defence as 1.5 line-spaced in Times New Roman 12 font, as explained by bargepole in his thread linked in post #2 of the NEWBIES thread, about how to structure/set out a defence.
    PRIVATE PCN in England/Wales? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT

    Click on the trail, top of this page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    DON'T read old advice to ignore, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • mlang88
    • By mlang88 24th May 17, 10:01 AM
    • 27 Posts
    • 27 Thanks
    mlang88
    I work right by Cable Street in Manchester - would you like me to take pictures of the car park signage? (If you haven't already found some?) - I am also fighting a SIPS claim for a 'PCN' in a car park just next door to Cable Street (although mine has now gone to court).
    • thismakemesad
    • By thismakemesad 25th May 17, 1:34 PM
    • 35 Posts
    • 6 Thanks
    thismakemesad
    Photos, please!
    I work right by Cable Street in Manchester - would you like me to take pictures of the car park signage? (If you haven't already found some?) - I am also fighting a SIPS claim for a 'PCN' in a car park just next door to Cable Street (although mine has now gone to court).
    Originally posted by mlang88
    That would be amazing help thank you!! If there are any opportunities to get pictures of the whole site that would be great!
    Sorry to hear yours has gone to court, have you got a link to a thread of your case? I would be interested to keep up with it and see how you get on. Good luck, and thank you for the kind request!
    Last edited by thismakemesad; 26-05-2017 at 10:53 AM.
    • Quentin
    • By Quentin 25th May 17, 1:41 PM
    • 32,078 Posts
    • 16,163 Thanks
    Quentin
    Before divulging your personal details via pms, do be aware the warnings on MSE about not giving your personal details out to anyone.


    (As well as the warnings on this forum not to contact posters with low posting histories/newbies/alter egos etc)
    • thismakemesad
    • By thismakemesad 26th May 17, 10:53 AM
    • 35 Posts
    • 6 Thanks
    thismakemesad
    Before divulging your personal details via pms, do be aware the warnings on MSE about not giving your personal details out to anyone.


    (As well as the warnings on this forum not to contact posters with low posting histories/newbies/alter egos etc)
    Originally posted by Quentin
    Is this a warning, or something I've already done? I'm nervous as can't remember what I did! haha
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 26th May 17, 11:05 AM
    • 13,586 Posts
    • 21,303 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    Is this a warning, or something I've already done? I'm nervous as can't remember what I did! haha
    Originally posted by thismakemesad
    It's just a note of caution. It's no slight on the poster who offered help, but there have been cases in the past where PPC stooges have offered such private assistance - and it's ended in tears.
    We cannot provide you with a silver bullet to get you out of this. You have to be in for the long run, and need to involve yourself in research and work for you to get rid of this. It is not simple. We will help, but can't do it for you.

    Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day; show him how to catch fish, and you feed him for a lifetime.
    • thismakemesad
    • By thismakemesad 26th May 17, 12:02 PM
    • 35 Posts
    • 6 Thanks
    thismakemesad
    With the great feedback above (really, thank you!) here is my defence as it currently stands.
    Please read in mind of the driver receiving a ticket for being 30 mins late back to the car park as a result of being held at work for unforeseen circumstances. However, I approaching in terms of signage and lack of contractual evidence. If anybody feels I could add something else, I have until Tuesday:

    --------------------

    It is admitted that the Defendant is the registered keeper of the vehicle in question. However, the claimant has no cause for action against the Defendant on the following grounds.

    The Defendant invites the court to strike this claim out as it is in breach of pre court protocols in relation to the particulars of claim under Practice Direction 16, set out by the Ministry of Justice and also Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) under 16.4.
    1b. The Defendant also disputes that the Claimant has incurred the stated additional costs of £50 and it is to be put to strict proof that they have actually been incurred. If they have been incurred, the Claimant has described them as "Legal Representatives Costs” and The Particulars of Claim are incompetent in disclosing no cause of action.
    1c. If the “parking charge” listed in the particulars of claim is to be considered a written agreement between Defendant and Claimant then under 7.3, the particulars fail to include “a copy of the contract or documents constituting the agreement”. There is no copy of any PCN, Notice to Keeper or copy of the wording used within any signage employed where the alleged offence occurred. At least one of these would be required for the parking charge to be enforced under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4.
    1d. In accordance with CPR, the particulars of claim are also in breach of part 16.4. The particulars are extremely sparse; divulge no course of action, nor sufficient detail as to why the charge arose, what the original charge was, what the alleged contract was; nothing that could be considered a fair exchange of information. The vague particulars of claim disclose no clear cause of action.
    1e. Under Practice Direction – Pre-Action Conduct and Protocols 6c, the Claimant has failed to disclose ”key documents relevant to the issues in dispute” or followed legislative procedure outlined in the Protections of Freedom Act 2012, Schedule 4.

    2. The Claimant has no right to claim relief from the keeper of the vehicle in question, as they have failed to comply with the strict requirements of the Protections of Freedom Act 2012 (PoFA 2012) under Schedule 4 which is the explicit and only mechanism by with a vehicles Keeper may be held liable for a driver parking their vehicle on private land. The Claimant has failed to identify the driver and has chosen to pursue the registered keeper.
    2b. The Claimant has also failed to supply evidence that a Notice to Driver has been issued which would result in a breach of Schedule 4, paragraph 7.

    3. The claimant might argue that Elliott vs Loake is applicable in identifying the registered keeper as the driver. This will be refuted as the Claimant has adduced no evidence at all as to the identity of the driver and Elliott v Loake was a criminal case turning on specific facts and forensic evidence as to who was driving the vehicle on the day on question. There is no similarity to this claim.
    3b. Case Reference: C8DP37F1, Stockport, Excel v Mr C

    4. The signage on and around the site in question was unclear and not prominent and did not meet the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice or the Independent Parking Committee (IPC) Code of Practice. The Claimant was a member of the IPC at the time and committed to follow its requirements. Therefore no contract has been formed with driver to pay the amount demanded by SiP Parking Ltd, or any additional fee charged if unpaid in 28 days.
    4b. The size of font of the prices advised for parking is much larger than the font of the contract and it was impossible to see any contractual information from the position of the vehicle.
    4c. With 4b. in mind, it is therefore my belief that the signs are forbidding and unable to set a contract and should instead be seen as to present a tort of trespass which only the landowner can action.
    4d. I would also like to state that the amount the claimant is bringing to claim is unfairly inflated and unrealistic of the costs implied by the claimant.

    5. After complying with the claimant’s Letter Before County Court Claim (response sent 26/04/17 and signed delivery on 27/04/17 09:24 by Greensmith) stating that The Keeper did not believe the Letter was fully compliant with the Practice direction as the Letter did not provide concise details about the matter and requested further information about the claim. The Claimant has failed to supply any evidence and as such, they are put to strict proof that they are the landowner or that they are authorised; The proper claimant is the landowner.
    5a. As a third-party agent, it is the responsibility of the Claimant to provide evidence of their strict legal right to bring a claim either as the landowner or as agent of the landholder. The Claimant has failed to supply any forthcoming evidence that they are the landowner or that they are authorised;
    “under or by virtue of arrangements made by the owner or occupier of the land, to enter into a contract with the driver requiring the payment of parking charges in respect of the parking of the vehicle on the land” under PoFA 2012, Schedule 4.2.
    5b. If the driver on the date of the event was considered to be a trespasser if not allowed to park there, then only the landowner can pursue a case under the tort of trespass not this Claimant, and as the Supreme Court in the Beavis vs ParkingEye (2015) [2015] UKSC 67 case confirmed, such a matter would be limited to the landowner themselves claiming for a nominal sum.

    6. No sum payable to this Claimant was accepted nor even known about by any driver; as they were not given a fair opportunity to discover the onerous terms by which they would later be bound.

    I believe the facts contained in this Defence Statement are true.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 26th May 17, 8:14 PM
    • 48,133 Posts
    • 61,570 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Bump for more views tonight.
    PRIVATE PCN in England/Wales? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT

    Click on the trail, top of this page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    DON'T read old advice to ignore, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • Lamilad
    • By Lamilad 26th May 17, 10:22 PM
    • 696 Posts
    • 1,526 Thanks
    Lamilad
    4c. With 4b. in mind, it is therefore my belief that the signs are forbidding and unable to set a contract and should instead be seen as to present a tort of trespass which only the landowner can action.
    If this was a pay display car park why would you think the signage was 'forbidding' .

    Is the offer to park limited to certain people i.e permit holders?
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 27th May 17, 11:53 PM
    • 48,133 Posts
    • 61,570 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    If this was a pay display car park why would you think the signage was 'forbidding' .

    Is the offer to park limited to certain people i.e permit holders?
    Originally posted by Lamilad
    Good point, that doesn't make much sense.
    PRIVATE PCN in England/Wales? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT

    Click on the trail, top of this page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    DON'T read old advice to ignore, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • thismakemesad
    • By thismakemesad 28th May 17, 1:40 PM
    • 35 Posts
    • 6 Thanks
    thismakemesad
    I've had a look at para 4. and it now stands as this:

    4. The signage on and around the site in question was unclear and not prominent and did not meet the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice or the Independent Parking Committee (IPC) Code of Practice. The Claimant was a member of the IPC at the time and committed to follow its requirements. Therefore no contract has been formed with driver to pay the amount demanded by SiP Parking Ltd, or any additional fee charged if unpaid in 28 days.
    4b. The size of font of the prices advised for parking is much larger than the font of the contract and the offer is not sufficiently brought to the attention of the motorist, nor are the ominous terms (the £100 parking charge) sufficiently prominent to satisfy Lord Dennings "red hand rule”.

    Is this better?

    Can anybody recommend if there is enough of a defence there regarding the driver not being able to make it back to the vehicle in time as mentioned above in the thread? I'm not sure if there is sufficient defence there to support that that's why the driver was late back and the ticket issued.. Or is there enough of a defence regarding the site and the way Gladstones have handled this?
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 28th May 17, 5:58 PM
    • 48,133 Posts
    • 61,570 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    'International Parking Community' = IPC (they changed their name).

    nor are the ominous terms
    should read 'nor are the onerous terms'

    ...and yes that's much better, we know that the tariff will have been in large lettering but the 'fine' hidden in small print, as it always is. I would not mention why the driver was late back because you are defending this as keeper, and an excuse about why the driver was delayed, plays into the claimant's hands to show a breach...

    I would stick with what you have there now, mainly going for the signs not creating a clear and prominent contract to pay anything except the large lettering tariff.
    PRIVATE PCN in England/Wales? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT

    Click on the trail, top of this page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    DON'T read old advice to ignore, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • thismakemesad
    • By thismakemesad 29th May 17, 10:33 PM
    • 35 Posts
    • 6 Thanks
    thismakemesad
    Brilliant thank you. I'll be submitting this tomorrow, just going to post this once more in case there are some final points anybody spots:

    It is admitted that the Defendant is the registered keeper of the vehicle in question. However, the claimant has no cause for action against the Defendant on the following grounds.

    The Defendant invites the court to strike this claim out as it is in breach of pre court protocols in relation to the particulars of claim under Practice Direction 16, set out by the Ministry of Justice and also Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) under 16.4.
    1b. The Defendant also disputes that the Claimant has incurred the stated additional costs of £50 and it is to be put to strict proof that they have actually been incurred. If they have been incurred, the Claimant has described them as "Legal Representatives Costs” and The Particulars of Claim are incompetent in disclosing no cause of action.
    1c. If the “parking charge” listed in the particulars of claim is to be considered a written agreement between Defendant and Claimant then under 7.3, the particulars fail to include “a copy of the contract or documents constituting the agreement”. There is no copy of any PCN, Notice to Keeper or copy of the wording used within any signage employed where the alleged offence occurred. At least one of these would be required for the parking charge to be enforced under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4.
    1d. In accordance with CPR, the particulars of claim are also in breach of part 16.4. The particulars are extremely sparse; divulge no course of action, nor sufficient detail as to why the charge arose, what the original charge was, what the alleged contract was; nothing that could be considered a fair exchange of information. The vague particulars of claim disclose no clear cause of action.
    1e. Under Practice Direction – Pre-Action Conduct and Protocols 6c, the Claimant has failed to disclose ”key documents relevant to the issues in dispute” or followed legislative procedure outlined in the Protections of Freedom Act 2012, Schedule 4.


    2. The Claimant has no right to claim relief from the keeper of the vehicle in question, as they have failed to comply with the strict requirements of the Protections of Freedom Act 2012 (PoFA 2012) under Schedule 4 which is the explicit and only mechanism by with a vehicles Keeper may be held liable for a driver parking their vehicle on private land. The Claimant has failed to identify the driver and has chosen to pursue the registered keeper.
    2b. The Claimant has also failed to supply evidence that a Notice to Driver has been issued which would result in a breach of Schedule 4, paragraph 7.

    3. The claimant might argue that Elliott vs Loake is applicable in identifying the registered keeper as the driver. This will be refuted as the Claimant has adduced no evidence at all as to the identity of the driver and Elliott v Loake was a criminal case turning on specific facts and forensic evidence as to who was driving the vehicle on the day on question. There is no similarity to this claim.
    3b. Case Reference: C8DP37F1, Stockport, Excel v Mr C

    4. The signage on and around the site in question was unclear and not prominent and did not meet the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice or the International Parking Community (IPC) Code of Practice. The Claimant was a member of the IPC at the time and committed to follow its requirements. Therefore no contract has been formed with driver to pay the amount demanded by SiP Parking Ltd, or any additional fee charged if unpaid in 28 days.
    4b. The size of font of the prices advised for parking is much larger than the font of the contract and the offer is not sufficiently brought to the attention of the motorist, nor are the onerous terms (the £100 parking charge) sufficiently prominent to satisfy Lord Dennings "red hand rule”.

    5. After complying with the claimant’s Letter Before County Court Claim (response sent 26/04/17 and signed delivery on 27/04/17 09:24 by Greensmith) stating that The Keeper did not believe the Letter was fully compliant with the Practice direction as the Letter did not provide concise details about the matter and requested further information about the claim. The Claimant has failed to supply any evidence and as such, they are put to strict proof that they are the landowner or that they are authorised; The proper claimant is the landowner.
    5a. As a third-party agent, it is the responsibility of the Claimant to provide evidence of their strict legal right to bring a claim either as the landowner or as agent of the landholder. The Claimant has failed to supply any forthcoming evidence that they are the landowner or that they are authorised;
    “under or by virtue of arrangements made by the owner or occupier of the land, to enter into a contract with the driver requiring the payment of parking charges in respect of the parking of the vehicle on the land” under PoFA 2012, Schedule 4.2.
    5b. If the driver on the date of the event was considered to be a trespasser if not allowed to park there, then only the landowner can pursue a case under the tort of trespass not this Claimant, and as the Supreme Court in the Beavis vs ParkingEye (2015) [2015] UKSC 67 case confirmed, such a matter would be limited to the landowner themselves claiming for a nominal sum.

    6. No sum payable to this Claimant was accepted nor even known about by any driver; as they were not given a fair opportunity to discover the onerous terms by which they would later be bound.

    I believe the facts contained in this Defence Statement are true.
    • thismakemesad
    • By thismakemesad 30th May 17, 11:31 AM
    • 35 Posts
    • 6 Thanks
    thismakemesad
    I made a mistake with my defence submission date, it's 5th June deadline, so unless anybody can confirm that I can just send this off I may wait for some more feedback? Tell me if I'm being paranoid..
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 30th May 17, 2:51 PM
    • 48,133 Posts
    • 61,570 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Submit it as a signed and dated document attachment, by email to the CCBC

    ccbcaq@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk


    ...and also it's a good idea right now, to send a copy by email to Gladstones in case of delay by CCBC, who are a couple of weeks behind with their dealing with filing defences, by all accounts:

    litigation@gladstonessolicitors.co.uk

    Just state that this is a copy of the defence filed at the CCBC and you will NOT agree to a hearing on the papers, so Gladstones should not waste anyone's time suggesting it.
    PRIVATE PCN in England/Wales? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT

    Click on the trail, top of this page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    DON'T read old advice to ignore, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • thismakemesad
    • By thismakemesad 2nd Jun 17, 10:46 AM
    • 35 Posts
    • 6 Thanks
    thismakemesad
    I have had some pictures sent though last minute!
    http://i.imgur.com/sHvL3dy.jpg
    http://i.imgur.com/wwzYJOS.jpg
    http://i.imgur.com/0ylbkIB.jpg

    I don't know if this changes the defence but it might be worth something
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 2nd Jun 17, 1:24 PM
    • 48,133 Posts
    • 61,570 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Proves what I said earlier that I knew would be true:
    we know that the tariff will have been in large lettering but the 'fine' hidden in small print, as it always is.
    Look how large font the fee/tariff is, yet you have to search the signs for anything else and simply cannot see £100 anywhere unless you got out a magnifying glass.

    Also I would add that you have photo evidence of this, and the fact that the location has no entrance sign at all, contrary to the IPC Code of Practice. No entrance sign and just large font signs saying 'pay here' and some tariffs, is NOT an 'agreed' contract to pay £100.
    PRIVATE PCN in England/Wales? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT

    Click on the trail, top of this page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    DON'T read old advice to ignore, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • thismakemesad
    • By thismakemesad 18th Jun 17, 4:28 PM
    • 35 Posts
    • 6 Thanks
    thismakemesad
    Hi all,

    So I have received a letter from Gladstones which is a client completed Directions Questionnaire, which will be filed with the court upon their request.
    Unfortunately it sounds like this will now go to court and that it will be dealt with on the papers and without the need for an oral hearing.

    Does anybody have any experience with this and what I need to do now at this stage?
    There is an N159 form on the back but nothing is filled in stating when I need to return the documents or who to. Is this just a copy and I will receive another from the Court to respond to?

    Also, it states on the back; "The matter will be considered on paperwork without a hearing. The parties attendance is not required and the Judge will determine the matter based upon the documents and evidence supplied and any written representations received."
    - Without sounding stupid, does this mean I won't need to attend court?

    Any advice on the next steps would be greatly appreciated

    All the best
    Thanks in advance
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 18th Jun 17, 4:37 PM
    • 48,133 Posts
    • 61,570 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Unfortunately it sounds like this will now go to court and that it will be dealt with on the papers and without the need for an oral hearing.
    Fortunately it doesn't mean that at all! You need to read more Gladstones threads, you would be so much more better prepared for their shenanigans if you did!

    Read the threads by:

    Jack Basta

    and

    Gin and Milk

    both of whom were among our winners v Gladstones, and both threads show how to respond to that daft letter from Gladstones. You need to realise they are playing a nasty game to try to confuse and beat consumers by leading them up garden paths. Do not believe them.



    Is this just a copy and I will receive another from the Court to respond to?
    Now you are on the right track, and the letter you will get won't be a N159 'paper hearing' one. You will get a N180.


    Without sounding stupid, does this mean I won't need to attend court?
    You want to have an oral hearing face to face in court and you will get it at your local court, you get that choice.
    PRIVATE PCN in England/Wales? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT

    Click on the trail, top of this page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    DON'T read old advice to ignore, unless in Scotland/NI.

Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

597Posts Today

6,288Users online

Martin's Twitter
  • Byebye! I'm about to stop work & twitter, to instead spend glorious time with Mrs & mini MSE. Wishing u a lovely summer. See u in 10 days.

  • WARNING Did you start Uni in or after 2012? The interest's rising to 6.1%; yet it doesnt work like you think. See https://t.co/IQ8f0Vyetu RT

  • RT @JanaBeee: @MartinSLewis Boris is the anomaly (coffee), the others are versions of normal (beer). Lots of same candidates = vote share d?

  • Follow Martin