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
    • puredestiny
    • By puredestiny 15th Jun 17, 5:46 PM
    • 30Posts
    • 19Thanks
    puredestiny
    CEL defence
    • #1
    • 15th Jun 17, 5:46 PM
    CEL defence 15th Jun 17 at 5:46 PM
    Just a quick overview of the particulars: The keeper has received a claim form signed Civil Enforcement Ltd (Claimant's legal representative)

    The alleged offence was 15th December 2016, at which time the driver had used several services on site and had coffee in Costa, also on site. The driver has receipts to back up the services rendered to the amount of just under £150, if that's relevant.

    Having a look through the Google maps street view, there are very visible and large signs on a either side oft the entrance. Although, the signs in the car park are very small and there are only a few scattered around .In fact, I have to look real hard to find any in the main car park. Does this mean I should remove the reference to the signs being being unclear?

    The keeper's defence is below, however, I don't know if the keeper should add extra detail about the driver being on site having services rendered. This has really confused me.

    Also,the driver has evidence of using the services on site, does the keeper or driver need to provide these? Should the keeper or driver include photos of the lack of signage?


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

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

    The Claim Form issued on the 8th March 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”.

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

    1/ This case can be distinguished from ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 (the Beavis case) which was dependent upon an un-denied 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.

    2/ This Claimant has not complied with pre-court protocol:

    (a) This is a speculative serial litigant, issuing a large number of identical 'draft particulars'. The covering letter merely contains a supposed PCN number with no contravention nor photographs. The defendant, who is the registered keeper and not identified as the driver at the alleged time.

    (b)The initial County Court Claim Form only contains the claimants name, address and amounts of money identified as debt and damages, with a notice that detailed particulars will be provided within 14 days.

    (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.

    It does not detail
    1. Proof or confirmation of the driver at the time of the alleged incident.
    2. Proof of the vehicle being there at the alleged time.
    3. How long or proof that the car was actually parked
    4. The vehicle type and colour
    5. Why the charge arose

    3/ I put the Claimant to strict proof that it issued a compliant notice under 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.

    Henry Greenslade, lead adjudicator of POPLA in 2015 and an eminent barrister and parking law expert stated that “However keeper information is obtained, there is no ‘reasonable presumption’ in law that the registered keeper of a vehicle is the driver. Operators should never suggest anything of the sort.”

    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 £322.89 for outstanding debt and damages.

    4/ Inadequate signs incapable of binding the driver - this distinguishes this case from the Beavis case:

    (a) Non existent ANPR 'data use' signage - breach of ICO rules and the BPA Code of Practice.

    (b) Sporadic and illegible (charge not prominent nor large lettering) 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.

    (c) The signs are believed to have no mention of any debt collection additional charge, which cannot form part of any alleged contract.

    (d) It is believed the terms were not transparent or legible; this is an unfair contract, not agreed by the driver and contrary to the UTCCRs (as applicable at the time).

    (e) 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.

    (f) Absent the elements of a contract, there can be no breach of contract.

    5/ POFA 2012 breach and the Defendant was not the driver - this distinguishes this case from the Beavis case:

    No keeper liability can apply, due to this Claimant's PCN not complying with Schedule 4. The driver has not been evidenced and a registered keeper cannot otherwise be held liable. In cases where a keeper is deemed liable, where compliant documentation was served, the sum pursued cannot exceed the original parking charge, only if adequately drawn to the attention of drivers on any signage.

    6/ 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.

    (d) The charge is not based upon a genuine pre-estimate of loss (a condition at the time).

    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 claimant has added unrecoverable sums to the original parking charge. It is not credible that £50.00 legal costs were incurred. Nor it is believed that a £40 fee was paid to any debt recovery agency so the Claimant is put to strict proof it has. I deny the Claimant is entitled to any interest whatsoever.

    11/ If the court believes there was a contract (which is denied, due to unlit signage) this is just the sort of 'simple financial contract' identified at the Supreme Court as one with an easily quantifiable loss (the tariff) where any sum pursued for breach must still relate to a genuine pre-estimate of loss.

    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 Claim Form issued on 08th June 2017.
    (b) Failed to provide Particulars of Claim within 14 days of the date of service of the Claim Form, thus making it impossible for the Defendant to prepare any form of defence.

    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.

    In the alternative, the Defendant is willing for the matter to be decided by POPLA (Parking on Private Land Appeals) which will decide the dispute and limits any further costs to this claimant to £27, with no legal costs. This is the bespoke ADR for BPA members, is available at any time (not just the first 28 days) and has been used to settle private parking court claims on multiple occasions even after proceedings have commenced. POPLA has not been undertaken in this case nor was it mentioned in the recent sparse communications from this Claimant.

    The Defendant invites the Court to use its discretion to make such an order, if not striking out this claim.

    "I believe the facts contained in this Defence Statement are true."
    Last edited by puredestiny; 15-06-2017 at 6:59 PM. Reason: Suggestion
Page 1
    • Redx
    • By Redx 15th Jun 17, 5:59 PM
    • 16,103 Posts
    • 20,159 Thanks
    Redx
    • #2
    • 15th Jun 17, 5:59 PM
    • #2
    • 15th Jun 17, 5:59 PM
    evidence , photos and witness statements come later down the track (read post #2 of the NEWBIES sticky thread, especially the BARGEPOLE posts)

    a defence doesnt need any of these at this stage

    ALWAYS query signage, because few signs meet the relevant CoP or the laws either
    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
    • puredestiny
    • By puredestiny 15th Jun 17, 6:14 PM
    • 30 Posts
    • 19 Thanks
    puredestiny
    • #3
    • 15th Jun 17, 6:14 PM
    • #3
    • 15th Jun 17, 6:14 PM
    Okay, that makes sense now. I was a bit confused about that.

    Do I need to put an additional paragraph to demonstrate my using the services on site? Or is this also for later?
    Last edited by puredestiny; 15-06-2017 at 6:26 PM. Reason: Update
    • Redx
    • By Redx 15th Jun 17, 6:36 PM
    • 16,103 Posts
    • 20,159 Thanks
    Redx
    • #4
    • 15th Jun 17, 6:36 PM
    • #4
    • 15th Jun 17, 6:36 PM
    the defence appears to be a keeper defence so at this moment in time nothing should be put in about the driver because they have not identified the driver, never mind what the driver may or may not have done

    also edit post #1 to only say what THE KEEPER and THE DRIVER may or may not have done

    ie:- learn to use 3rd party terms in legal documents etc
    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
    • puredestiny
    • By puredestiny 15th Jun 17, 6:54 PM
    • 30 Posts
    • 19 Thanks
    puredestiny
    • #5
    • 15th Jun 17, 6:54 PM
    • #5
    • 15th Jun 17, 6:54 PM
    Okay, thanks again. Makes sense now.
    • Redx
    • By Redx 15th Jun 17, 6:56 PM
    • 16,103 Posts
    • 20,159 Thanks
    Redx
    • #6
    • 15th Jun 17, 6:56 PM
    • #6
    • 15th Jun 17, 6:56 PM
    thanks for the post #1 edit but some words say keeper and should say driver !! lol
    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
    • puredestiny
    • By puredestiny 15th Jun 17, 6:57 PM
    • 30 Posts
    • 19 Thanks
    puredestiny
    • #7
    • 15th Jun 17, 6:57 PM
    • #7
    • 15th Jun 17, 6:57 PM
    Lol. Clearly I wasn't meant to be a lawyer. I'll readjust.
    • Redx
    • By Redx 15th Jun 17, 7:00 PM
    • 16,103 Posts
    • 20,159 Thanks
    Redx
    • #8
    • 15th Jun 17, 7:00 PM
    • #8
    • 15th Jun 17, 7:00 PM
    yep, thats ok now I think
    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
    • puredestiny
    • By puredestiny 15th Jun 17, 7:02 PM
    • 30 Posts
    • 19 Thanks
    puredestiny
    • #9
    • 15th Jun 17, 7:02 PM
    • #9
    • 15th Jun 17, 7:02 PM
    It was a bit of a guess on some of those, but learning something new. Haha
    • Lamilad
    • By Lamilad 15th Jun 17, 8:08 PM
    • 1,040 Posts
    • 2,074 Thanks
    Lamilad
    Get rid of para 6 (d)

    !If the court believes there was a contract (which is denied, due to unlit signage)
    Is this relevant in your case? Did the parking event​ occur in the hours of darkness?
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 15th Jun 17, 8:42 PM
    • 50,696 Posts
    • 64,105 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    signed by “The Legal Team”.
    Was it? I though the latest ones were signed ''Legal Representative'', in the more recent CEL cases. I suspect you have copied a fairly old one as I haven't seen this in 2017 examples, for the very good reason that it is pointless:
    (d) The charge is not based upon a genuine pre-estimate of loss (a condition at the time).
    Search the forum for CEL defence and find a newer one from 2017. But check it for details, e.g. don't copy stuff about fees/tariffs if this was a free car park, and as Lamilad says, don't copy words about unlit signs unless it was dark on arrival.

    If this is about an overstay, you should also mention at the start (without implying who was driving) that the car park and shops would have been extremely busy, it being just a few shopping days before Christmas. People would take longer to shop and make decisions, queues at the tills would have been much longer than other times of year, and finding a free parking space (and at the end, queuing to leave) would have been likely to have involved more than just ten minutes.

    If it was an overstay of about 20 mins or less, I would also quote the BPA Grace Periods rules (again, easy to seach for).
    Last edited by Coupon-mad; 15-06-2017 at 8:50 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.

    • puredestiny
    • By puredestiny 15th Jun 17, 9:02 PM
    • 30 Posts
    • 19 Thanks
    puredestiny
    Get rid of para 6 (d)

    Is this relevant in your case? Did the parking event​ occur in the hours of darkness?
    Originally posted by Lamilad
    No, this was daylight. I will remove that paragraph thank you for pointing it out.
    • puredestiny
    • By puredestiny 15th Jun 17, 9:09 PM
    • 30 Posts
    • 19 Thanks
    puredestiny
    Was it? I though the latest ones were signed ''Legal Representative'', in the more recent CEL cases. I suspect you have copied a fairly old one as I haven't seen this in 2017 examples, for the very good reason that it is pointless:

    Search the forum for CEL defence and find a newer one from 2017. But check it for details, e.g. don't copy stuff about fees/tariffs if this was a free car park, and as Lamilad says, don't copy words about unlit signs unless it was dark on arrival.

    If this is about an overstay, you should also mention at the start (without implying who was driving) that the car park and shops would have been extremely busy, it being just a few shopping days before Christmas. People would take longer to shop and make decisions, queues at the tills would have been much longer than other times of year, and finding a free parking space (and at the end, queuing to leave) would have been likely to have involved more than just ten minutes.

    If it was an overstay of about 20 mins or less, I would also quote the BPA Grace Periods rules (again, easy to seach for).
    Originally posted by Coupon-mad
    The claim form is signed Civil Enforcement Ltd, but the letter before action is signed The legal team.

    I am unsure how long the driver overstayed because the only time mentioned is time of issue 16:33. I know from messages exchanged with the driver's friend that coffee was arranged for 11:00. The hair appointment was for 13:00.

    I will insert the paragraph you suggested and I should note that the leaving time of 16:33 is right bang on rush hour in that area too, so traffic would be horrendous.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 15th Jun 17, 9:18 PM
    • 50,696 Posts
    • 64,105 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    but the letter before action is signed The legal team.
    Irrelevant - and the draft you have shown us says the claim is dated March (it can't be). Honestly, I would do a search which takes less than 5 seconds, to find a newer CEL defence.
    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.

    • puredestiny
    • By puredestiny 15th Jun 17, 9:22 PM
    • 30 Posts
    • 19 Thanks
    puredestiny
    Irrelevant - and the draft you have shown us says the claim is dated March (it can't be). Honestly, I would do a search which takes less than 5 seconds, to find a newer CEL defence.
    Originally posted by Coupon-mad
    Argh, I was using the information on the letter before action. My brain is fried by all this legal stuff. I'll do another search. Lucky I posted it on here for review. Gulp
    • puredestiny
    • By puredestiny 15th Jun 17, 11:00 PM
    • 30 Posts
    • 19 Thanks
    puredestiny
    I have updated the defence based on newer versions found. Hopefully this will be better. Any suggestions appreciated.

    DEFENCE STATEMENT
    ________________________________________

    I am __n, 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:

    1/ The Claim Form issued on the 12 June 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 “Civil Enforcement Limited (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/ With the date of the alleged visit being just days before Christmas, the car park and shops would have been extremely busy. People take longer to shop and make decisions, queues at the tills would be much longer than other times of year. Finding a free parking space upon entry and queuing to leave would have involved some additional time for the driver beyond the norm.

    4/ POFA 2012 breach and the Defendant was not the driver - this distinguishes this case from the Beavis case:

    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.

    No keeper liability can apply, due to this Claimant's PCN not complying with Schedule 4. The driver has not been evidenced and a registered keeper cannot otherwise be held liable.

    There can be no 'presumption' by the claimant that the keeper was the driver.

    Henry Greenslade, lead adjudicator of POPLA in 2015 and an eminent barrister and parking law expert stated that “However keeper information is obtained, there is no ‘reasonable presumption’ in law that the registered keeper of a vehicle is the driver. Operators should never suggest anything of the sort.”

    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 £322.89 for outstanding debt and damages.

    5/ 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.

    6/ 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.

    7/ 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 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 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.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 15th Jun 17, 11:22 PM
    • 50,696 Posts
    • 64,105 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Yup, that will do! Scam over, once that is filed.

    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.

    • puredestiny
    • By puredestiny 15th Jun 17, 11:24 PM
    • 30 Posts
    • 19 Thanks
    puredestiny
    Yup, that will do! Scam over, once that is filed.

    Originally posted by Coupon-mad

    That is such a relief to hear. Two days spent on this, and I'll be glad to get back to work. Thank you so much for your help and suggestions. Hope to come back with some good news soon.
    • puredestiny
    • By puredestiny 16th Jun 17, 8:35 AM
    • 30 Posts
    • 19 Thanks
    puredestiny
    I have some good news.I wrote an email to the retail centre head office and today have a response as follows:

    I am sorry to hear you have received a fine when visiting the centre. Are you able to give me the PCN number of the fine? I should be able to contact the company and request it be cancelled by using that set of numbers.
    So, I forwarded the PCN and just this minute have received this email from the centre

    Thanks for sending that over so quickly.I have sent them an email now and shall get in contact with you once I hear back
    Question: Do I still file my defence statement?
    Last edited by puredestiny; 16-06-2017 at 8:44 AM.
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 16th Jun 17, 8:47 AM
    • 14,962 Posts
    • 23,487 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    Do I still file my defence statement?
    Absolutely.

    Ordinarily I'd say there'd be a good chance of a cancellation, but with this being CEL and so far down the road, don't be surprised if they ignore the request and press on.

    They are vengeful - when the Coop cancelled their contract with them, they went through their back catalogue of unpaid PCNs at Coop sites and issued mass court claims. As a final farewell salute, the sued 50 Coop employees whose car's were whitelisted and parked up every day for attending work.

    That's what you're dealing with here.
    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.
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

2,046Posts Today

6,729Users online

Martin's Twitter
  • RT @LordsEconCom: On Tuesday Martin Lewis, Hannah Morrish & Shakira Martin gave evidence to the Cttee. Read the full transcript here: https?

  • Ta ta for now. Half term's starting, so I'm exchanging my MoneySavingExpert hat for one that says Daddy in big letters. See you in a week.

  • RT @thismorning: Can @MartinSLewis' deals save YOU cash? ???? https://t.co/igbHCwzeiN

  • Follow Martin