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
    • miladm1067
    • By miladm1067 11th May 17, 11:56 PM
    • 77Posts
    • 1Thanks
    miladm1067
    Total parking solutions/ ie legal solicitors
    • #1
    • 11th May 17, 11:56 PM
    Total parking solutions/ ie legal solicitors 11th May 17 at 11:56 PM
    Hello, I had received a parking ticket in February from TPS on my University campus. I have now received a letter from IE LEGAL SOLICITORS with a "formal demand" for "notice of impending legal actions" and to pay by 15th may. Do I pay the 110 pound fine or wait to go court or appeal to them? Can anyone please help me, I was not aware private parking tickets would end up being chased this much.
Page 3
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 11th Jul 17, 12:06 AM
    • 51,532 Posts
    • 65,134 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    About £100 per PCN, plus court fees (likely less than they are demanding now).

    My signature is (obviously) the words under my posts, look at the words under my posts.

    This has been staring at you every time I reply to you - read the words below! It tells you where to click.
    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.

    • miladm1067
    • By miladm1067 14th Jul 17, 6:31 PM
    • 77 Posts
    • 1 Thanks
    miladm1067
    100 per pcn i cannot afford that. Where do I submit my defence? still very confused. Also about the date. I cannot find a reason for the appeal which will work. I cannot say i can't afford it or that I'm a student
    • miladm1067
    • By miladm1067 14th Jul 17, 6:33 PM
    • 77 Posts
    • 1 Thanks
    miladm1067
    What are the chances of me losing? I am really scared now
    • Redx
    • By Redx 14th Jul 17, 6:38 PM
    • 16,540 Posts
    • 20,699 Thanks
    Redx
    your defence is emailed as a pdf attachment (once you have drafted it) to the CCBC in Northampton , with the reference number in the header , then phone them to ensure they add it to your file

    it is too late to appeal this

    you can only defend yourself , not appeal

    your defence will be based on legal arguments , not on the ability to pay or not. even if you have no money or assets at all , it wont prevent a judgment against you unless you are successful and win

    this is a legal matter , like the JUDGE RINDER programme , but without all the theatrics and cat calling you get on there

    you need to gen up and defend yourself , and try to win , otherwise it will cost you dear

    so draft up a defence and post it on here, but with no personal details or references

    once approved , you save it as a pdf and email it to the CCBC as an attachment
    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
    • miladm1067
    • By miladm1067 14th Jul 17, 6:58 PM
    • 77 Posts
    • 1 Thanks
    miladm1067
    I had a read through the forum and plucked out any relevant arguments. I just wanted to know if this is roughly what I can send them.


    the County Court Business Centre
    Claim Number: ___

    Between:

    Civil Enforcement Limited v ___

    Defence!Statement

    I am ___, the defendant in this matter and registered keeper of vehicle ___. I currently reside at ____.

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


    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. I deny the Claimant is entitled to any interest whatsoever.

    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 as there was no clear, transparent information about how to obtain a permit either inside or outside the site) 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 £900 for outstanding debt and damages.

    1. The claimant failed to include a copy of their written contract as per Practice Direction 16 7.3(1) and Practice Direction 7C 1.4(3A). No indication is given as to the Claimants contractual authority to operate there as required by the Claimants Trade Association's Code of Practice B1.1 which says

    1.1 If you operate parking management activities on land which is not owned by you, you must supply us with written authority from the land owner sufficient to establish you as the ‘Creditor’ within the meaning of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (where applicable) and in any event to establish you as a person who is able to recover parking charges. There is no prescribed form for such agreement and it need not necessarily be as part of a contract but it must include the express ability for an operator to recover parking charges on the landowner’s behalf or provide sufficient right to occupy the land in question so that charges can be recovered by the operator directly. This applies whether or not you intend to use the keeper liability provisions.

    2. The particulars of claim do not meet the requirements of Practice Direction 16 7.5 as there is nothing which specifies how the terms were breached. Indeed the particulars of claim are not clear and concise as is required by CPR 16.4 1(a). The Claimant are known to be a serial issuer of generic claims similar to this one. HM Courts Service have identified over 1000 similar sparse claims. I believe the term for such behaviour is roboclaims and as such is against the public interest.




    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 12th June 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
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 14th Jul 17, 10:02 PM
    • 51,532 Posts
    • 65,134 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Why are you copying dates not relevant to you? Your claim wasn't issued until a couple of weeks ago, surely?

    (a) Failed to disclose any cause of action in the incorrectly filed Claim Form issued on 12th June 2017.
    More to the point, you have copied part of a Civil Enforcement one and headed it up that way, yet your PPC is TPS.

    And TPS is a BPA member, answerable to the BPA Code of Practice, but you've copied a middle section taken from a Gladstones defence citing the IPC Code of Practice (wrong one).

    You need to copy a defence for a BPA member.
    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.

    • miladm1067
    • By miladm1067 15th Jul 17, 4:23 PM
    • 77 Posts
    • 1 Thanks
    miladm1067
    Thank you for the feedback will go back and check again. Does this mean hey are definitely taking me to court?
    • Quentin
    • By Quentin 15th Jul 17, 4:58 PM
    • 33,252 Posts
    • 17,191 Thanks
    Quentin
    No-one can say for definite, but they have paid for the claim to be issued, so they aren't bluffing
    • IamEmanresu
    • By IamEmanresu 16th Jul 17, 6:20 AM
    • 1,696 Posts
    • 3,092 Thanks
    IamEmanresu
    They issue claims to catch the unwary. If you don't know how to handle the forms, get advice here and from the other threads.

    TPS are bluffers. They issue the claims and take what cash they are paid. They've only actually been in court once this year.
    Life's for living, get on with it rather than worrying about these. If they hassle, counter claim.

    Send them that costs schedule though, 24 hours before the hearing, and file it with the court. Take with you evidence that you have sent the costs schedule to them and when.
    LoC
    • miladm1067
    • By miladm1067 17th Jul 17, 6:10 PM
    • 77 Posts
    • 1 Thanks
    miladm1067
    I am currently working on my defence. I don't mean to be this helpless but i literally do not know how to handle the forms or anything. I will upload another defence tonight :/
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 17th Jul 17, 6:15 PM
    • 51,532 Posts
    • 65,134 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Yes you do know how to do the forms - the NEWBIES thread post #2 walks you through EVERYTHING.
    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.

    • miladm1067
    • By miladm1067 17th Jul 17, 6:29 PM
    • 77 Posts
    • 1 Thanks
    miladm1067
    I had a read through the forum and plucked out any relevant arguments. I just wanted to know if this is roughly what I can send them.


    the County Court Business Centre
    Claim Number: ___

    Between:

    Civil Enforcement Limited v ___

    Defence!Statement

    I am ___, the defendant in this matter and registered keeper of vehicle ___. I currently reside at ____.

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


    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. I deny the Claimant is entitled to any interest whatsoever.

    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 as there was no clear, transparent information about how to obtain a permit either inside or outside the site) 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 £900 for outstanding debt and damages.

    due to local knowledge and having inspected the signs at the location before responding to your letter, I am aware that whilst your client's signage is displayed at the material location, the terms are illegible from a driving seat. Moreover, the unremarkable boards placed sporadically by TPS is unclear as to which set of signs relate to which section of the car parking area. The signage is, therefore, incapable of creating any contractual liability on the part of any driver, as any purported contractual terms are void for uncertainty.





    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 .

    (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.

    Further, your client has adduced no evidence whatsoever as to the identities of the drivers at the material times. There was, of course, no requirement in law for me to respond to the NTKs in question, so any suggestion of failure on my part will be robustly defended. Indeed I view the continued - increasingly threatening - demands as harassment. Had TPS evidenced the driver(s) in their NTKs, I would have passed the purported 'PCNs' to those drivers, since these are not matters for which a registered keeper can be held liable in law. This position is entirely due to the choice of your client when drawing up a Notice to Keeper (NTK) document which does not in any way attempt to use nor rely upon the rights they might otherwise have been able to claim, under the Protection of Freedoms Act (the POFA) Schedule 4.

    ou have listed separate 'parking charge notices' in which the facts seem to be fairly identical but all of the NTKs are matters for an identified driver only. I am not liable and cannot be lawfully assumed to have been the driver on each or any occasion. Should you attempt to rely upon the cases of Elliott v Loake (irrelevant criminal case) and or Combined Parking Solutions v AJH Films (irrelevant employee/employer commercial liability issue), you should be aware and fairly warned now, to advise your client that these have never been reported as persuasive or even applicable to any robustly-defended private parking case.

    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
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 17th Jul 17, 6:39 PM
    • 51,532 Posts
    • 65,134 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Again you have done no proof reading. We've already said this, your PPC is not Civil Enforcement.

    And you have copied stuff about: ''nor the permit information'' but were you a permit holder?

    And you have copied: ''a possible £900 for outstanding debt and damages'' but your first post talked about one PCN for £110, not £900!

    And you've copied stuff from a letter, not a defence. Do not write ''you'' because your defence is addressed to the court, not to the solicitors:

    Further, your client has adduced no evidence whatsoever as to the identities of the drivers at the material times. There was, of course, no requirement in law for me to respond to the NTKs in question, so any suggestion of failure on my part will be robustly defended. Indeed I view the continued - increasingly threatening - demands as harassment. Had TPS evidenced the driver(s) in their NTKs, I would have passed the purported 'PCNs' to those drivers, since these are not matters for which a registered keeper can be held liable in law. This position is entirely due to the choice of your client when drawing up a Notice to Keeper (NTK) document which does not in any way attempt to use nor rely upon the rights they might otherwise have been able to claim, under the Protection of Freedoms Act (the POFA) Schedule 4.

    You have listed separate 'parking charge notices' in which the facts seem to be fairly identical but all of the NTKs are matters for an identified driver only. I am not liable and cannot be lawfully assumed to have been the driver on each or any occasion. Should you attempt to rely upon the cases of Elliott v Loake (irrelevant criminal case) and or Combined Parking Solutions v AJH Films (irrelevant employee/employer commercial liability issue), you should be aware and fairly warned now, to advise your client that these have never been reported as persuasive or even applicable to any robustly-defended private parking case.
    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.

    • miladm1067
    • By miladm1067 19th Jul 17, 5:09 PM
    • 77 Posts
    • 1 Thanks
    miladm1067
    my fine has gone up to about 800. i can't find one specific to boa. Does anyone mind posting a link?
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 19th Jul 17, 5:24 PM
    • 51,532 Posts
    • 65,134 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    So you can't find a single defence about a BPA Claimant? Yet in this forum's first page today, there's a thread about a ParkingEye claim, and others about UKPC is you search for those keywords. Loads v BPA companies.

    Search and you will find your own links. It is easy once you try the search function, back on page one just above the thread list (NOT top of the entire page).
    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.

    • miladm1067
    • By miladm1067 21st Jul 17, 8:37 PM
    • 77 Posts
    • 1 Thanks
    miladm1067
    i sent a defence earlier. Did it not upload?
    • miladm1067
    • By miladm1067 21st Jul 17, 8:48 PM
    • 77 Posts
    • 1 Thanks
    miladm1067
    the County Court Business Centre
    Claim Number: ___

    Between:

    tps v ___

    Defence!Statement

    I am ___, the defendant in this matter and registered keeper of vehicle ___. I currently reside at ____.

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


    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. I deny the Claimant is entitled to any interest whatsoever.

    a) The Defendant has no liability, as they are the Keeper of the vehicle and the Claimant must rely upon the strict provisions of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA) in order to hold the defendant responsible for the driver’s alleged breach.

    b) The Claimant also failed to state that they do not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver as required by POFA, Schedule 4 9.2(e)

    3. The Claimant has not provided enough details in the particulars of claim to file a full defence. In particular, the full details of the contract which it is alleged was broken have not been provided.

    The Defendant asks that the court orders Further and Better Particulars of Claim and asks leave to amend the Defence after receiving same.

    4. The claimant has no locus standi to bring this case. Absent a contract or chain of contracts from the landowner to the claimant I have the reasonable belief that they do not have the authority to issue charges on this land in their own name.
    ParkingEye v Sharma (3QT62646 Brentford County Court) examined the contract and dismissed the claim for the reason that the Claimant had no ownership of, or proprietary interest in, the land; it followed that the Claimant, acting as an agent, had no locus standi to bring court proceedings in its own name.

    ParkingEye v Gardam (3QT60598) similarly examined the contract and found the Sharma judgment persuasive.

    The Defendant also refers the Court to ParkingEye v Somerfield (2012) (EWCA Civ 1338 case A3/2011/0909) that examined ParkingEye contracts. This stated that any debt was due to Somerfield and that ParkingEye did not have the authority to issue proceedings. It follows therefore that if a debt exists, it is owed to the landowner, not the Claimant.

    5. The claimant failed to include a copy of their written contract as per Practice Direction 16 7.3(1) and Practice Direction 7C 1.4(3A). No indication is given as to the Claimants contractual authority to operate there as required by the Claimants Trade Association's Code of Practice B1.1


    6. The signage was inadequate to form a contract with the motorist.

    a) The signage on this site is inadequate to form a contract. It is barely legible. Part E, Schedule 1 of the Code of Practice of the British Parking Association (BPA) of which Parking Eye is a member, clearly states that “Text should be of such a size and in a font that can be easily read by a motorist having regard to the likely position of the motorist in relation to the sign.”

    b) The sign fails because it must state what the ANPR data will be used for. This is an ICO breach.

    8. The driver did not enter into any 'agreement on the charge', no consideration flowed between the parties and no contract was established.

    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 as there was no clear, transparent information about how to obtain a permit either inside or outside the site) 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 £900 for outstanding debt and damages.

    due to local knowledge and having inspected the signs at the, I am aware that whilst your client's signage is displayed at the material location, the terms are illegible from a driving seat. Moreover, the unremarkable boards placed sporadically by TPS is unclear as to which set of signs relate to which section of the car parking area. The signage is, therefore, incapable of creating any contractual liability on the part of any driver, as any purported contractual terms are void for uncertainty.





    The Defendant denies any liability whatsoever to the Claimant in any matter and asks the Court to note that the Claimant has:


    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.

    Further, your client has adduced no evidence whatsoever as to the identities of the drivers at the material times. There was, of course, no requirement in law for me to respond to the NTKs in question, so any suggestion of failure on my part will be robustly defended. Indeed I view the continued - increasingly threatening - demands as harassment. Had TPS evidenced the driver(s) in their NTKs, I would have passed the purported 'PCNs' to those drivers, since these are not matters for which a registered keeper can be held liable in law.


    The listed 'parking charge notices' in which the facts seem to be fairly identical but all of the NTKs are matters for an identified driver only. I am not liable and cannot be lawfully assumed to have been the driver on each or any occasion. Should you attempt to rely upon the cases of Elliott v Loake (irrelevant criminal case) and or Combined Parking Solutions v AJH Films (irrelevant employee/employer commercial liability issue).

    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.

    My italics – it is clear that the legal process expects a signature with a name printed underneath, not a pro forma printed name.
    As an example as to why this prevents me filing a full defence 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 not been provided to the Defendant.
    I understand from extensive research that the claimant’s solicitors are serial abusers of the court process in this manner.

    16. The Particulars of Claim fail to disclose the head or heads of action in which these proceedings are based.

    17. The Defendant asks that the claimant is ordered to file particulars which comply with practice directions and include at least the following information:

    a. 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.
    b. A copy of any contract it is alleged was in place (eg copies of signage)
    c. How any contract was concluded (if by performance, then copies of signage maps in place at the time)
    d. Whether the Claimant is acting as agent or principal, together with a list of documents they will rely on in this matter

    If it is so pleaded before seeking to rely on the keeper liability provisions of Schedule 4 Protection of Freedoms Act (the “Act”) the Claimant must demonstrate that there was a “relevant obligation” either by way of a breach of contract, trespass or other tort.
    I believe the facts stated in this Defence Statement are true.


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

    Signed
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 21st Jul 17, 10:01 PM
    • 51,532 Posts
    • 65,134 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Struggling to think you are at University and in fact, whether this thread is real or set up as a parking firm spoof pour encourager les autres.

    There are so many inaccuracies in your account, going back over your thread.

    One minute you have one PCN, £110.

    Then it's two, £200.

    Then in another post, ''several'':
    the car was parked in university and received several tickets.
    Then you've copies stuff from a defence about 'permit info' (do you have a permit?) and it's not about £900, is it?:
    nor the permit information mentioned a possible £900 for outstanding debt and damages.

    Trying to work out what this is all about - you've written misspelled posts and ungrammatical sentences, more like the attempts to communicate from the knuckle-draggers at PPC World. Which Uni is this, Reading maybe?

    https://www.reading.ac.uk/parking/students/park-student-parking.aspx

    As you are a student and it's the Holidays - and we regulars mainly all work for a living - I ask that you proof-read that draft, and make the necessary changes to make it make sense.

    I saw:

    - sentences that were unfinished,
    - the wrong part of Schedule 4 (windscreen PCN cases are not about para 9)
    - old stuff about the Gardam and the Sharma cases, not used for donkeys years
    - nothing about any defence as to why you were parked there, why you thought it was OK
    - using the POFA when in fact, won't it be obvious to the Judge that you were driving?
    - mention of ANPR (camera enforcement) but was this even used at the Uni?
    - mention of ParkingEye (and not just in the Beavis case, I mean you've copied a phrase about ParkingEye, where you need to change it to TPS or 'the Claimant'.
    - you appear to have copied someone's file note?! 'my italics' whaaat?:
    ''My italics'' – it is clear that the legal process expects a signature with a name printed underneath, not a pro forma printed name.
    And if this was filed by Solicitors using MCOL, they can just use the firm's printed name.

    Finally, you ended with this which would be OK normally:
    I confirm that the above facts and statements are true to the best of my knowledge and recollection.
    ...but you haven't actually recollected anything - there is nothing about the circumstances of defence.

    There are much more up to date defences here and ones about universities and permits would be a good start...if this was about not displaying a permit (but you haven't said, so how will the Judge know what your defence actually is).

    Try searching the forum for 'University defence' or 'permit defence' if that's what this is about. Copy only recent wording from 2016/17, and show us a draft suited for your case, with the right facts in it, and decide if you are going to defend as the student driver, or not.

    If you want to talk about why the car was parked there and what the signs say, no contract etc., then why hide behind saying the keeper has not been identified. It would take two minutes at the hearing to show you were likely to be the driver (or am I wrong?). What do you think a Judge will make of a student being disingenuous about who was driving at his/her University?
    Last edited by Coupon-mad; 21-07-2017 at 10:07 PM.
    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.

    • miladm1067
    • By miladm1067 22nd Jul 17, 3:24 PM
    • 77 Posts
    • 1 Thanks
    miladm1067
    I apologise. This is due to further parking tickets obtained after the thread had been created. I had parked in several areas (NOT PAID car parking area, permit spots or loading bays in university) I was told by lecturers the tickets you receive here are not enforceable by law and you will not have to pay anything. Hearing this I parked constantly receiving several tickets and ignoring them. It seems now they have caught up with me and realising now they can take me to court and the current fine is about £900. This is from the latest letter received. Do I have grounds to defend this? At least the highly inflated charges against me?


    I had tried to copy defences from this website and failed miserably lol. Any further advice would be appreicated
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 22nd Jul 17, 3:57 PM
    • 51,532 Posts
    • 65,134 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Yes you have grounds - what's the sum on that claim form then and let's see a link to it.
    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.

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

174Posts Today

1,717Users online

Martin's Twitter