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
    • AnnieAnne
    • By AnnieAnne 11th Mar 17, 2:30 AM
    • 9Posts
    • 7Thanks
    AnnieAnne
    Civil Enforcement Ltd County Court Claim Form
    • #1
    • 11th Mar 17, 2:30 AM
    Civil Enforcement Ltd County Court Claim Form 11th Mar 17 at 2:30 AM
    Hello

    I have spent the last few days/week reading through the NEWBIE thread and also countless threads of various cases, however I am just looking for some advice on my situation.

    I have been issued a County Court Claim Form which relates to a PCN i received last year from CEL. In summary, I was visiting a leisure centre which has a 3 hour free parking 1 hour no return policy. Daft I know but I overstayed the 3 hours by around 30 minutes. (I had taken a newborn baby swimming and as a first time mother this can take some time to get both of us ready, fed etc, as I also then spent sometime in the cafe and simply lost track of time. I have a bank statement showing my payment in the leisure centre). It was a Wednesday day time and the car park wasn't even half full.

    As I have become quite ill with stress over this whole situation and would like to be able to 'close the book' and after some thorough reading on here, I have sent the PPC a WITHOUT PREDJUDICE offer of settlement for the original PCN amount of £60. I used a template on here written by LazyDaisy.

    In the meantime I only have a couple of days left until the deadline on the court papers, What would you suggest I do- should I Aknowledge and defend the claim? I feel as I breached their policy, do I have a strong enough defense? I believe that 'acknowledging the claim' is something i can do online, otherwise if it's done postally I will need to send off tomorrow so looking for some urgent advice really.

    I feel a little overwhelmed as I am not legally tuned at all and no matter how much I am reading and concentrating on trying to make sense of everything on here, I am still really struggling. The thought of going to court and preparing legal documents fills me with anxiety hence why my first choice is to settle this outside of court. I feel like a speck in a tonne of info and completely out of my depth!
    I really appreciate any help you can provide.

    Thank you
    Last edited by AnnieAnne; 11-03-2017 at 9:30 AM.
Page 1
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 11th Mar 17, 7:47 AM
    • 15,522 Posts
    • 24,243 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    • #2
    • 11th Mar 17, 7:47 AM
    • #2
    • 11th Mar 17, 7:47 AM
    Your choices are:

    1. Pay off CEL now and get rid of the hassle - no one here recommends that.

    2. Ignore the court papers - default judgment against you guaranteed for the full amount shown in the PoC. If you don't then pay that, your credit rating is trashed with serious impact on your ability to raise loans, mortgage, mobile phone contracts, maybe even jeopardise employment/job prospects - no one here recommends that (potentially disastrous option).

    3. Acknowledge service of the papers NOW, as this provides an additional 14 days to put together a defence (put nothing in the defence box at the acknowledgement stage). You seem to be perilously close to the first 14 day deadline, miss that and you're effectively at 2 (above). Well defended cases have seen CEL discontinue proceedings - in fact we haven't seen one go to court for a long, long time, it's as though the CEL strategy is to obtain default judgments, so defend and you could well see this dropped.

    Draft out your initial defence and the court savvy regulars will help you to hone it. Do a forum search on 'CEL defence' to find a number of previous cases.

    In parallel - have you complained to the leisure centre and asked them to intervene? It can be a very successful strategy. Mention that CEL are taking you to court and you will be calling on the LC manager to appear as a witness (a bit of bluff can go a long way!).
    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.
    • Redx
    • By Redx 11th Mar 17, 8:48 AM
    • 16,548 Posts
    • 20,704 Thanks
    Redx
    • #3
    • 11th Mar 17, 8:48 AM
    • #3
    • 11th Mar 17, 8:48 AM
    after acknowledging online (to get the extra 14 days) , search the forum for the basic CEL defence as mentioned NUMEROUS TIMES by coupon mad on here

    then adapt it , or make sure it doesnt say anything it shouldnt and use it

    see post #2 of the NEWBIES sticky thread too ,it has plenty of help on these matters

    most people are not "au fait" with the court process , so nobody here expects you to be an expert, or you would not be posting

    once defended, as mentioned above its unlikely to progress as they are looking for "sitting ducks" with their ehads buried in the sand

    read some of the other CEL court case threads over the last 6 months, get the gist from those (which is what us regulars have done , even though we dont have pending court cases)

    reading and research will help, but following the coupon-mad advice listed in numerous recent threads is what you need to do , her advice is paramount on here

    plus read any and all "bargepole" posts and threads too , especially the ones linked in post #2 of the NEWBIES sticky thread , follow HIS advice to the letter as well

    remember, this isnt a legal forum but people will help you because they hate these sc@mmers whose business plan is to rack up invoices and then harass people for 6 years (its definitely NOT about "parking" per se)

    and in future, use the RETURN KEY toi break up your great wall of text, people like myself find it hard to read, so I have not read it. If I can do it , you can too

    edit post #1 and break up the text into paragraphs , also make sure that in your court papers you do the same, itrs basic but it needs to be done

    and LOSE THE GUILT COMPLEX too
    Last edited by Redx; 11-03-2017 at 8:50 AM.
    Newbies !!
    Private Parking ticket? check the 2 sticky threads by coupon-mad and crabman in the Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking Board forum for the latest advice or maybe try pepipoo or C.A.G. or legal beagles forums if you need legal advice as well because this parking forum is not about debt collectors or legal matters per se
    • AnnieAnne
    • By AnnieAnne 11th Mar 17, 9:37 AM
    • 9 Posts
    • 7 Thanks
    AnnieAnne
    • #4
    • 11th Mar 17, 9:37 AM
    • #4
    • 11th Mar 17, 9:37 AM
    Thank you.
    I will acknowledge the claim now.

    I have read many CEL defences on here and will definitely use them to assist with the preparation of mine.

    I haven't spoken to the leisure centre but I saw someone on a different case to get a letter from them as a Witness Statement (if they agree to help) so am planning to do just that.

    thanks again
    • AnnieAnne
    • By AnnieAnne 11th Mar 17, 9:46 AM
    • 9 Posts
    • 7 Thanks
    AnnieAnne
    • #5
    • 11th Mar 17, 9:46 AM
    • #5
    • 11th Mar 17, 9:46 AM
    That you for getting back to me. As soon as I posted and noticed the poor spacing I have been trying to edit - all done now!

    I have read #2 on newbies and will re-read again, I found lots of helpful and easy to understand however I just wasn't sure if my particular case would be strong enough as a defence.

    As mentioned I will be acknowledging the claim now and start working on defence.

    Thanks again
    • Redx
    • By Redx 11th Mar 17, 11:52 AM
    • 16,548 Posts
    • 20,704 Thanks
    Redx
    • #6
    • 11th Mar 17, 11:52 AM
    • #6
    • 11th Mar 17, 11:52 AM
    excellent , put the draft defence on here when its at or near completion, so people can give you feedback (just omit and personal details or references for now , put those in at the end , just before submission)

    and THANK YOU for editing post #1 too

    if they had a FOUR HOUR rule , with no return within 1 hour , you would not be in this situation

    so never assume it is your fault , these places should be realistic about what they offer
    Newbies !!
    Private Parking ticket? check the 2 sticky threads by coupon-mad and crabman in the Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking Board forum for the latest advice or maybe try pepipoo or C.A.G. or legal beagles forums if you need legal advice as well because this parking forum is not about debt collectors or legal matters per se
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 11th Mar 17, 11:59 PM
    • 51,534 Posts
    • 65,137 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    • #7
    • 11th Mar 17, 11:59 PM
    • #7
    • 11th Mar 17, 11:59 PM
    Thank you.
    I will acknowledge the claim now.

    I have read many CEL defences on here and will definitely use them to assist with the preparation of mine.

    I haven't spoken to the leisure centre but I saw someone on a different case to get a letter from them as a Witness Statement (if they agree to help) so am planning to do just that.

    thanks again
    Originally posted by AnnieAnne
    CEL cases are fairly easy to defend and we've never had one go to a hearing on here or on pepipoo forum, despite lots of cases being defended. The point is to avoid a hearing if possible of course, as I am sure you would rather avoid it. never seen one yet after a forum defence v CEL!

    So, for other newbies to see as well, here is a typical CEL generic defence to use/adapt (NOT his earlier versions, only post #16):

    http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?p=71748239#post71748239

    With the usual outcome, no hearing:

    Just wanted to thank everyone on the forum & especially everyone that offered advice on this thread as the court confirmed that my case has been stayed.
    We had yet another one confirmed as stayed only last week v CEL. You won't need that new outfit for court...!

    PRIVATE PCN? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT TWO Clicks needed for advice:
    Top of the page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    Advice to ignore is WRONG, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • AnnieAnne
    • By AnnieAnne 22nd Mar 17, 10:51 PM
    • 9 Posts
    • 7 Thanks
    AnnieAnne
    • #8
    • 22nd Mar 17, 10:51 PM
    • #8
    • 22nd Mar 17, 10:51 PM
    Hello again

    I am sorry for the delay, I have had recent surgery and now just about recovered in time to prepare/ adapt my defence, would anyone mind taking a look and letting me know your thoughts and if this is sufficient to send off within the next couple of days please?
    I understand from the Newbies thread that this is a skeleton defence (am I correct?) Therefore thinking perhaps this is a little detailed..

    Really appreciate any help that anyone can offer.

    Annie



    In the County Court Business Centre
    Claim Number ****
    Between:
    Civil Enforcement Limited v ******
    Defence Statement

    The Claim Form issued on the 22nd February 2017 by Civil Enforcement Limited was not correctly filed under The Practice Direction as it was not signed by a legal person but signed by “The Legal Team”. The Claim form is signed 'Civil Enforcement Limited (Claimant's Legal Representative)' so is this paragraph still relevant?

    I deny I am liable to the Claimant for the entirety of the claim for each of the following reasons:

    1/ This Claimant has not complied with pre-court protocol:
    (a)There was no compliant ‘Letter before County Court Claim’, under the Practice Direction.
    (b) This is a speculative serial litigant, issuing a large number of identical 'draft particulars'. The badly mail-merged documents contain very little information. The covering letter merely contains a supposed PCN number with no contravention nor photographs.
    (c) The Claim form Particulars were extremely sparse and divulged no cause of action nor sufficient detail. The Defendant has no idea what the claim is about - why the charge arose, what the alleged contract was; nothing that could be considered a fair exchange of information.

    2/ The Claimant failed to meet the Notice to Keeper obligations of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. Absent such a notice served within 14 days of the parking event and with fully compliant statutory wording, this Claimant is unable to hold me liable under the strict ‘keeper liability’ provisions.

    Schedule 4 also states that the only sum a keeper can be pursued for (if Schedule 4 is fully complied with, which it was not, and if there was a 'relevant obligation' and relevant contract' fairly and adequately communicated, which there was not) is the sum on the Notice to Keeper. They cannot pluck another sum from thin air and bolt that on as well when neither the signs, nor the NTK, nor the permit information mentioned a possible £251.62 for outstanding debt and damages.

    3/ This case can be distinguished from ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 (the Beavis case) which was dependent upon an undenied contract, formed by unusually prominent signage forming a clear offer and which turned on unique facts regarding the location and the interests of the landowner. Strict compliance with the BPA Code of Practice (CoP) was paramount and Mr Beavis was the driver who saw the signs and entered into a contract to pay £85 after exceeding a licence to park free. None of this applies in this material case.

    4/ Inadequate signs incapable of binding the driver - this distinguishes this case from the Beavis case:
    (a) Sporadic and illegible (charge not prominent nor large lettering) of site/entrance signage - breach of the POFA 2012 Schedule 4 and the BPA Code of Practice and no contract formed to pay any clearly stated sum.
    (b) Non existent ANPR 'data use' signage - breach of ICO rules and the BPA Code of Practice. I need to go back to the car park to double check signage
    (c) It is believed the signage was not lit and any terms were not transparent or legible; this is an unfair contract, not agreed by the driver and contrary to the Consumer Rights Act 2015 in requiring a huge inflated sum as 'compensation' from by an authorised party using the premises as intended.
    (d) No promise was made by the driver that could constitute consideration because there was no offer known nor accepted. No consideration flowed from the Claimant.

    5/ BPA CoP breaches - this distinguishes this case from the Beavis case:
    (a) the signs were not compliant in terms of the font size, lighting or positioning.
    (b) the sum pursued exceeds £100.
    (c) there is/was no compliant landowner contract.

    6/ No standing - this distinguishes this case from the Beavis case:
    It is believed Civil Enforcement do not hold a legitimate contract at this car park. As an agent, the Claimant has no legal right to bring such a claim in their name which should be in the name of the landowner. I don't actually know who is the landowner, is this something I need to investigate?

    7/ No legitimate interest - this distinguishes this case from the Beavis case:
    This Claimant files serial claims regarding sites where they have lost the contract, known as revenge claims and it believed this is one such case. This is not a legitimate reason to pursue a charge out of proportion with any loss or damages the true landowner could pursue. I'm not sure this is relevant to my case..

    8/ The Beavis case confirmed the fact that, if it is a matter of trespass (not breach of any contract), a parking firm has no standing as a non-landowner to pursue even nominal damages.

    9/ The charge is an unenforceable penalty based upon a lack of commercial justification. The Beavis case confirmed that the penalty rule is certainly engaged in any case of a private parking charge and was only disengaged due to the unique circumstances of that case, which do not resemble this claim.

    10/ The claimant has added unrecoverable sums to the original parking charge. If Mr Cohen is an employee then the Defendant suggests he is remunerated and the particulars of claim dated 22nd February 2017 are templates, so it is not credible that £50 legal costs were incurred. I deny the Claimant is entitled to any interest whatsoever.

    The Defendant denies any liability whatsoever to the Claimant in any matter and asks the Court to note that the Claimant has:
    (a) failed to disclose any cause of action in the incorrectly filed Claim Form issued on 22nd February 2017.

    The vague Particulars of Claim disclose no clear cause of action. The court is invited to strike out the claim of its own volition as having no merit and no reasonable prospects of success.

    I believe the facts contained in this Defence Statement are true.

    Signed
    Date
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 24th Mar 17, 1:12 AM
    • 51,534 Posts
    • 65,137 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    • #9
    • 24th Mar 17, 1:12 AM
    • #9
    • 24th Mar 17, 1:12 AM
    The Claim Form issued on the 22nd February 2017 by Civil Enforcement Limited was not correctly filed under The Practice Direction as it was not signed by a legal person but signed by “The Legal Team”.
    The Claim form is signed 'Civil Enforcement Limited (Claimant's Legal Representative)' so is this paragraph still relevant?
    No, obviously you change it like in all the current CEL claim threads you see, exactly like yours! Read other threads like yours on the first few pages, they've all done the same thing.

    I need to go back to the car park to double check signage
    NO, you really don't.

    I don't actually know who is the landowner, is this something I need to investigate?
    No you don't, this is a lot easier than you think.

    7/ No legitimate interest - this distinguishes this case from the Beavis case:
    This Claimant files serial claims regarding sites where they have lost the contract, known as revenge claims and it believed this is one such case. This is not a legitimate reason to pursue a charge out of proportion with any loss or damages the true landowner could pursue. I'm not sure this is relevant to my case..
    It isn't if they still have the contract, so remove it like you see in all the other recent CEL defence threads, there are others on the forum first few pages. Copy what they did, this is simple.
    PRIVATE PCN? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT TWO Clicks needed for advice:
    Top of the page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    Advice to ignore is WRONG, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • AnnieAnne
    • By AnnieAnne 24th Mar 17, 6:25 PM
    • 9 Posts
    • 7 Thanks
    AnnieAnne
    Thank you for your comments Coupon-Mad.
    After some more reading/research, I have come up with the below Defence, how is it looking? I need to take to my post office by 11pm tonight in order for it to go out Recorded 1st Class in the morning - to reach Northampton by Monday.

    Any comments are greatly appreciated,
    In the County Court Business Centre
    Claim Number ***
    Between:
    Civil Enforcement Limited v ***
    Defence Statement

    I deny I am liable to the Claimant for the entirety of the claim for each of the following reasons:

    1. The Claim Form issued on the 22 February 2017 by Civil Enforcement Limited was not correctly filed under The Practice Direction as it was not signed by a legal person but signed by “Claimant’s Legal Representative”.

    2. This Claimant has not complied with pre-court protocol. And as an example as to why this prevents a full defence being filed at this time, a parking charge can be for trespass, breach of contract or a contractual charge. All these are treated differently in law and require a different defence. The wording of any contract will naturally be a key element in this matter, and a copy of the alleged contract has never been provided to the Defendant.
    (a) There was no compliant ‘Letter before County Court Claim’, under the Practice Direction.
    (b) This is a speculative serial litigant, issuing a large number of identical 'draft particulars'. The badly mail-merged documents contain very little information.
    (c) The Schedule of information is sparse of detailed information.
    (d) The Claim form Particulars were extremely sparse and divulged no cause of action nor sufficient detail. The Defendant has no idea what the claim is about - why the charge arose, what the alleged contract was; nothing that could be considered a fair exchange of information. The Claim form Particulars did not contain any evidence of contravention or photographs.
    e) The Defence therefore asks the Court to strike out the claim as having no reasonable prospect of success as currently drafted.
    f) Alternatively, the Defendant asks that the Claimant is required to file Particulars which comply with Practice Directions and include at least the following information;
    i. Whether the matter is being brought for trespass, breach of contract or a contractual charge, and an explanation as to the exact nature of the charge
    ii. A copy of any contract it is alleged was in place (e.g. copies of signage)
    iii. How any contract was concluded (if by performance, then copies of signage maps in place at the time)
    iv. Whether keeper liability is being claimed, and if so copies of any Notice to Driver / Notice to Keeper
    v. Whether the Claimant is acting as Agent or Principal, together with a list of documents they will rely on in this matter
    vi. If charges over and above the initial charge are being claimed, the basis on which this is being claimed
    vii. If Interest charges are being claimed, the basis on which this is being claimed
    g) Once these Particulars have been filed, the Defendant asks for reasonable time to file another defence.

    3. The Claimant failed to meet the Notice to Keeper obligations of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. Absent such a notice served within 14 days of the parking event and with fully compliant statutory wording, this Claimant is unable to hold me liable under the strict ‘keeper liability’ provisions.

    Schedule 4 also states that the only sum a keeper can be pursued for (if Schedule 4 is fully complied with, which it was not, and if there was a 'relevant obligation' and relevant contract' fairly and adequately communicated, which there was not) is the sum on the Notice to Keeper. They cannot pluck another sum from thin air and bolt that on as well when neither the signs, nor the NTK, nor the permit information mentioned a possible £326.62 for outstanding debt and damages.

    4. The Claimant has added unrecoverable sums to the original parking charge. It is believed that the employee who drew up the paperwork is remunerated and the particulars of claim are templates, so it is simply not credible that £50 'legal representative’s (or even admin) costs' were incurred

    5. This case can be distinguished from ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 (the Beavis case) which was dependent upon an undenied contract, formed by unusually prominent signage forming a clear offer and which turned on unique facts regarding the location and the interests of the landowner. Strict compliance with the BPA Code of Practice (CoP) was paramount and Mr Beavis was the driver who saw the signs and entered into a contract to pay £85 after exceeding a licence to park free. None of this applies in this material case.

    6. In the absence of any proof of adequate signage that contractually bound the Defendant then there can have been no contract and the Claimant has no case.
    a) The Claimant is put to strict proof that at the time of the alleged event they had both advertisement consent and the permission from the site owner to display the signs.
    b) In the absence of strict proof I submit that the Claimant was committing an offence by displaying their signs and therefore no contract could have been entered into between the driver and the Claimant.
    c) Inadequate signs incapable of binding the driver - this distinguishes this case from the Beavis case:
    (i) Sporadic and illegible (charge not prominent nor large lettering) of site/entrance signage - breach of the POFA 2012 Schedule 4 and the BPA Code of Practice and no contract formed to pay any clearly stated sum.
    (ii) Non existent ANPR 'data use' signage - breach of ICO rules and the BPA Code of Practice.
    (iii) It is believed the signage was not lit and any terms were not transparent or legible; this is an unfair contract, not agreed by the driver and contrary to the Consumer Rights Act 2015 in requiring a huge inflated sum as 'compensation' from by an authorised party using the premises as intended.
    (iv) No promise was made by the driver that could constitute consideration because there was no offer known nor accepted. No consideration flowed from the Claimant.
    (v) The signs are believed to have no mention of any debt collection additional charge, which cannot form part of any alleged contract.
    d) BPA CoP breaches - this distinguishes this case from the Beavis case:
    (i) the signs were not compliant in terms of the font size, lighting or positioning.
    (ii) the sum pursued exceeds £100.
    (iii) there is / was no compliant landowner contract.

    7. No standing - this distinguishes this case from the Beavis case:
    It is believed Civil Enforcement do not hold a legitimate contract at this car park. As an agent, the Claimant has no legal right to bring such a claim in their name which should be in the name of the landowner.

    8. No legitimate interest - this distinguishes this case from the Beavis case:
    This Claimant files serial claims regarding sites where they have lost the contract, known as revenge claims and it believed this is one such case. This is not a legitimate reason to pursue a charge out of proportion with any loss or damages the true landowner could pursue.

    9. The Beavis case confirmed the fact that, if it is a matter of trespass (not breach of any contract), a parking firm has no standing as a non-landowner to pursue even nominal damages.

    10. The charge is an unenforceable penalty based upon a lack of commercial justification. The Beavis case confirmed that the penalty rule is certainly engaged in any case of a private parking charge and was only disengaged due to the unique circumstances of that case, which do not resemble this claim.

    The Defendant denies any liability whatsoever to the Claimant in any matter and asks the Court to note that the Claimant has:
    (a) failed to disclose any cause of action in the incorrectly filed Claim Form issued on 22nd February 2017.
    (b) Sent a template, well-known to be generic cut and paste 'Particulars' of claim relying on irrelevant case law (Beavis) which ignores the fact that this Claimant cannot hold registered keepers liable in law, due to their own choice of non-POFA documentation.

    The vague Particulars of Claim disclose no clear cause of action. The court is invited to strike out the claim of its own volition as having no merit and no reasonable prospects of success.

    I confirm that the above facts and statements are true to the best of my knowledge and recollection.

    Signed
    Date
    • AnnieAnne
    • By AnnieAnne 24th Mar 17, 6:33 PM
    • 9 Posts
    • 7 Thanks
    AnnieAnne
    I've removed point 8.
    • AnnieAnne
    • By AnnieAnne 24th Mar 17, 8:43 PM
    • 9 Posts
    • 7 Thanks
    AnnieAnne
    It's printed and will be posted shortly.
    I've used Newbies to help with formatting and lots of research from these boards to help with the points so hoping it's sufficient
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 24th Mar 17, 11:39 PM
    • 51,534 Posts
    • 65,137 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    That'll do. I would also email the defence as well as post, because we've heard from a poster who is saying the court lost/didn't receive his defence so they lost by default.

    ccbcaq@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk

    HTH - claim number and the word 'DEFENCE' in the Subject line of course.
    PRIVATE PCN? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT TWO Clicks needed for advice:
    Top of the page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    Advice to ignore is WRONG, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • AnnieAnne
    • By AnnieAnne 25th Mar 17, 12:43 AM
    • 9 Posts
    • 7 Thanks
    AnnieAnne
    Thank you very much, I really appreciate your help.

    I had seen that too so have saved as PDF to email across and will also call Monday to make sure all received.

    Now just to keep fingers crossed and await the next step!
    • AnAlBo
    • By AnAlBo 20th Apr 17, 10:56 AM
    • 1 Posts
    • 1 Thanks
    AnAlBo
    this is really useful and relevant to my case

    hope you don't mind me copying?

    have you had any further news?
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 20th Apr 17, 9:04 PM
    • 51,534 Posts
    • 65,137 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    this is really useful and relevant to my case

    hope you don't mind me copying?
    Originally posted by AnAlBo
    Of course, these are fairly easy and generic (so copy away). In a year we have had NONE proceed! Same advice just now to another one:

    http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5636907

    Easy to defend, Civil Enforcement cases need a generic defence and that should be enough.

    PRIVATE PCN? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT TWO Clicks needed for advice:
    Top of the page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    Advice to ignore is WRONG, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • AnnieAnne
    • By AnnieAnne 5th May 17, 2:42 PM
    • 9 Posts
    • 7 Thanks
    AnnieAnne
    Just wanted to update on this case. I have just spoken to the County Court and been advised that my case has been Stayed (as expected by most of you..!) But such a massive thank you for your help, I appreciate it so much! Another good result hey!

    Just to clarify though, the lady mentioned that CEL can at any point in the future lift this and reinstate the case even a few years down the line unless I pay a fee to strike it out- please could you recommend what you would do from here?

    Thank you again xxx
    • Lamilad
    • By Lamilad 5th May 17, 2:56 PM
    • 1,178 Posts
    • 2,338 Thanks
    Lamilad
    Just wanted to update on this case. I have just spoken to the County Court and been advised that my case has been Stayed
    That's good. Not to put a dampener on this news but we have seen a number of 'stayed' cases inexplicably resurrected either by the PPC/solicitor or as a result of the court catching up with paperwork.

    . Hopefully this won't be the cases here.

    please could you recommend what you would do from here?
    Nothing! It doesn't seem fair to have this lurking in rhe background but unfortunately you just have to let the years pass by until this becomes 'statute barred'
    • Alliyaah
    • By Alliyaah 15th Jun 17, 2:26 PM
    • 6 Posts
    • 4 Thanks
    Alliyaah
    Hi guys. I am in the process of writing a defence but find it hard as i am Polish therefore its hard for me to understand some wording. However i will copy Annie's and try to amend it slightly, it should be ok but i have a question. I have appealed last year to CEL and of course it got rejected. I got the PRE-COURT letter in November 2016 so have to delete the first PRE-COURT protocol point right?

    Also is it important to add anywhere that the carpark is advertised on google as free after 6pm on weekdays and on Sundays and I have parked there at 6;47pm for 12 minutes only and got the ticket? I didnt know this at the time though but asked the shop owners who were standing outside at the time and I was also told by them that i can park for free at this time for few minutes, no problem. And this car park doesn't give option for 10 or 20 minutes, only an hour even if you stay 10 minutes. This was in my original appeal. I also mentioned that this was my first time offence and i am a regular user of this car park with no intentions to break any rules. I always pay when i know i should. As i said i didnt even know then that this car park is free after 6pm. Unless they have changed it recently. Shall i mention both of these in the defence or not?
    • Quentin
    • By Quentin 15th Jun 17, 2:28 PM
    • 33,258 Posts
    • 17,194 Thanks
    Quentin
    You should start your own thread. (,Only if you have read the newbies FAQ thread first as you are politely asked to do)
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

2,091Posts Today

8,715Users online

Martin's Twitter