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
    • psychedelicbiker
    • By psychedelicbiker 15th Jun 17, 9:08 PM
    • 10Posts
    • 2Thanks
    psychedelicbiker
    Court claim, misspelled name.
    • #1
    • 15th Jun 17, 9:08 PM
    Court claim, misspelled name. 15th Jun 17 at 9:08 PM
    Hi all,

    Great info in this forum. I received a county court claim from CEL today. So far all their letters which i have ignored and the county court claim have been in the name "Stephen Carter" instead of "steven carter." Before i complete my acknowledgment i thought i would check if this can be squashed due to the incorrect name or should i just go ahead and complete the form as instructed in the dropbox pdf from the forum.

    Thanks in advance
    Steve
Page 1
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 15th Jun 17, 9:26 PM
    • 48,883 Posts
    • 62,386 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    • #2
    • 15th Jun 17, 9:26 PM
    • #2
    • 15th Jun 17, 9:26 PM
    Yawn, do we think CEL do this on purpose so numpty people ignore claims?

    http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5664789

    Same as your case. I fact all CEL ones are the same and I have no idea why we keep getting new threads about this every day when all that is needed is to search the forum and copy a defence already written v CEL, that got the claim quashed.

    Happily, this happens every time a CEL claim is well defended, so why are we repeating this on every thread every day? Just use the forum as intended and search it. The answer is here, on every CEL defence thread. Easy to copy from.

    The misspelled name doesn't quash it, and is hardly even relevant. If the recipient can be reasonably identified then the claim is addressed substantially correctly.

    Yes do the AOS online, spelling the name correctly.

    And then copy a very recent CEL defence that has resulted in the claim being stayed, as they always are. Search the forum for 'CEL claim stayed'. Be happy that you have one of the easy ones, CEL always fold, no hearing, nothing scary, no CCJ!
    Last edited by Coupon-mad; 15-06-2017 at 9:49 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.

    • psychedelicbiker
    • By psychedelicbiker 15th Jun 17, 9:56 PM
    • 10 Posts
    • 2 Thanks
    psychedelicbiker
    • #3
    • 15th Jun 17, 9:56 PM
    • #3
    • 15th Jun 17, 9:56 PM
    Wow, no need for insults. If it gets asked alot maybe it should be mentioned on the sticky thread for newbies which i did read. Apologies for not reading every single thread on the forum.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 15th Jun 17, 10:42 PM
    • 48,883 Posts
    • 62,386 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    • #4
    • 15th Jun 17, 10:42 PM
    • #4
    • 15th Jun 17, 10:42 PM
    The thing is, everything gets asked all the time, at the moment we are pointlessly drowning in CEL claim threads, each person only has to look at the other ones.

    Every claim defeated for over a year, all easy to find 'CEL defence' or 'CEL claim' would be all you need to search for.

    Too many threads the same will mean we can't help everyone, so it's important to search or we will drown here.
    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.

    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 15th Jun 17, 10:43 PM
    • 14,018 Posts
    • 22,024 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    • #5
    • 15th Jun 17, 10:43 PM
    • #5
    • 15th Jun 17, 10:43 PM
    Apologies for not reading every single thread on the forum.
    Sarky! No one is asking you to do that, just use the very powerful forum search engine to just bring up all the CEL cases you can consume in one fell swoop.

    CEL don't want to appear before a judge. They hope you crack under their pressure, then you just meekly pay them. Second best is you adopt the ostrich position and ignore everything, then they get a default judgment against you, and you get a CCJ and a complete trashing of your creditworthiness. Only when this sinks home, because you can't get a mortgage or a loan (or even a new mobile phone contract) do you panic and pay off their excessively inflated claim - not that that changes anything re your creditworthiness - but they still get their money.

    What they don't want is for you to get expert advice from this forum - and Coupon-mad is the foremost expert on private parking in the country (so why you're attempting to upset her is beyond me, because she can really help you). Because getting expert advice and developing a robust defence will mean CEL running away and dropping their claim against you. But there are plenty of threads that I've commented on (similar to this) will tell you this.

    Further corroboration of this approach comes from Gan, PePiPoo's highly respected regular. The following describes the process CEL go through to inflate their claim, who else they involve, and how to beat them at their game.

    The standard process is :

    CEL sends an LBA
    If no payment, it doesn't issue a claim as it should but sends the account to ZZPS as an excuse to inflate the claim with charges that it's never paid

    ZZPS adds £60 and sends two letters in its own name plus one from Wright Hassall Solicitor that adds another £36

    Wright Hassall sends two letters - Final Notice and Formal Letter of Claim
    If no payment, it sends the account back to CEL

    CEL may or may not issue a claim
    If it issues a claim it will be for £236 plus a fake £50 Legal representative charge
    The additional detailed particulars of claim will have a fake Ashley Cohen signature

    If the claim is defended, pointing out the fake charges and signatures, CEL won't reply
    After four weeks the court will stay the claim so that CEL will have to pay to revive it
    The Defendant never hears from CEL again.

    I've written over 120 CEL defences and none of the claims has gone any further.
    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.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 15th Jun 17, 11:34 PM
    • 48,883 Posts
    • 62,386 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    • #6
    • 15th Jun 17, 11:34 PM
    • #6
    • 15th Jun 17, 11:34 PM
    Apologies for not reading every single thread on the forum.
    Originally posted by psychedelicbiker
    Just other CEL threads!

    A search takes seconds and is the best way to use any forum, but even without searching, these two were right next to your thread today on the forum thread list:

    http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5665079

    http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5664546

    A bit of frustration creeps in when I've answered thirty parking queries per evening after a busy day at work where I start before 8am. Especially frustrating (sorry) is when we find thread after thread, broadly all about the same issue (the 12th June latest deluge of CEL claims) where the posters could all have read the thread next to it, or a few threads down.

    Or searched & found in a few minutes, that CEL cases all get quashed with a simple template defence. As will yours, and we want you to win.
    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.

    • psychedelicbiker
    • By psychedelicbiker 18th Jun 17, 1:20 PM
    • 10 Posts
    • 2 Thanks
    psychedelicbiker
    • #7
    • 18th Jun 17, 1:20 PM
    • #7
    • 18th Jun 17, 1:20 PM
    The thing is, everything gets asked all the time, at the moment we are pointlessly drowning in CEL claim threads, each person only has to look at the other ones.

    Every claim defeated for over a year, all easy to find 'CEL defence' or 'CEL claim' would be all you need to search for.

    Too many threads the same will mean we can't help everyone, so it's important to search or we will drown here.
    Originally posted by Coupon-mad

    The advice in the newbie post is to urgently start a thread with yoyr defence.
    • psychedelicbiker
    • By psychedelicbiker 18th Jun 17, 1:27 PM
    • 10 Posts
    • 2 Thanks
    psychedelicbiker
    • #8
    • 18th Jun 17, 1:27 PM
    • #8
    • 18th Jun 17, 1:27 PM
    Sarky! No one is asking you to do that, just use the very powerful forum search engine to just bring up all the CEL cases you can consume in one fell swoop.

    CEL don't want to appear before a judge. They hope you crack under their pressure, then you just meekly pay them. Second best is you adopt the ostrich position and ignore everything, then they get a default judgment against you, and you get a CCJ and a complete trashing of your creditworthiness. Only when this sinks home, because you can't get a mortgage or a loan (or even a new mobile phone contract) do you panic and pay off their excessively inflated claim - not that that changes anything re your creditworthiness - but they still get their money.

    What they don't want is for you to get expert advice from this forum - and Coupon-mad is the foremost expert on private parking in the country (so why you're attempting to upset her is beyond me, because she can really help you). Because getting expert advice and developing a robust defence will mean CEL running away and dropping their claim against you. But there are plenty of threads that I've commented on (similar to this) will tell you this.

    Further corroboration of this approach comes from Gan, PePiPoo's highly respected regular. The following describes the process CEL go through to inflate their claim, who else they involve, and how to beat them at their game.
    Originally posted by Umkomaas
    I was polite. Coupon-mad was rude to me first, calling me a numpty. How is someone new supposed to know that there are lot of CEL defeated cases? Or where to find the standard defense. Dont blame me i dont run this forum. If lots of people are asking the same questions maybe the information could be easier to find.
    Maybe there should be a link to a standard defense.
    • Redx
    • By Redx 18th Jun 17, 1:43 PM
    • 15,158 Posts
    • 19,101 Thanks
    Redx
    • #9
    • 18th Jun 17, 1:43 PM
    • #9
    • 18th Jun 17, 1:43 PM
    there are plenty of examples linked in the NEWBIES sticky thread post #2 , which was written by a volunteer called coupon-mad

    the point here is that members have to do their own research, put the time and effort in

    if she deleted all her advice on here, how far do you think you would get ?
    you would be told to find recent threads on similar lines and follow their lead

    its easy enough to use the drop down forum search box, its not our job to teach people how to use a public forum either (especially when they have been members for 8 years !) , we help out free of charge by telling people the basics so they can get on with doing their research and they can post the results for further help or critique

    using the forum drop down box search advice with CEL DEFENCE the carz88 thread would seem a good starting point and is a june 2017 thread , as would the puredestiny thread too

    the alternative is to find and pay a lawyer to do it for you , which you are perfectly free to do

    plenty of people have come on here in the initial stages and get their feathers ruffled by the replies , then later on after they have calmed down and put some work in they realise what is involved, and why some replies are as they are, then they get to help out others as their knowledge and experience gros

    like lamilad, knew nothing 12 months ago just like you , started off on the wrong foot and now a year later has beat VCS/EXCEL on more than one occasion, helps others and knows a lot about the court process too

    shooting the messenger is a poor strategy , especially when those messengers make dozens of posts on a daily basis and have helped thousands of people

    you expect far too much from your meagre forum subscription costs

    perhaps when you are up to speed and have won your case , you might stick around and use that knowledge to help others (but most people dont , they fly off into the wind once their feathers have been preened)

    perhaps a day in court may change your simplistic way of looking at this matter ?

    ps:- none of us run this forum either , the admin staff and board guides do not get involved and do not help , its a free service , where members can help members , there is no set format and its a complex and complicated topic , so wanting easy answers and guides is impossible

    so read my signature below
    Last edited by Redx; 19-06-2017 at 4:50 PM.
    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 18th Jun 17, 2:15 PM
    • 48,883 Posts
    • 62,386 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Maybe there should be a link to a standard defence.
    But with CEL the defences are specific to CEL and change a fair bit over time. For example, in a period of just 6 months, this happened:

    Their claims used to be signed by Mr Schwartz, then he got into a bit of trouble,
    then they were signed by Mr Cohen,
    then 'Legal Team'
    and then the 'Legal Representative'
    and/or 'Civil Enforcement' (but with no name). We've adapted to ALL of those changes.

    Defences evolve every month or so as we learn about new appeals and details to include. And we see people win all of them, and we see CEL defendants never even have to face a hearing.

    And bear in mind there are hundreds of parking firms, there is no 'standard defence'; has to be said, I've seen some rubbish defences in my time and if you want a crappy template defence you might get given one elsewhere... If we did that, it would be lazy, irrelevant in many cases, and newbies like you would stand less chance of winning.

    We do this for free and we do it well.

    Just to add, in the time it's taken for all this to be chewed over on your thread over a few days, yet still no draft defence shown for us to comment and help you with, we've seen at least 3 other CEL defendant newbies fly by, start a thread (fair enough) take on board the search needed, and come up with a defence which is now filed in their cases.

    You could have read recent threads and copied theirs - and you still can...they were all in the past few days and easy to find (even without searching) just by looking back over, say the past 20 pages of the forum threads and clicking on any CEL defence/claim thread title. There are not loads but enough for anyone to find a defence or two , and see the sort of wording currently used.
    Last edited by Coupon-mad; 18-06-2017 at 2:26 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.

    • psychedelicbiker
    • By psychedelicbiker 29th Jun 17, 6:50 PM
    • 10 Posts
    • 2 Thanks
    psychedelicbiker
    I Have done my AOS.

    I now want to file my defence which I will post below. I have seen that a good method is to do this by email rather than MCOL. I will probably get slated for this question but i'm going to ask it anyway as I have read many threads but I can't find the answer. Do I only have to send my defence by email or do I have to notify via MCOL that I am sending my defence by email.
    • psychedelicbiker
    • By psychedelicbiker 29th Jun 17, 6:51 PM
    • 10 Posts
    • 2 Thanks
    psychedelicbiker
    Defence taken from another thread:

    In 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:

    1. The Claim Form issued on the ____ 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. 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 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 £323.26 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. I deny the Claimant is entitled to any interest whatsoever.!

    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 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.

    Signed
    Date
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 29th Jun 17, 7:46 PM
    • 48,883 Posts
    • 62,386 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    I Have done my AOS.

    I now want to file my defence which I will post below. I have seen that a good method is to do this by email rather than MCOL. I will probably get slated for this question but i'm going to ask it anyway as I have read many threads but I can't find the answer.

    Do I only have to send my defence by email or do I have to notify via MCOL that I am sending my defence by email.
    Originally posted by psychedelicbiker

    Only by email, then we suggest you phone the CCBC the following week, if MCOL doesn't update within days (you do not have to update it and please don't, or whatever you write in a defence box on MCOL would be filed first and would be taken as your defence, instead!).

    Your defence looks fine if the £300-odd figure is correct, and all details. Is this right, have they been kicked off the site in your case? Is it a 'revenge claim' for losing a site contract, if not then remove/edit point #8:
    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.
    Is this about an overstay in a free car park, like the Beavis case was? Or something else?
    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.

    • psychedelicbiker
    • By psychedelicbiker 29th Jun 17, 8:07 PM
    • 10 Posts
    • 2 Thanks
    psychedelicbiker
    the figure is actually £323.72 which I will amend.

    No its not for a site contract, its for a car park which required a ticket but a ticket was not bought.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 29th Jun 17, 8:51 PM
    • 48,883 Posts
    • 62,386 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Good, that's different from the Beavis case then. I would add a point #11 (in sections):
    11.1 If the court believes there was a contract (which is denied) this is just the sort of 'simple financial contract' identified at the Supreme Court as one with an easily quantifiable loss (i.e. the tariff), identified as completely different from the complex 'free parking licence' arrangement in Beavis.

    11.2 Where loss can be quantified, the 'complex' and 'completely different' Beavis decision is inapplicable, as was found in ParkingEye Ltd v Cargius, A0JD1405 at Wrexham County Court.

    11.3 At the Court of Appeal stage in Beavis, pay-per-hour car parks were specifically held by those Judges (in findings not contradicted in the Supreme Court later) as still being subject to the "penalty" rule, with the potential for the charge to be held to be wholly disproportionate to the tariff, and thus unrecoverable. In other words, charging £100 for a period of time for which the 'agreed and published' tariff rate is £1/hour, would be perverse, contrary to the Consumer Rights Act 2015 and not a matter that the courts should uphold.

    See here, tariff car parks can be argued as nothing like the Beavis case:

    http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5667770

    http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2014/12/parkingeye-lose-in-court-beavis.html

    http://www.parking-prankster.com/case-law.html <<< PE v Cargius, transcript - read it!

    We are seeing CEL cases go as far as DQ stage at least, (the next form - see NEWBIES thread post by bargepole about court process/forms). So it's possible they might make it look like they are taking these defended cases to hearings in future. I would be surprised if they actually do, as CEL are not very good at this and a keeper can't be held liable by their NTKs.
    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.

    • psychedelicbiker
    • By psychedelicbiker 29th Jun 17, 9:23 PM
    • 10 Posts
    • 2 Thanks
    psychedelicbiker
    thats great thanks.
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

917Posts Today

6,776Users online

Martin's Twitter