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
    • completelyfubar
    • By completelyfubar 22nd Aug 17, 11:29 AM
    • 17Posts
    • 6Thanks
    completelyfubar
    Claim defence
    • #1
    • 22nd Aug 17, 11:29 AM
    Claim defence 22nd Aug 17 at 11:29 AM
    Good day to all on the forum, hopefully I can gain some valuable information before filing my defence.... A summary of what has gone on before;
    UKCPM PCN received: 21/11/2016 . From what I have read I don't think this was the first PCN issued but never received one before IF it was posted.
    I replied to the above notice with an altered template I got from this site but they just sent back a letter with an escalated fine/costs and references Beavis etc. There have been plenty of notices/debt collector ond Gladstone letters and I have replied twice since by letter and also email to Gladstone (no response to email other than an auto response)
    I have now been issued a claim (14/08/17) and have acknowledged it on the government gateway.

    As I received the PCN 6 weeks after the photo's I am unsure as to who was driving the vehicle, it could have been myself or my wife and we have argued this for some time now
    I have stated that I was not the driver in my first letter.

    I have absolutely no idea what the 'fine' was for as the car park is free and we had been parking on there for years prior to this. I had no idea they even had a parking management company there although I have learnt they only put the signs up in Sept/Oct 2016.
    The sign on the wall (pohoto'ed near my vehicle) has very small lettering and wasn't even noticed by any of our family and friends until the PCN landed.
    It is not within a yellow hatched area that the sign appears above and eludes that it is protecting.
    It is contentious from the photo's if the car is indeed parked or that it is purely stationary/giving way, i.e. no picture showing the front seats etc.and the car is not facing a wall.
    There are no signs at the immediate entrance and we had not noticed any on our previous visits to the small retail car park. There is another sign on the same wall for tesco metro that states 30 minutes parking allowed and nothing more.
    I believe the photo's were taken by a disgruntled cafe owner who doesn't like cars parking in front of his premises. The yellow hatched areas in front of his cafe appeared a few weeks prior and the car is not on them.
    I have tried ringing Tesco but no luck there & I have never been showed a contract or details that I could follow up with the landowner (requested in my letters)

    Any initial thoughts on this one peeps? Any help would be very much appreciated. I have read a considerable amount of the Sticky's and just wanted an initial opinion before setting out my defense.

    Thanks in advance
    Last edited by completelyfubar; 31-08-2017 at 7:04 AM. Reason: typo
Page 1
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 22nd Aug 17, 4:18 PM
    • 49,972 Posts
    • 63,367 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    • #2
    • 22nd Aug 17, 4:18 PM
    • #2
    • 22nd Aug 17, 4:18 PM
    I have learnt they only put the signs up in Sept/Oct 2016.
    The sign on the wall (photo'ed near my vehicle) has very small lettering and wasn't even noticed by any of our family and friends until the PCN landed.
    There are no signs at the immediate entrance and we had not noticed any on our previous visits to the small retail car park. There is another sign on the same wall for tesco metro that states 30 minutes parking allowed and nothing more.
    yellow hatched areas in front of his cafe appeared a few weeks prior and the car is not on them.
    All sounds like good evidence for later, and worth mentioning in your defence. The IPC Code of Practice says (and you will need to quote it) that where it is a new site/changed restrictions, extra signs *should* be added (or some such vague drivel). You have a case, you just need to put it together, using the format of a previous example defence re a Gladstones case.

    Show us the draft and we will assist. Stick around - the winners here get assistance not just with defence but at WS and evidence stage and come back for advice and tips, just before the hearing.
    Last edited by Coupon-mad; 25-08-2017 at 9:15 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.

    • completelyfubar
    • By completelyfubar 23rd Aug 17, 11:22 AM
    • 17 Posts
    • 6 Thanks
    completelyfubar
    • #3
    • 23rd Aug 17, 11:22 AM
    cheers
    • #3
    • 23rd Aug 17, 11:22 AM
    Thanks for the response coupon-mad, I'll get something drafted up and get it posted ASAP.
    Great, helpful forum this
    • completelyfubar
    • By completelyfubar 24th Aug 17, 2:50 PM
    • 17 Posts
    • 6 Thanks
    completelyfubar
    • #4
    • 24th Aug 17, 2:50 PM
    • #4
    • 24th Aug 17, 2:50 PM
    Hi guys, been doing a lot of reading...
    With regard to the new contractor the IPC CoP states:

    " Where there is any change to any pre-existing terms and conditions that would not be immediately apparent to a person visiting the site and which materially affects the motorist you should place additional (temporary) signage at the entrance making it clear that new terms and conditions/charges apply, such that regular visitors who may be familiar with the old terms do not inadvertently incur parking charges. This signage should be in addition to the signage ordinarily required and left in place for an appropriate period"

    I don't know if there was prior management in charge that effectively changed the T&C's
    There always has been a very legible sign that states that parking is limited to 20 minutes and that a £70 charge is due if exceeded... but nothing to state how etc.

    Can I still use the above IPC schedule as an argument?
    Last edited by completelyfubar; 24-08-2017 at 3:29 PM.
    • completelyfubar
    • By completelyfubar 25th Aug 17, 12:07 PM
    • 17 Posts
    • 6 Thanks
    completelyfubar
    • #5
    • 25th Aug 17, 12:07 PM
    1st draft defence
    • #5
    • 25th Aug 17, 12:07 PM
    SEE POST 11 FOR UPDATED VERSION.
    Removed to de-clutter thread
    Last edited by completelyfubar; 30-08-2017 at 7:07 AM. Reason: post 11 has the finished version
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 25th Aug 17, 9:28 PM
    • 49,972 Posts
    • 63,367 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    • #6
    • 25th Aug 17, 9:28 PM
    • #6
    • 25th Aug 17, 9:28 PM
    Not sure of (8) as when you zoom-in to the small print on the sign it states;

    "non-payment will result in additional charges which will be added to the value of the charge and for which the driver will be liable on an indemnity basis."which will be added to the value of the charge and for which the driver will be liable on an indemnity basis."
    How can you agree to vague, unquantified 'additional charges' that are considered 'double recovery' under the POFA. If that was considered a fair term on the sign it would give them carte blanche to decide those charges were in fact £500, or even £5000!

    You can't agree to pay a sum you have not been told.

    Your paragraph numbering needs re-doing because you've started with 1 for your prelims, then started again at 1 later. All paragraphs need to be numbered throughout.

    Have a look at Johnersh's defence and the way he sets it out as a solicitor, with headings and shorter defence points (obviously the facts are different here):

    http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?p=72977032#post72977032

    I didn't notice this in the defence and you do need to spell out the basics/facts:

    It appears they are saying now (on LBC letter) that the car is parked outside of an allocated bay, which appears the case but people park where they can when it's busy and there is nothing that says 'do not park here' or similar.. It is not within a yellow hatched area that the sign appears above.

    It is contentious from the photo's if the car is indeed parked or that it is purely stationary/giving way, i.e. no picture showing the front seats etc.and the car is not facing a wall.
    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.

    • completelyfubar
    • By completelyfubar 29th Aug 17, 9:06 AM
    • 17 Posts
    • 6 Thanks
    completelyfubar
    • #7
    • 29th Aug 17, 9:06 AM
    Getting there?
    • #7
    • 29th Aug 17, 9:06 AM
    SEE POST 11 FOR UPDATED VERSION.
    Removed to de-clutter thread
    Last edited by completelyfubar; 30-08-2017 at 7:08 AM. Reason: post 11 has latest revision
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 29th Aug 17, 1:11 PM
    • 49,972 Posts
    • 63,367 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    • #8
    • 29th Aug 17, 1:11 PM
    • #8
    • 29th Aug 17, 1:11 PM
    Looks good.

    Saw that #9 and #11 repeat the same thing from the POFA, so I would remove one or other.

    I would just move all this up into the prelimiaries:

    6. The claimant has not provided enough details in the particulars of claim to file a full defence. In particular, the full details of the contract which it is alleged was broken have not been provided.
    6.1. The Claimant has disclosed no cause of action to give rise to any debt.
    6.2. The Claimant has stated that a ‘parking charge’ was incurred.
    6.3. The Claimant has given no indication of the nature of the alleged charge in the Particulars of Claim. The Claimant has therefore disclosed no cause of action.
    6.4. The Particulars of Claim contains no details and fails to establish a cause of action which would enable the Defendant to prepare a specific defence. It just states “parking charges” which does not give any indication of on what basis the claim is brought.
    There is no information regarding why the charge arose, what the original charge was, what the alleged contract was nor anything which could be considered a fair exchange of information.
    The Particulars of Claim are incompetent in disclosing no cause of action.


    ...and you might want to finish on a stronger note, like this one below which I wrote on pepipoo and based the final paras on things written very recently by bargepole and LoadsofChildren123:

    http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=107768&st=80&p=1311428&#entry1 311428

    HTH
    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.

    • completelyfubar
    • By completelyfubar 29th Aug 17, 1:24 PM
    • 17 Posts
    • 6 Thanks
    completelyfubar
    • #9
    • 29th Aug 17, 1:24 PM
    • #9
    • 29th Aug 17, 1:24 PM
    Thanks coupon-mad I've deleted 11.1
    Do you think that 6.4.1 & 6.4.2 should go into the prelims as well?
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 30th Aug 17, 1:52 AM
    • 49,972 Posts
    • 63,367 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Now you come to mention it, yes, it would read better.
    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.

    • completelyfubar
    • By completelyfubar 30th Aug 17, 7:20 AM
    • 17 Posts
    • 6 Thanks
    completelyfubar
    Final cut
    Massive thanks to Coupn-mad for all your help and direction, this is hopefully my final defence statement.

    ------------------------------------------------------------------
    In the County Court
    Claim Number: ******************
    Between
    UK CAR PARK MANAGEMENT LIMITED v ************************

    DEFENCE STATEMENT

    Preliminary
    1. The claimant failed to include a copy of their written contract as per Practice Direction 16 7.3(1) and Practice Direction 7C 1.4(3A). No indication is given as to the Claimants contractual authority to operate there as required by the Claimants Trade Association's Code of Practice B1.1 which says;
    “If you operate parking management activities on land which is not owned by you, you must supply us with written authority from the land owner sufficient to establish you as the ‘Creditor’ within the meaning of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (where applicable) and in any event to establish you as a person who is able to recover parking charges. There is no prescribed form for such agreement and it need not necessarily be as part of a contract but it must include the express ability for an operator to recover parking charges on the landowner’s behalf or provide sufficient right to occupy the land in question so that charges can be recovered by the operator directly. This applies whether or not you intend to use the keeper liability provisions.”

    2. The particulars of claim do not meet the requirements of Practice Direction 16 7.5 as there is nothing which specifies how the terms were breached. Indeed the particulars of claim are not clear and concise as is required by CPR 16.4 1(a). The Claimants are known to be serial issuers of generic claims similar to this one. HM Courts Service have identified over 1000 similar sparse claims. I believe the term for such behaviour is ‘roboclaims’ and as such is against the public interest. Practice Direction 3A which references Civil Procedure Rule 3.4 illustrates this point;

    “ 1.4 The following are examples of cases where the court may conclude that particulars of claim (whether contained in a claim form or filed separately) fall within rule 3.4(2)(a):
    1. those which set out no facts indicating what the claim is about, for example ‘Money owed £5000’,
    2. those which are incoherent and make no sense,
    3. those which contain a coherent set of facts but those facts, even if true, do not disclose any legally recognisable claim against the defendant ”

    3. The claimant has not provided enough details in the particulars of claim to file a full defence;
    3.1. The Claimant has disclosed no cause of action to give rise to any debt.
    3.2. The Claimant has stated that a ‘parking charge’ was incurred.
    3.3. The Claimant has given no indication of the nature of the alleged charge in the Particulars of Claim. The Claimant has therefore disclosed no cause of action.
    3.4. The Particulars of Claim contains no details and fails to establish a cause of action which would enable the Defendant to prepare a specific defence. It just states “parking charges” which does not give any indication of on what basis the claim is brought.
    There is no information regarding why the charge arose, what the original charge was, what the alleged contract was, nor anything which could be considered a fair exchange of information.
    The Particulars of Claim are incompetent in disclosing no cause of action.

    3.4.1 On the 20th September 2016 another relevant poorly pleaded private parking
    charge claim by Gladstones was struck out by District Judge Cross of St Albans County Court without a hearing due to their ‘roboclaim’ particulars being incoherent, failing to comply with CPR. 16.4 and ‘providing no facts that could give rise to any apparent claim in law.’

    3.4.2. On the 27thJuly 2016 DJ Anson sitting at Preston County Court ruled that the very similar parking charge particulars of claim were deficient and failing to meet CPR 16.4 and PD 16 paragraphs 7.3 – 7.6. He ordered the Claimant in that case to file new particulars which they failed to do and so the court confirmed that the claim be struck out.

    Background
    4. It is admitted that at the time of the alleged infringement the Defendant was the registered keeper of vehicle registration mark ****** which is the subject of these proceedings. The vehicle was insured with two named drivers permitted to use it.

    5. It is not admitted that on ******* the Defendant's vehicle was parked at ********.
    5.1. The Claimant has provided no evidence, photographic or otherwise that the vehicle is indeed parked and not waiting / giving way to pedestrians or vehicles.

    6. It is denied that the Defendant was the driver of the vehicle. The Claimant is put to strict proof.
    6.1. The Claimant has provided no evidence (in pre-action correspondence or otherwise) that the Defendant was the driver. The Defendant avers that the Claimant is therefore limited to pursuing the keeper in these proceedings under the provisions set out by statute in the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 ("POFA")
    6.2. Before seeking to rely on the keeper liability provisions of Schedule 4 POFA the Claimant must demonstrate that:
    6.2.1. There was a ‘relevant obligation’ either by way of a breach of contract, trespass or other tort; and
    6.2.2. That it has followed the required deadlines and wording as described in the Act to transfer liability from the driver to the registered keeper.
    It is not admitted that the Claimant has complied with the relevant statutory requirements.

    6.3. To the extent that the Claimant may seek to allege that any such presumption exist, the Defendant expressly denies that there is any presumption in law (whether in statute or otherwise) that the keeper is the driver. Further, the Defendant denies that the vehicle keeper is obliged to name the driver to a private parking firm. Had this been the intention of parliament, they would have made such requirements part of POFA, which makes no such provision. In the alternative, an amendment could have been made to s.172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988. The 1988 Act continues to oblige the identification of drivers only in strictly limited circumstances, where a criminal offence has been committed. Those provisions do not apply to this matter.

    7. The defendant wrote to the claimant on ******* & ******** & ********* asking for:
    a) Full particulars of the parking charges
    b) Who the party was that contracted with UK Car Park Management Ltd
    c) The full legal identity of the landowner
    d) A full copy of the contract with the landholder that demonstrated that UK Car Park Management Ltd had their authority.
    e) If the charges were based on damages for breach of contract and if so to provide justification of this sum.
    The claimant has not responded with any of the above information.
    As Gladstones are a firm of solicitors who’s Directors also run the IPC Trade Body and deal with private parking issues every single day of the week there can be no excuse for these omissions.

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

    8. UK Car Park Management Ltd are not the lawful occupier of the land. I have the reasonable belief that they do not have the authority to issue charges on this land in their own name and that they have no rights to bring action regarding this claim.
    8.1. The Claimant is not the landowner and is merely an agent acting on behalf of the landowner and has failed to demonstrate their legal standing to form a contract.
    8.2. The claimant is not the landowner and suffers no loss whatsoever as a result of a vehicle parking at the location in question
    8.3 The Claimant is put to proof that it has sufficient interest in the land or that there are specific terms in its contract to bring an action on its own behalf. As a third party agent, the Claimant may not pursue any charge

    9. The Claimant has at no time provided an explanation how the ‘parking charge’ has been calculated, the conduct that gave rise to it or how the amount has escalated from £100 to £160. This appears to be an added cost with apparently no qualification and an attempt at double recovery, which the POFA Schedule 4 specifically disallows.
    9.1. The Protection of Freedom Act Para 4(5) states that the maximum sum that may be recovered from the keeper is the charge stated on the Notice to Keeper.
    9.2. The driver did not enter into any 'agreement on the charge', no consideration flowed between the parties and no contract was established.
    9.2.1. The Defendant denies that the driver would have agreed to pay the original demand of £100 to agree to the alleged contract had the terms and conditions of the contract been properly displayed and accessible.

    Failure to set out clear parking terms
    10. The Defendant relies upon ParkingEye Ltd v Barry Beavis (2015) UKSC 67 insofar as the Court were willing to impose a penalty in the context of a site of commercial value and where the signage regarding the penalties imposed for any breach of parking terms were clear - both upon entry to the site and throughout.
    10.1. The Defendant avers that the parking signage in this matter was, without prejudice to his/her primary defence above, woefully inadequate.
    10.1.1. At the time of the material events the signage was deficient in number, distribution, wording and lighting to reasonably convey a contractual obligation;
    10.1.2. The signage did not comply with the requirements of the Code of Practice of the Independent Parking Committee’s ("IPC") Accredited Operators Scheme, an organisation to which the Claimant was a signatory; and
    10.1.3. The signage contained particularly onerous terms not sufficiently drawn to the attention of the visitor as set out in the leading judgment of Denning MR in J Spurling v Bradshaw [1956] EWCA Civ 3
    10.2. There is contradicting signage within the same car park which is placed in a more prominent and readable format. This signage mentions time restraints and contradicting fines.
    10.3. UK Car Park Management Ltd had only recently placed their signage on the wall creating new terms and conditions for motorists. The IPC Code of Practice states that;

    “Where there is any change to any pre-existing terms and conditions that would not be immediately apparent to a person visiting the site and which materially affects the motorist you should place additional (temporary) signage at the entrance making it clear that new terms and conditions/charges apply, such that regular visitors who may be familiar with the old terms do not inadvertently incur parking charges. This signage should be in addition to the signage ordinarily required and left in place for an appropriate period.”

    There are no signs at the entrance at all and no additional signs or notices to alert drivers.

    11. The Claimant has sent threatening and misleading demands which stated that further debt recovery action would be taken to recover what is owed by passing the debt to a recovery agent (which suggested to the Defendant they would be calling round like bailiffs) adding further unexplained charges with no evidence of how these extra charges have been calculated.
    No figure for additional charges was 'agreed' nor could it have formed part of the alleged 'contract' because no such indemnity costs were quantified on the signs. Terms cannot be bolted on later with figures plucked out of thin air, as if they were incorporated into the small print when they were not.
    11.1. The Defendant also disputes that the Claimant has incurred £50 solicitor costs.
    11.2. The Defendant has the reasonable belief that the Claimant has not incurred £50 costs to pursue an alleged £100 debt.
    11.3. Not withstanding the Defendant's belief, the costs are in any case not recoverable.
    11.4. The Claimant described the charge of £50.00 "legal representative’s costs" not "contractual costs". CPR 27.14 does not permit these to be recovered in the Small Claims Court.

    Wholly unreasonable and vexatious claim
    12. It is submitted that the conduct of the Claimant in pursuing this claim is wholly unreasonable and vexatious. As such, the Defendant is keeping careful note of all wasted time/costs in dealing with this matter and should the case continue to trial (or in the event of the Claimant filing a Notice of Discontinuance) the Defendant will seek further costs, pursuant to Civil Procedure Rule 27.14(2)(g).

    13. The Defendant respectfully suggests that parking companies using the small claims track as a form of aggressive, automated monetary demands against motorists, alleging 'debts' for parking on free customer parking areas is not something the Courts should be seen to support.

    14. The Court is invited to take Judicial Notice of the fact that the Claimant's solicitors, Gladstones, is engaged in a course of conduct which involves issuing tens of thousands of totally meritless Claims, which are routinely dismissed by District Judges sitting in this Court, and other County Court hearing centres in all parts of England & Wales. The Court is therefore invited to refer the matter to the Designated Civil Judge, for consideration of the issuing an Extended Civil Restraint Order against the Claimant, pursuant to CPR Practice Direction 3.1(3).

    15. The Defendant denies the claim in its entirety, voiding any liability to the Claimant for all amounts due to the aforementioned reasons. The Defendant asks that the court gives consideration to exercise its discretion to order the case to be struck out under CPR Rule 3.4, for want of a detailed cause of action and/or for the claim having no realistic prospects of success.

    16. If the court is not minded to make such an order, then when Directions are given, the Defendant asks that there is an order for sequential service of witness evidence (rather than exchange) because it is expected that the Claimant will use its witness statement to provide the sort of detail which should have been disclosed much earlier, and the Defendant should have the opportunity to consider it, prior to serving evidence and witness statements in support of this defence.

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

    Name - Signed - Date
    Last edited by completelyfubar; 30-08-2017 at 7:42 AM.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 30th Aug 17, 8:17 PM
    • 49,972 Posts
    • 63,367 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Great, that's very clearly moving from step to step, which should assist you later on and will help the Judge to see the issues.
    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.

    • completelyfubar
    • By completelyfubar 31st Aug 17, 6:59 AM
    • 17 Posts
    • 6 Thanks
    completelyfubar
    Thanks for the help

    many thanks again Coupon-mad.... on to the next stage
    • completelyfubar
    • By completelyfubar 4th Sep 17, 9:23 AM
    • 17 Posts
    • 6 Thanks
    completelyfubar
    OK guys, need a little help...
    I have created a signed PDF ready to upload but what to do now?
    Do I just email it to the relevant address and do nothing on the MCOL site?
    If I go through the MCOL system I have to put something in the defence box and I know that I must not do that....
    Little help please
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 4th Sep 17, 12:26 PM
    • 14,523 Posts
    • 22,847 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    Little help please
    Everything should be detailed in the NEWBIES FAQ sticky, post #2, which should now be your 'Bible' now you're at the serious business end of this stuff.
    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.
    • completelyfubar
    • By completelyfubar 4th Sep 17, 12:30 PM
    • 17 Posts
    • 6 Thanks
    completelyfubar
    Hi Umkomaas
    I have read a lot of the stickies on this and other forums and my specific question above has not been covered... or I can't find it
    Email has been sent.... confirmation has been received.
    I was just wondering if I needed to do anything on the MCOL website or not?
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 4th Sep 17, 12:43 PM
    • 14,523 Posts
    • 22,847 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    Hi Umkomaas
    I have read a lot of the stickies on this and other forums and my specific question above has not been covered... or I can't find it
    Email has been sent.... confirmation has been received.
    I was just wondering if I needed to do anything on the MCOL website or not?
    Originally posted by completelyfubar
    This is what court expert bargepole tells you to do in his thread 'Court Claim Procedure (updated October 2016)' detailing the processes you go through.

    Does that not cover it? I'm not the court expert on here, but can signpost to appropriate advice.

    3. Your Defence does not need to be War and Peace, but it must mention, however briefly, every point of fact and law that you intend to rely on. You won't be able to amend it or add extra points later without paying a court fee, but you can expand on the original points in more detail. The Defence should be headed 'In The County Court', then show the case number, the names of the parties indicating who is the Claimant and who is the Defendant, and have the word 'Defence' at the top, and at the bottom say 'I believe the facts stated in this Defence are true' then your signature and date. It should all be formatted with numbered paragraphs and pages, in Times Roman 12pt, with 1.5 line spacing. I recommend printing and posting (registered) to Northampton, trying to fit it in the online box destroys the formatting, and makes it hard for the Judge to read.

    4. After sending off your Defence, the Northampton Business centre will send a copy to the Claimant, and then send a Directions Questionnaire (form N180) to both Claimant and Defendant.
    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.
    • completelyfubar
    • By completelyfubar 4th Sep 17, 12:46 PM
    • 17 Posts
    • 6 Thanks
    completelyfubar
    Thanks for the quick response but people don't tend to post them any more from what I've read?
    They print - sign - scan - email
    In fact it says that further down the same thread you have highlighted.
    I just want to know if you 'also' do anything on the MCOL website but I'm getting the distinct impression that I don't
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 4th Sep 17, 10:15 PM
    • 49,972 Posts
    • 63,367 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    You don't do anything on MCOL at defence stage, it chews a defence up and if you put ANYTHING in the box, even 'to follow by post'', etc., it would be taken to be your entire defence!

    I would email it to the ccbcaq email as a signed/dated PDF.
    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.

    • Murlton
    • By Murlton 16th Sep 17, 11:39 AM
    • 40 Posts
    • 13 Thanks
    Murlton
    Hey guys,

    Just received my LBC for the same site. Has anything else happened sincr your last post?
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

344Posts Today

4,370Users online

Martin's Twitter
  • Shana tova umetuka - a sweet Jewish New Year to all celebrating. I won't be online the rest of t'week, as I take the time to be with family

  • Dear Steve. Please note doing a poll to ask people's opinion does not in itself imply an opinion! https://t.co/UGvWlMURxy

  • Luciana is on the advisory board of @mmhpi (we have MPs from most parties) https://t.co/n99NAxGAAQ

  • Follow Martin