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
    • tim2000
    • By tim2000 29th Jun 17, 8:04 AM
    • 18Posts
    • 2Thanks
    tim2000
    Urgent Help needed with CEL court claim form please
    • #1
    • 29th Jun 17, 8:04 AM
    Urgent Help needed with CEL court claim form please 29th Jun 17 at 8:04 AM
    I recently got a county court claim form for a private car park saying owe them some money, (Claimant is Civil enforcement limited)about a week later I received the particulars of claim and on it it says I over stayed in a local shop car park with date and time and then they quoted the "Vine v Waltham forest London borough council [2000] 4 AII ER 169. and ParkingEye Limited v Beavis as the supporting case study to support their case.

    My problem is this, I had not received anything prior to this claim form been sent, in the particulars of claim it said their client operate an ANPR cameras but they did not provide me with any photos or evidence.

    I need help please, what do I need to do
Page 1
    • beamerguy
    • By beamerguy 29th Jun 17, 8:31 AM
    • 6,183 Posts
    • 7,915 Thanks
    beamerguy
    • #2
    • 29th Jun 17, 8:31 AM
    • #2
    • 29th Jun 17, 8:31 AM
    I recently got a county court claim form for a private car park saying owe them some money, (Claimant is Civil enforcement limited)about a week later I received the particulars of claim and on it it says I over stayed in a local shop car park with date and time and then they quoted the "Vine v Waltham forest London borough council [2000] 4 AII ER 169. and ParkingEye Limited v Beavis as the supporting case study to support their case.

    My problem is this, I had not received anything prior to this claim form been sent, in the particulars of claim it said their client operate an ANPR cameras but they did not provide me with any photos or evidence.

    I need help please, what do I need to do
    Originally posted by tim2000
    Have you responded to the court claim ?

    "Vine v Waltham Forest London Borough Council"
    was a case about clamping and the motorist won
    https://bmpa.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/211744405-Vine-v-Waltham-Forest-London-Borough-Council-2000-

    In the Beavis case he overstayed and claimed that the amount of
    £85 was unfair.

    Both do not apply to you

    Tell us more please, where was this, were you shopping at the time
    RBS - MNBA - CAPITAL ONE - LLOYDS

    DISGUSTING BEHAVIOUR
    • tim2000
    • By tim2000 29th Jun 17, 8:43 AM
    • 18 Posts
    • 2 Thanks
    tim2000
    • #3
    • 29th Jun 17, 8:43 AM
    • #3
    • 29th Jun 17, 8:43 AM
    Hi Beamerguy,

    Thanks for your response.

    Yes i sent back the acknowledgement part yesterday to say I was going to defend.

    The incident happened last year apparently (Sept) but I cannot for the life of me remember the said incident.

    The carpark is an overflow parking for a supermarket we do our shopping in as it tends to get very busy.
    • beamerguy
    • By beamerguy 29th Jun 17, 8:55 AM
    • 6,183 Posts
    • 7,915 Thanks
    beamerguy
    • #4
    • 29th Jun 17, 8:55 AM
    • #4
    • 29th Jun 17, 8:55 AM
    Hi Beamerguy,

    Thanks for your response.

    Yes i sent back the acknowledgement part yesterday to say I was going to defend.

    The incident happened last year apparently (Sept) but I cannot for the life of me remember the said incident.

    The carpark is an overflow parking for a supermarket we do our shopping in as it tends to get very busy.
    Originally posted by tim2000
    OK, so you have come to the right place to help you with your defence.

    Bear in mind that CEL can cancel up to the last minute before court, have you complained to the supermarket as a customer

    CEL are a vindictive company and I suggest you read the
    parking pranksters blog all about CEL

    http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/search?q=cel
    RBS - MNBA - CAPITAL ONE - LLOYDS

    DISGUSTING BEHAVIOUR
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 29th Jun 17, 9:03 AM
    • 15,005 Posts
    • 23,583 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    • #5
    • 29th Jun 17, 9:03 AM
    • #5
    • 29th Jun 17, 9:03 AM
    There's a rash of CEL claims that have appeared this past 2 weeks. It is an intimidation tactic meant to coerce a payment from you. Don't fall for it.

    You must defend this, do not adopt the ostrich position and do nothing, as a default judgment will surely follow, with a CCJ if you don't then pay their inflated fee, with the possibility of a serious affect on your credit rating. This will be the worst outcome for you.

    But a lot of the work in developing your defence is already done for you, or is currently underway. There must be around a dozen separate threads on CEL from the past couple of weeks dotted around on the first 4-5 pages of the forum. Have a read through those, so you know you're not alone in this, and pick up on some of the draft defences there to construct your own. Copying and pasting is recommended, provided it has relevance to your case. You might also have a look over on PePiPoo where there are other posters using that forum to assist in their CEL cases.

    http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?act=SF&s=&f=60

    You mention that the parking event took place at the supermarket. Have you contacted them to ask them (if they engaged CEL) to cancel the charge? If they didn't engage them, they might know who did - then contact whoever.

    Let us see your draft defence before submitting. Make sure you follow carefully the court directions and especially their deadlines for the various actions you will need to take. Post #2 of the NEWBIES FAQ sticky gives you a very comprehensive overview of the court processes you will need to follow. I recommend you spend a lot of your time reading that.

    When faced by a solid defence - based on previous actions by CEL - they discontinue the case! A lot of faff for you, but unfortunately you need to jump through the hoops to avoid having to pay. We'll help.
    Last edited by Umkomaas; 29-06-2017 at 9:08 AM.
    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.
    • tim2000
    • By tim2000 29th Jun 17, 9:19 AM
    • 18 Posts
    • 2 Thanks
    tim2000
    • #6
    • 29th Jun 17, 9:19 AM
    • #6
    • 29th Jun 17, 9:19 AM
    No I haven't contacted them, should I be contacting them, do you need to see the particulars of claim
    • beamerguy
    • By beamerguy 29th Jun 17, 9:24 AM
    • 6,183 Posts
    • 7,915 Thanks
    beamerguy
    • #7
    • 29th Jun 17, 9:24 AM
    • #7
    • 29th Jun 17, 9:24 AM
    No I haven't contacted them, should I be contacting them, do you need to see the particulars of claim
    Originally posted by tim2000
    If you can show you are a valuable customer then a severe
    complaint to the supermarket. They might not have employed
    CEL but will probably know who did, ie the landowner.

    Ask whoever to get this cancelled.

    So the experts on here can help you, please provide as much
    info as possible
    RBS - MNBA - CAPITAL ONE - LLOYDS

    DISGUSTING BEHAVIOUR
    • tim2000
    • By tim2000 29th Jun 17, 9:29 AM
    • 18 Posts
    • 2 Thanks
    tim2000
    • #8
    • 29th Jun 17, 9:29 AM
    • #8
    • 29th Jun 17, 9:29 AM
    Hi Umkomaas

    Thanks will have a read thru - The particulars of claim mention that they use an ANPR camera on the entrance but am sure there isn't any camera anywhere on the entrance
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 29th Jun 17, 10:01 AM
    • 15,005 Posts
    • 23,583 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    • #9
    • 29th Jun 17, 10:01 AM
    • #9
    • 29th Jun 17, 10:01 AM
    Hi Umkomaas

    Thanks will have a read thru - The particulars of claim mention that they use an ANPR camera on the entrance but am sure there isn't any camera anywhere on the entrance
    Originally posted by tim2000
    Go take photos. Ask the supermarket if they know about any ANPR cameras. They're usually quite inconspicuous (either high up on a pole or attached to the side of a building). ANPR is the usual CEL modus op.
    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 29th Jun 17, 4:02 PM
    • 50,789 Posts
    • 64,193 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Hi Umkomaas

    Thanks will have a read thru - The particulars of claim mention that they use an ANPR camera on the entrance but am sure there isn't any camera anywhere on the entrance
    Originally posted by tim2000
    Yes there will be.

    Just copy one of the dozens (hundreds?) of recent CEL defences, adapt it (dates and details) and show us.
    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.

    • tim2000
    • By tim2000 11th Jul 17, 10:26 PM
    • 18 Posts
    • 2 Thanks
    tim2000
    Hi all, sorry i have been away with work, ok so this is the draft i have come up with, will this do? Also want to mention that on the supermarket carpark there is a big sign on the main car park telling customers to use the overflow car park when the main one was full but their isn't any mention on the sign about parking time or anything. would i need to add this to my defense?

    thanks

    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 registration ------. 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. 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 £325.28 for outstanding debt and damages

    3. 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

    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
    Last edited by tim2000; 11-07-2017 at 11:18 PM.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 11th Jul 17, 10:46 PM
    • 50,789 Posts
    • 64,193 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Same changes (proof read it!) needed as this one, e.g. it's not a permit car park:

    http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?p=72822918#post72822918

    when i went back to the supermarket to gather evidence, i noticed a big sign on the main car park telling customers to use the overflow car park when the main one was full but their isn't any mention on the sign about parking time or anything. would i need to add this to my defense
    No need, it says the signs are unclear and incapable of forming a contract. Details can be adduced later of they take it to a hearing (unlikely, IMHO). And don't say 'when I went back'(!) if you are defending by not saying who was driving on the day!
    Last edited by Coupon-mad; 12-07-2017 at 2:16 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.

    • tim2000
    • By tim2000 12th Jul 17, 2:14 PM
    • 18 Posts
    • 2 Thanks
    tim2000
    [QUOTE=Coupon-mad;72825285]Same changes (proof read it!) needed as this one, e.g. it's not a permit car park:



    Ok final draft, does this look ok to go?

    Thanks


    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 registration --------. 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 12th of 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. The Claimant failed to meet the Notice to Keeper obligations of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. Absent of 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, is the sum on the Notice to Keeper. They cannot pluck another sum from thin air and bolt that on as well when the signs do not mention a possible £325.28 for outstanding debt and damages

    3. This Claimant has not complied with pre-court protocol, 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 many 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 relying on Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) data, then Installation record of the ANPR system with location, showing the height and angle of the camera and a record of maintenance of the system

    vii. If charges over and above the initial charge are being claimed, the basis on which this is being claimed

    viii. If Interest charges are being claimed, the basis on which this is being claimed

    Once these have been filed, the Defendant asks for reasonable time to file another defence.

    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 Parking Eye 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, between the driver and the Claimant

    c) Inadequate signs incapable of binding the driver - this distinguishes this case from the Beavis case:

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

    ii. 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

    iii. 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

    iv. 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 sum pursued exceeds £100


    ii. 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 12th Jul 17, 2:18 PM
    • 50,789 Posts
    • 64,193 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Yes that looks fine. All you need to do is urgently email your defence to the CCBC - I would do that NOW, having printed it off, signed and dated the document then scanned that signed version as a PDF attachment for your email. Send it to:

    ccbcaq@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk

    Subject line should read:
    "Claim no xxxxxxxx: Defence attached.

    Ring the court by Thursday, to confirm they've received it, so you are sure.
    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.

    • tim2000
    • By tim2000 12th Jul 17, 2:24 PM
    • 18 Posts
    • 2 Thanks
    tim2000
    thank you Coupon-mad you are top dollar
    • tim2000
    • By tim2000 12th Jul 17, 3:14 PM
    • 18 Posts
    • 2 Thanks
    tim2000
    sent!!

    Thank you all
    • tim2000
    • By tim2000 12th Jul 17, 10:10 PM
    • 18 Posts
    • 2 Thanks
    tim2000
    Yes that looks fine. All you need to do is urgently email your defence to the CCBC - I would do that NOW, having printed it off, signed and dated the document then scanned that signed version as a PDF attachment for your email. Send it to:

    ccbcaq@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk

    Subject line should read:
    "Claim no xxxxxxxx: Defence attached.

    Ring the court by Thursday, to confirm they've received it, so you are sure.
    Originally posted by Coupon-mad
    Hi

    Looking at the moneyclaim website, it shows current status as "Defense has been received today, is that enough confirmation or do i still need to ring the court to confirm receipt?

    thanks
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 12th Jul 17, 10:19 PM
    • 50,789 Posts
    • 64,193 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Great, that's quick, no need to ring.
    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.

    • tim2000
    • By tim2000 23rd Aug 17, 2:13 PM
    • 18 Posts
    • 2 Thanks
    tim2000
    Hello all,

    just received this in the post today attached with a questionnaire, what should I do please.

    Notice of Proposed Allocation to the Small Claims Track

    In the County Court Business Centre






    Claim Number
    Claimant
    (including ref.)


    Defendant
    (including ref.)
    Date








    Important Notice
    If you do not comply with this notice the court will make such order as appears to be appropriate. This could include striking out the claim or entering judgment.
    TAKE NOTICE THAT
    1. This is now a defended claim.
    The defendant has filed a defence, a copy-ef which is enclosed.
    2. It appears that this case is suitable for allocation to the small claims track.
    If you believe that this track is not the appropriate track for the claim, you must complete box Cl on the Small Claims Directions Questionnaire (Form N180) and explain why.
    3. You must by September 2017 complete the Small Claims Directions Questionnaire (Form N180) and file it with the court office
    the County Court Business Centre, 4th Floor St Katharine's House, 21-27 St Katharine’s Street,
    Northampton, NN1 2LH ____________________________________________

    and serve copies on all other parties.
    NOTES FOR GUIDANCE
    (i) The Directions Questionnaire can be downloaded from hmctsformfinder.justice.gov.uk
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 23rd Aug 17, 2:33 PM
    • 15,005 Posts
    • 23,583 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    what should I do please.
    Go to the NEWBIES FAQ sticky, post #2, where all your steps in dealing with a small claim are detailed.

    You need to really understand the process through thoroughly reading the above, then you will understand what any next step might be, then you're one stride ahead of the game and neither surprised nor shocked by what drops through your letterbox.
    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

269Posts Today

1,802Users 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