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
    • Ttsqre
    • By Ttsqre 3rd Jul 17, 10:29 AM
    • 13Posts
    • 4Thanks
    Ttsqre
    Getting taken to court by Civil Enforcement
    • #1
    • 3rd Jul 17, 10:29 AM
    Getting taken to court by Civil Enforcement 3rd Jul 17 at 10:29 AM
    Hi All
    I am being taken to court by CE ltd for what (they claim) was a 16 minute stay.
    What happened:
    I went to a car park which was 20p per hour to take the kids for a bike ride. Instead of using a parking space, I pulled up by the park to unload the bikes and the children (with a view to parking once disembarkation was complete). One of the bikes had a fault and it took me a few minutes to work out if was not resolvable one. So I reloaded the kids and the bikes and drove off. An additional factor is that just after I exited the car park I realised I had left something on the grass so popped back for it.
    Chain of Events:
    CE sent me loads of threatening letters. What I objected to was the tone of intimidation, saying things about it affecting my credit rating etc which I know to be stretching the truth, and is clearly deliberately misleading.
    I responded once explaining the above and that I was not going to pay. I also asked for evidence that they had not 'double dipped' me.
    They rejected this and passed me onto the their debt collectors and solicitors. And here we are, they are claiming £323 including court fees for a 16 minute (max) stay in a car park that is 20p an hour.
    In their particulars of claim they cite Vine vs Waltham for accepting the terms on the signs, and of course Beavis for implementing a disincentive.
    i have acknowledged the claim and have just over 2 weeks to formulate my defense. Quite simply I would rather go to court and lose than roll over for these people. Their intimidation tactics are a disgrace, let alone the amount of money that are trying to extract from me!
    My plan:
    I will post a draft of my defense here, but please let me know what other information you need to help me! At the moment I'm thinking I will build my defense around 3 points:
    1. The beavis case not relevent here as that was a free carpark so the company had to get revenue from somewhere. My case involves a paid car park.+ in my case the car park is in very low demand and was empty at the time. PLUS If asking for £300+ for a 16 minute stay in a 20p-per-hour carpark is not extravagant and unconscionable then what is!
    2. In Jopson vs Home the judge draws a distinction between stopped to unload etc and parking. 100% relevant in my case, esp the bit about "unloading awkward or heavy items"
    3. in the BPA Code of conduct, the charge must be "proportionate and commercially justifiable". As explained above, no reasonable person would consider the £100 or £60 or the whole £323 as either proportionate or commercially justifiable.

    I will also complain that they still haven't provided any evidence that they haven't double dipped me. Surely they have to provide photos of 2 entrances and 2 exits of my vehicle? (currently they have provided just one entrance and one exit photo)

    many thanks for any time you spend reading / replying; truly appreciated!
Page 1
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 4th Jul 17, 12:09 AM
    • 51,575 Posts
    • 65,192 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    • #2
    • 4th Jul 17, 12:09 AM
    • #2
    • 4th Jul 17, 12:09 AM
    Getting taken to court by Civil Enforcement
    No you aren't. You are highly unlikely to see the inside of your local county court. They are going as far as DQ stage at the moment but we've seen no hearings, they've stayed lots of cases (not proceeded) when well defended. If you don't know what DQ stage is, refer to post #2 of the NEWBIES thread for what happens when and how to do it.

    Yes to your defence points #1 and #2, but no to #3:

    I'm thinking I will build my defense around x points:
    1. The beavis case not relevant here as that was a free carpark so the company had to get revenue from somewhere. My case involves a paid car park.+ in my case the car park is in very low demand and was empty at the time. PLUS If asking for £300+ for a 16 minute stay in a 20p-per-hour carpark is not extravagant and unconscionable then what is!
    2. In Jopson vs Home the judge draws a distinction between stopped to unload etc and parking. 100% relevant in my case, esp the bit about "unloading awkward or heavy items"
    But mainly, just copy one the the ten million (slight exaggeration but not much) other CEL defences on here right now, seeing as they issued a shedload of claims in June. If you already gave away the info as to who was driving the car (ouch, toes shot off!) then you will not be able to use the standard argument that CEL can't hold a registered keeper liable, and can't use the POFA which is a huge shame, but you need to read all the other examples you can find and use the usual stuff, IMHO.
    Last edited by Coupon-mad; 04-07-2017 at 12:12 AM.
    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.

    • Ttsqre
    • By Ttsqre 4th Jul 17, 8:18 AM
    • 13 Posts
    • 4 Thanks
    Ttsqre
    • #3
    • 4th Jul 17, 8:18 AM
    • #3
    • 4th Jul 17, 8:18 AM
    Thanks for this.
    Looking at the other templates I have a couple of Qs (I don't want to include anything in my defense that I don't fully understand)
    - what does "no legitimate interest" mean
    - should I include the 'do not hold a legitimate contract at this car park'? I know they have an arrangement with the park, but have no idea about the contractual status of this.
    - you said No to #3, but I have seen letters in this forum citing BPACoP breaches about being pursued for more than £100. Should I include this?
    • DoaM
    • By DoaM 4th Jul 17, 8:50 AM
    • 3,496 Posts
    • 3,553 Thanks
    DoaM
    • #4
    • 4th Jul 17, 8:50 AM
    • #4
    • 4th Jul 17, 8:50 AM
    Commercially justifiable went away as a defence point after the Beavis case, which ruled at the Supreme Court (highest court in the land, so it is binding on lower courts) that there are situations where the amount of the PCN is commercially justified and not a penalty.

    What you need to do it make it clear that your situation is very different from the Beavis case (your point 1) therefore your point 3 is irrelevant.
    Diary of a madman
    Walk the line again today
    Entries of confusion
    Dear diary, I'm here to stay
    • Ttsqre
    • By Ttsqre 5th Jul 17, 11:08 AM
    • 13 Posts
    • 4 Thanks
    Ttsqre
    • #5
    • 5th Jul 17, 11:08 AM
    • #5
    • 5th Jul 17, 11:08 AM
    Is anyone able to help me with my 3 questions above?
    Also - another one - should I include in my details of why Beavis isn't relevant the "prominent signage" point? CEL claim there is clear signage, I have been back to the car park and this is arguable.I am concerned if the judge decides the signage is adequate this will undermine my case. (I am already including the point that Beavis was a free car park, in my case it was a paid one, and that the car park was empty etc.
    thanks!
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 5th Jul 17, 11:15 AM
    • 15,570 Posts
    • 24,308 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    • #6
    • 5th Jul 17, 11:15 AM
    • #6
    • 5th Jul 17, 11:15 AM
    Q's and A's

    1. Principally, they don't own or have title to the land.

    2. Why not? You don't know what is included in any 'agreement', you don't know who signed it, you don't know if the dates of the agreement covered the date of your parking event. If you assert it they need to rebut it with evidence. You pass them the hot potato to handle. If they don't handle it, the court will take it they accept your assertion.

    3. The PE v Beavis case at the Supreme Court essentially put paid to that.

    4. If you're arguing a signage point, it's essential that you obtain your own photographs as evidence.
    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.
    • Loadsofchildren123
    • By Loadsofchildren123 5th Jul 17, 11:33 AM
    • 1,650 Posts
    • 2,744 Thanks
    Loadsofchildren123
    • #7
    • 5th Jul 17, 11:33 AM
    • #7
    • 5th Jul 17, 11:33 AM
    The PPC has not produced any upfront information (as normal Claimants would do in an attempt to settle a genuine claim) then you have no idea if they have a valid contract with the landowner which allows them to operate there and to issue proceedings against motorists.


    So you are saying that because of this you are not in a position to deny that there is such a contract.


    In these circumstances, what you do in your defence is put the Claimant to strict proof of its right to operate, to issue PCNs and to issue and pursue claims against motorists in its own right, and for it to produce a copy of whatever agreement it has with the landowner.


    Eg
    Because the Claimant has failed to follow paragraphs 6(a) and (d) of the Practice Direction - Pre-Action Conduct, the Defendant has no idea what authority it claims it has to operate on the land in question, to issue charges to vehicles and to issue and pursue court claims against the drivers/registered keepers of vehicles. The Claimant is put to full proof thereof and for the avoidance of doubt the Defendant requires a full copy of any contract with the landowner or lawful occupier of the land pursuant to which such authority is claimed. In the meantime, the Defendant cannot accept that such authority exists and reserves his position in relation thereto.


    Or something like that.
    • Ttsqre
    • By Ttsqre 5th Jul 17, 12:09 PM
    • 13 Posts
    • 4 Thanks
    Ttsqre
    • #8
    • 5th Jul 17, 12:09 PM
    • #8
    • 5th Jul 17, 12:09 PM
    thanks so much.. really helpful as this is not easy!
    Should I include any of the contractual considerations from the AZIZ case?
    • Loadsofchildren123
    • By Loadsofchildren123 5th Jul 17, 3:09 PM
    • 1,650 Posts
    • 2,744 Thanks
    Loadsofchildren123
    • #9
    • 5th Jul 17, 3:09 PM
    • #9
    • 5th Jul 17, 3:09 PM
    What does the Aziz case say - is that the European one that isn't applicable since Beavis?


    Back to your defence - the rules say that you must make it clear which aspects of the claim you deny, accept or require them to prove. Make it clear in your defence where you either put them to proof, deny or accept (eg you will accept you are the RK and that you were driving (if you do admit that), you will deny any contract was entered into or that if there was a contract that you breached it, you will put them to proof of their authority to operate, bring proceedings etc.)
    • Ttsqre
    • By Ttsqre 5th Jul 17, 3:29 PM
    • 13 Posts
    • 4 Thanks
    Ttsqre
    I was referring to:
    European Court of Justice in Aziz v Caixa d’Estalvis de Catalunya, Tarragona I Manresa [2013] 3 CMLR 5 (Para 69) regarding the Unfair Terms Directive :
    With regard to the question of the circumstances in which such an imbalance
    arises “contrary to the requirement of good faith”, having regard to the sixteenth recital in the preamble to the directive and as stated in essence by the A.G. in point AG74 of her Opinion, the national court must assess for those purposes whether the seller or supplier, dealing fairly and equitably with the consumer, could reasonably assume that the consumer would have agreed to such a term in individual contract negotiations.
    Looks like it does pre-date Beavis.. but isn't to do with GPEOL
    • Loadsofchildren123
    • By Loadsofchildren123 6th Jul 17, 1:37 PM
    • 1,650 Posts
    • 2,744 Thanks
    Loadsofchildren123
    I think that case is superceded, search for it on the forum, I've definitely seen posts about it.
    • IamEmanresu
    • By IamEmanresu 6th Jul 17, 1:47 PM
    • 1,708 Posts
    • 3,111 Thanks
    IamEmanresu
    I think that case is superceded, search for it on the forum, I've definitely seen posts about it.
    ParkingEye v Beavis - See paras 105-107 covers it as they refer to the view that there is an imbalance between saying something is "unfair" and the "freedom to contract".

    You can read it in a number of ways. The first would be we are all adults - or at least you have to be when driving a car, and it is not beyond the wit of a driver to read signs or look for them (Vine).

    There is also the view that parking is such a normal part of life that people on balance know what to do - read the signs.


    Counter to that is the trend towards having to explain things in simple terms that even the most challenged would know what to do e.g. the instructions you get from IKEA are about as simple as you can get.

    So that will be CEL's argument in a nutshell but since they don't do court and only issue claims to worry people into paying, then you shouldn't be bothered by having to argue against these points.
    Last edited by IamEmanresu; 06-07-2017 at 1:55 PM.
    Life's for living, get on with it rather than worrying about these. If they hassle, counter claim.

    Send them that costs schedule though, 24 hours before the hearing, and file it with the court. Take with you evidence that you have sent the costs schedule to them and when.
    LoC
    • Ttsqre
    • By Ttsqre 7th Jul 17, 10:55 AM
    • 13 Posts
    • 4 Thanks
    Ttsqre
    Defence v1
    Below is my first pass; don't worry about formatting, I'll tidy it up later.
    I'm not sure how much of a big deal to make about the signage. There is mention of the £100 charge but in very small letters, under the parking fees.

    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 would like to confirm that I accept I was driving in the incident in question. I also accept I entered the carpark on the date in question.

    However, I deny I am liable for the totality of the claim for each and every one of the following reasons:

    1. The Claim Form issued on the XXXX 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”.

    2. The Claimant has not complied with pre-court protocol (specifically 6a and 6c) and does not provide the defendant with enough information from which to form a defence.
    (a) Claimant has not specified whether this parking charge is for trespass, breach of contract or a contractual charge. All these are treated differently in law and would be defended differently.
    (b) The claimant is a serial litigant, speculatively issuing a large number of claims of questionable legality.
    (c) The Schedule of information contains insufficient information for the defendant to properly and fairly form the defence.
    (d) The Particulars of Claim provided by the claimant were generic and inadequate and asserted no cause of action. The Defendant is unable to ascertain the specifics of the claim: 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 the defendant parking, or that they have not miscalculated the time spent in the car park
    (e) If the court decided that this case should proceed, the Defendant asks that the Claimant is required to file Particulars which comply with Practice Directions and include at least the following information. (the defendant would then ask for sufficient time to file another defence)

    i. Whether the matter is being brought for trespass, breach of contract or a contractual 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 the Claimant is acting as Agent or Principal, together with a list of documents they will rely on in this matter
    v. If charges over and above the initial charge are being claimed, justification of such additions.
    vi. Justification of any interest rates being claimed
    vii. Provide the evidence required to prove the defendant was in the car park for the claimed 16 minutes and 18 seconds. As detailed further herein, I returned briefly to the car park to retrieve a forgotten item and I specifically requested that Civil Enforcement provide evidence that they have not calculated the stay time from the first entrance and last exit. The failure of providing this evidence has not only made it impossible for me to defend myself fully, but if they have indeed made this error, the time spent in the car park would be even more fleeting, and the case even flimsier than it is now.
    viii. In addition to the previous point the claimant should also provide evidence of the practices they employ to ensure that the times on their ANPR software are accurate at all times.
    ix. That the signage was adequate and prominent enough so that it contractually bound the Defendant. Without this evidence, no claim can be brought to bear. (The inclusion of the £60 charge and additional fees is written in such small writing so as to be inadequate to properly inform the public.)
    x. The claimant is put to strict proof that at the time of the alleged event they had advertisement consent, permission from the site owner to display the signs and a valid contract with the site owner. Without this evidence the claimant themselves were committing an offense by displaying the signs, therefore invalidating any contract between drivers and the claimant.
    xi. The claimant should also include details of the grace period allowed in this car park and what allowances they make for people ‘unloading heavy or awkward items’.

    3/ The Beavis case [ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67], upon which Civil Enforcement have relied, is not a relevant precedent. The points below were set out in the Parking Eye vs Cargius case and are also relevant here.
    a) The Beavis case 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. The claimant has provided no evidence of the signage, and a return to the fact that because I never actually completed disembarkation, I didn’t look for any signs anyway. Without such evidence, there is no case to answer.
    b) Beavis involved a free car park which required a strong disincentive to deter motorists from overstaying. In my case, the car park is paid and includes no “free time”. There is clearly no need for such a disincentive, which is the justification for the high charge in the Beavis case.
    c) Due to the car park in the Beavis case being free, the charge was commercially justifiable because it was the only source of revenue for the management company. In my case, Civil Enforcement Ltd get revenue every day from the standard charges.
    d) The Beavis case centred around an over-stay. In my case, I did not “over stay”. I did not stay at all.
    e) In the Parking Eye vs Cargius case, the charge (£100 for an over stay worth £2) was deemed not to be commercially justifiable. In my case the charge of £100 is for a stay worth less than 10p)
    f) The car park at the Rye requires minimal disincentive as the charge and demand is so low.
    g) The charge is an unenforceable penalty as there is no 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 judge in the Beavis case explicitly stated that charges should not be “extravagant and unconscionable”. The following additional points explain why this claim is both extravagant and unconscionable:
    a) I was only in the car park for just over 16 minutes*
    b) I did not occupy a parking space, no other cars were stopped from parking.
    c) I wasn’t “parked”, but was unloading and disembarking young children.
    d) The car park was almost empty
    e) £60 for 16 minutes in a carpark where it is 25p per hour is nothing if not extravagant and unconscionable, even if I had parked; the fact that I didn’t even complete disembarkation makes this claim look completely unreasonable.

    *I am still unsure whether my stay was in fact this long as Civil Enforcement still haven’t produced evidence that they haven’t “double dipped” me given I returned briefly for a forgotten item


    4/ The claimant has added unrecoverable sums to the original parking charge. All communications received by the defendant have clearly been made from templates involving minimal or no human intervention. The particulars of claim provided by Civil Enforcement provide no justification for the huge amount claimed. This can only be viewed as extravagant and unconscionable.
    5/ In the case of Jopson v Home, “it is possible to draw a real and sensible distinction between pausing for a few moments or minutes to enable passengers to alight or for awkward items to be unloaded, and parking in the sense of leaving a car for some significant duration of time”. Not only did I have heavy and awkward items to unload (3 bikes), I had my small children to alight and take care of. See below for further explanation by Judge Harris on this:
    “To leave a vehicle in a carpark or other reserved space” and “To leave in a suitable place until required.” The concept of parking, as opposed to stopping, is that of leaving a car for some duration of time beyond that needed for getting in or out of it, loading or unloading it, and perhaps coping with some vicissitude of short duration, such as changing a wheel in the event of a puncture. Merely to stop a vehicle cannot be to park it; otherwise traffic jams would consist of lines of parked cars. Delivery vans, whether for post, newspapers, groceries, or anything else, would not be accommodated on an interpretation which included vehicles stopping for a few moment for these purposes.
    Whether a car is parked, or simply stopped, or left for a moment while unloading, or (to take an example discussed in argument) accompanying a frail person inside, must be a question of fact or degree. I think in the end this was agreed. A milkman leaving his float to carry bottles to the flat would not be “parked”. Nor would a postman delivering letters, a wine merchant delivering a case of wine, and nor, I am satisfied, a retailer’s van, or indeed the appellant, unloading an awkward piece of furniture. Any other approach would leave life in the block of flats close to unworkable, a consideration which those instructing Miss Fenwick seemed reluctant to accept. I am quite satisfied, and I find as a fact, that while the appellant’s car had been stationary for more than a minute and without its driver for the same period (whatever precisely it was), while she carried in her desk, it was not “parked”. Accordingly, for that reason too, the appellant was not liable to the charge stipulated in the respondent’s notice.
    I entered the car park, pulled up by the park (without using a car parking space and with a view to moving my car to a space once the children and bikes were safely unloaded), disembarked the children, and unloaded our 3 bikes. Upon finding a fault with one of the bikes, I then had to reload, re-embark and leave. Given the above court precedent and the reasonable assumption that if you don’t park, you shouldn’t have to pay the parking charges, the defendant denies any liability for the amount claimed.
    6/ The Defendant denies any liability to the Claimant in any matter and asks the Court to note that the Claimant has:
    (a) used deliberately misleading statements in their correspondents such as ‘your ability to obtain credit in the future could be affected’’, ‘prevent future lending’, ‘affect current employment or future prospects of employment’. These statements are stretching the truth at best, at worst they amount to a form of intimidation. The defendant highlights the fact that even the claimants company name “Civil Enforcement” is designed to invoke an impression of unjustified authority.
    (b) failed to respond to a letter from the Defendant dated *** requesting further information and details of the claim, including evidence of the re-entry of the car park.
    7) The defendant asserts that Civil Enforcement Ltd have no legitimate interest in enforcing a charge that is out of proportion with any loss or damages the true landowner could pursue




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

    Signed
    Date
    • Ttsqre
    • By Ttsqre 11th Jul 17, 8:23 AM
    • 13 Posts
    • 4 Thanks
    Ttsqre
    Any feedback on the above greatly appreciated!
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 11th Jul 17, 5:52 PM
    • 51,575 Posts
    • 65,192 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    I assume you've already burnt your boats for relying on 'no keeper liability' by outing yourself as driver in the first appeal? Just checking, because the POFA is normally a big part of a CEL defence if not.

    5/ In the case of Jopson v Home, “it is possible
    Should read:
    In the case of Jopson v Homeguard [2016] B9GF0A9E, heard on Appeal in Oxford Court by Circuit Judge HHJ Charles Harris QC and therefore a persuasive finding as well as being on all fours with my case, it was held that: “it is possible...
    Last edited by Coupon-mad; 01-09-2017 at 7:15 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.

    • Ttsqre
    • By Ttsqre 12th Jul 17, 11:13 AM
    • 13 Posts
    • 4 Thanks
    Ttsqre
    useful feedback, thanks
    Does it look OK in general apart from that?
    Yes, in my only correspondence with them i explained what had happened and that I was the driver! (ill-judged I know)
    please let me know if there is anything else I should include!
    Thank you so much for taking the time
    • bluetoffee1878
    • By bluetoffee1878 12th Jul 17, 11:57 AM
    • 250 Posts
    • 431 Thanks
    bluetoffee1878
    The other thing to do once you have your defence sorted is to consider your costs.

    As Coupon Mad has stated, CEL do not turn up at court or they discontinue at the last minute (and forget to tell the defendant).

    So prepare a schedule of costs to submit to the court include such things as the cost of a day off work to attend, time preparing as a litigant in person @ £19/hour, printing, postage etc etc.

    I managed to get just over £200 for a friend I helped when we turned up at court and there was no sign of CEL. They had emailed the court the afternoon before to discontinue but did not inform us.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 12th Jul 17, 2:31 PM
    • 51,575 Posts
    • 65,192 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    useful feedback, thanks
    Does it look OK in general apart from that?
    Yes, in my only correspondence with them i explained what had happened and that I was the driver! (ill-judged I know)
    please let me know if there is anything else I should include!
    Thank you so much for taking the time
    Originally posted by Ttsqre
    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.

    • Ttsqre
    • By Ttsqre 14th Jul 17, 10:34 AM
    • 13 Posts
    • 4 Thanks
    Ttsqre
    Do I need to include any transcripts of the cases I cite? Or is it sufficient to quote them with the number as above?

    Also is there any other information I should attach with my claim?
    Should I state that I will be seeking costs in the event that I have to attend court?
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 14th Jul 17, 3:25 PM
    • 51,575 Posts
    • 65,192 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    No, please read the NEWBIES thread where it explains when evidence is later filed.

    I hope this wasn't a 12th June claim form, if so you are dancing with the devil by not filing a defence yet and could find you get a default CCJ, if you don't get your finger out!
    PRIVATE PCN? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT TWO Clicks needed for advice:
    Top of the page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    Advice to ignore is WRONG, unless in Scotland/NI.

Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

2,374Posts Today

7,225Users online

Martin's Twitter
  • Interesting, most people say they would champion a policy from a party they usually oppose. Yet is anyone brave eno? https://t.co/MWYGHunAqu

  • RT @MSE_Deals: The MSE deals team are in the office nice and early to bring you full analysis of all the #BlackFriday deals throughout the?

  • RT @MSE_Deals: #BlackFriday UPDATE... We've spotted some of Currys' prices are cheaper online than in its stores, eg, Sonos Play 1 £149 onl?

  • Follow Martin