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
    • Illiterateplonker
    • By Illiterateplonker 20th Oct 17, 8:44 PM
    • 13Posts
    • 3Thanks
    Illiterateplonker
    Gladstones - Directions questionnaire - hx parking management and their misleading
    • #1
    • 20th Oct 17, 8:44 PM
    Gladstones - Directions questionnaire - hx parking management and their misleading 20th Oct 17 at 8:44 PM
    Dear All,

    Ref: Parking fine and my illiterate response

    My story:
    I have been using a local car park for years now on our local seafront, there is 1 main car park and 2 others over at the back. The 1st car park has always had signs up as its to do with a casino and the other 2 (which can only be accessed by going through the first) have never had signs and have always been used for customers with no payment required. (I think separate land owners own them)

    Having parked in my normal car park and walking to the venue I walked past a ticket machine that looked fairly new in the other (casino) car park, I read the signs but couldn’t quite work out which car park they related to as they were placed in the casino car park which was managed by another company, however to be on the safe side I brought a ticket just in case. I then entered the building to use the play centre, my parking time elapsed so I went to top up my ticket, I explained this to a worker who had to open the gate to let me out, only to be told if I was a paying customer I didn’t need to pay and the signs related to the casino. So I didn’t pay the top up. I’ve then parked there another 2 times without paying on this understanding.

    It wasn’t until I went to see my mum that I picked up letters with parking tickets and realised I had never updated my log book with my new address. I returned to the place I had visited and whereby their employee had told me I could park there if using the facilities only to be told that I had been misinformed and Parking had to be paid regardless. I explained they should make this clear to customers and to ensure all their staff are aware. Since then a sign has been placed in the play centre stating ‘please remember to pay for parking’ Unfortunately because I hadn’t changed my address on my log book by the time I had received the letters my appeal dates had come and gone and I had received one of Gladstone’s solicitors letters stating they had logged the claim with a small claims court and provided me with a number.

    I wasn’t aware what I should do and they had successfully scared me so I admitted part liability and put in a defence HOWEVER I took absolute no time in writing it, wrote it in the middle of a night after feeding my newborn daughter and basically came across as an illiterate fool!! Which i have regretted ever since 😩😩

    I basically said the above and offered to pay £20 to cover the cost of the 3 times I had parked there without paying but informed that would be my final offer as I believed the signage was strategically placed to mislead people. I had also advised that I had not responded sooner as I had recently given birth (which is true) however it was because I hadn’t seen the letter until it was too late.

    So is there anything I can do now? I have taken photos of the car park in which I parked and the signs to prove that the signage is misleading. There is 1 sign in the entire car park that you could easily miss, aside from that there are none. However in the other car park which is seperate and for casino customers only, there are tons dotted all over the place, and 2 others that relate to the second car park (which I used) but have no relevance to the casino (which is where they are placed)

    I can provide photos if anybody would like to see.

    Can I fight this despite my illiterate rushed response?

    I have now received a directions questionare from Gladstone’s stating

    ‘Please find ensloses a copy of our clients questionnaire, which will be filed with the court upon request’

    It also states

    ‘.... you will note we intend to request a special direction that the case be dealt with on papers only’

    I have also when searching found 11 other people that have received parking fines due to the strategically placed and confusing signage so I do not appear to be alone.

    I believe my photos of the misleading signage could win my case but is it too late to provide these? Gladstone’s have stayed they do not wish to mediate?

    Any help would be greatly appreciated.

    Thanks
Page 1
    • Redx
    • By Redx 20th Oct 17, 9:34 PM
    • 16,865 Posts
    • 20,943 Thanks
    Redx
    • #2
    • 20th Oct 17, 9:34 PM
    • #2
    • 20th Oct 17, 9:34 PM
    post #2 of the NEWBIES sticky thread deals with court cases and also answers the question about the gladrags special directions paperwork too

    please read it , carefully

    especially the BARGEPOLE post
    Newbies !!
    Private Parking ticket? check the 2 sticky threads by coupon-mad and crabman in the Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking Board forum for the latest advice or maybe try pepipoo or C.A.G. or legal beagles forums if you need legal advice as well because this parking forum is not about debt collectors or legal matters per se
    • Illiterateplonker
    • By Illiterateplonker 20th Oct 17, 10:36 PM
    • 13 Posts
    • 3 Thanks
    Illiterateplonker
    • #3
    • 20th Oct 17, 10:36 PM
    • #3
    • 20th Oct 17, 10:36 PM
    Thank you, are you able to advise how I find this information please? Thanks
    • Redx
    • By Redx 20th Oct 17, 10:38 PM
    • 16,865 Posts
    • 20,943 Thanks
    Redx
    • #4
    • 20th Oct 17, 10:38 PM
    • #4
    • 20th Oct 17, 10:38 PM
    go to the top of this forum

    find the second thread down , titled NEWBIES BLAH BLAH

    click it , scroll down to the second post (post #2)

    read it , and the links
    Newbies !!
    Private Parking ticket? check the 2 sticky threads by coupon-mad and crabman in the Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking Board forum for the latest advice or maybe try pepipoo or C.A.G. or legal beagles forums if you need legal advice as well because this parking forum is not about debt collectors or legal matters per se
    • Lamilad
    • By Lamilad 20th Oct 17, 10:38 PM
    • 1,193 Posts
    • 2,360 Thanks
    Lamilad
    • #5
    • 20th Oct 17, 10:38 PM
    • #5
    • 20th Oct 17, 10:38 PM
    Thank you, are you able to advise how I find this information please? Thanks
    Originally posted by Illiterateplonker
    Come on, you're not even trying. The NEWBIES thread is unmissable. Nuff said.
    • Illiterateplonker
    • By Illiterateplonker 20th Oct 17, 10:44 PM
    • 13 Posts
    • 3 Thanks
    Illiterateplonker
    • #6
    • 20th Oct 17, 10:44 PM
    • #6
    • 20th Oct 17, 10:44 PM
    Ha! I found it in the end, I tried a little harder!
    • Illiterateplonker
    • By Illiterateplonker 20th Oct 17, 10:45 PM
    • 13 Posts
    • 3 Thanks
    Illiterateplonker
    • #7
    • 20th Oct 17, 10:45 PM
    • #7
    • 20th Oct 17, 10:45 PM
    Thank you for the info, finally located it.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 20th Oct 17, 11:10 PM
    • 51,635 Posts
    • 65,294 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    • #8
    • 20th Oct 17, 11:10 PM
    • #8
    • 20th Oct 17, 11:10 PM
    OK, good, and if you Google 'Gladstones straightforward papers parking' you will find the hundreds of times forums have discussed that predictable Gladrags template letter of drivel, and what to do next.
    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.

    • Illiterateplonker
    • By Illiterateplonker 22nd Oct 17, 12:57 AM
    • 13 Posts
    • 3 Thanks
    Illiterateplonker
    • #9
    • 22nd Oct 17, 12:57 AM
    Accepting part liability - stupid mistake?
    • #9
    • 22nd Oct 17, 12:57 AM
    Thank you for all your guidance in finding information. I believe I’m almost ready to fight the case however there is some information that I can not find despite looking through numerous threads.

    I initially replied to their ‘first court letter’ and accepted part liability but also filed a defence. (Which as stated above wasn’t the best written but had the same information as my original thread above)

    I’m gutted I hadn’t looked into this matter earlier and seen the ‘bargepole’ thread so I could have handled it properly from the get go. Anyway...

    When going to court my filed evidence will be a guideline right? So I can enhance it properly using the correct terms and legal requirements and provide evidence?
    Gladstone’s have also stated the won’t mediate (fine) however can I still write to them to challenge it or should I just prepare my evidence for court.

    Also can I ask for copies of all the paper work as I have misplaced them?

    And last but not least I have a letter concerning 2 other tickets (as stated in my original thread as I was lead to believe as a paying customer I was able to use the car park freely) can I fight all 3 together or will it be a case by case basis? (I am able to appeal this one though as time has not yet elapsed)

    I apologise if this information is somewhere on these threads but I can’t find it.

    Thank you all for taking the time to help me!
    • IamEmanresu
    • By IamEmanresu 22nd Oct 17, 6:55 AM
    • 1,806 Posts
    • 3,186 Thanks
    IamEmanresu
    Also can I ask for copies of all the paper work as I have misplaced them?
    Ask but if they are not supplied within a week, use a Subject Access Request

    And last but not least I have a letter concerning 2 other tickets
    You might want to write to them and ask these be decided in the same claim as there is no merit in their raising additional claims where the matters to be decide are basically the same.

    This is a tactic they use where they issue additional claims as the initial claim progresses - keeping you in the court system for a long time. So you can wait till they issue new claims or short circuit it.

    The only downside is that you have made a partial admission which could carry over to any additional tickets they have and they may have more than 2.

    Have you checked with the DVLA how many times they have accessed your details. Not every access will have resulted in a visible ticket (see ghost ticketing)
    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
    • Illiterateplonker
    • By Illiterateplonker 29th Nov 17, 11:21 PM
    • 13 Posts
    • 3 Thanks
    Illiterateplonker
    Evening guys! Me again. So I have now received the ‘particulars’ of my case with Gladstone’s. As stated previously when I initially received the court letter, I got into a bit of a panic and rambled off a bit of a ‘woe’ is me in my defence. Although I did also state the entire situation that arose.

    Just to recap... I parked in an area I’ve parked many times to use it’s facilities as normal. My son brought the new ticket machine to my attention, I couldnt make head nor tale of the machine as it’s placed in a car park managed by another company but paid ‘just in case’. Upon using the facilities related to the car park I was told by a member of staff that the signage was nothing to do with the car park I had parked in and as I was using the facilities there was no need to top up. So I didn’t, I then visited another 2 times without paying at all. It only came to light when my mum passed me my post (id forgotten to change my log book address) in this time I also had a baby so didn’t deal with the matter until it was too late and received the basic ‘Gladstone’s court letter’.

    Fast forward to present..

    I believe I’m right in thinking I can not base my defence on the basis that I was instructed verbally by an employee of their company and that I have to base my defence in legal terms.
    Therefore my defence will be based on the strategically placed and confusing signage.
    Would this be the best argument just before I type my defence and ask some of you to kindly read and dissect it for me?

    My points being:-

    1. I have evidence to show that one sign has been placed above eye level and in a tree (although the leaves are now gone, you can see from my picture that it’s placed within tree branches and my ticket is from June and therefore the tree would have been in full bloom resulting in me never seeing this sign. I actually only saw it as I went to take photographs recently for my case)

    2. The ticket machine for the car park I parked in, is placed in a car park operated by another parking operator.

    3. The signage is light green and white.

    4. In the car park I parked there is NO signs to advise parking restrictions apply.

    I also had offered to pay £25 to cover the extra 50minutes I stayed and subsequently the following 2 times I parked without paying.

    I had also requested copies of all correspondents so that I could write my defence. I ensure I sent this recorded delivery and it has so far been ignored 3 weeks later. (It has been received by Gladstone’s however, and I did request it under the data protection act)

    If somebody could just advise if they feel I can continue with my case on the above basis I shall draft my defence.


    Thank you all once again for all your help, it is gratefully received.

    Ps please excuse my rushed, bad grammar typing. I currently have a fairly new baby demanding my attention.
    • Illiterateplonker
    • By Illiterateplonker 2nd Dec 17, 4:40 PM
    • 13 Posts
    • 3 Thanks
    Illiterateplonker


    • It is acknowledged that the defendant, xxx, residing at xxx is the registered keeper of the vehicle.
    • It is denied that any "parking charges or indemnity costs" (whatever they might be) as stated on the Particulars of claim are owed and any debt is denied in it's entirety.

    • The Claimant’s solicitors are known to be a serial issuer of generic claims similar to this one, with no due diligence, no scrutiny of details nor even checking for a true cause of action.
      HMCS have identified over 1000 similar poorly produced claims and the solicitor's conduct in many of these cases is believed to be currently the subject of an active investigation by the SRA.
      I believe the term for such conduct is ‘robo-claims’ which is against the public interest, demonstrates a disregard for the dignity of the court and is unfair on unrepresented consumers.
      I have reason to believe that this is a claim that will proceed without any facts or evidence supplied until the last possible minute, to my significant detriment as an unrepresented Defendant.

    • It is denied that the Claimant has authority to bring this claim. The proper Claimant (if any debt exists, which is denied) would be the landowner. Strict proof is required that there is a chain of contracts leading from the landowner to HX Parking Management, and no proof has been provided.

    • The Defendant has requested copies of all paperwork as per Section 7 of the data protection Act 1998, and despite being received and signed for on the 27/10/2017, no copy documentation has been received by the Defendant which can be seen as a deliberate attempt weaken the Defendant who has no legal experiences case.
    • The alleged debt as described in the claim are unenforceable penalties, being just the sort of unconscionable charges exposed as offending against the penalty rule, in ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis.

    • This case can be easily distinguished from ParkingEye v Beavis which the Judges held was 'entirely different' from most ordinary economic contract disputes.
      Charges cannot exist merely to punish drivers. This claimant has failed to show any comparable 'legitimate interest' to save their charge from Lord Dunedin's four tests for a penalty, which the Supreme Court Judges found was still adequate in less complex cases, such as this allegation.

    • It is submitted that (apart from properly incurred court fees) any added legal fees/costs are simply numbers made up out of thin air, and are an attempt at double recovery by the Claimant, which would not be recoverable in the small claims court.

    • It is denied that there was any 'relevant obligation' or 'relevant contract' relating to any single parking event.
    • It is denied that the signs used by this claimant can have created a fair or transparent contract with a driver in any event. The signs were insufficient in terms of their distribution, wording and lighting hence incapable of binding the driver, which distinguishes this case from the Beavis case:
      a) Site/entrance signage – Has been placed within tree branches which would not be visible in the height of Summer when the trees are in full bloom. (Exhibit a) The Defendant was only made aware of these signs when returning to the site in October to take pictures for evidence. The Defendant also notes the sign has not only been placed within the branches of a tree but it is also green and white thus not making it clear to read. The Defendant refers to the Terms and Conditions that are almost unreadable as they are displayed in such small font.
      Contrary to IPC Code of Practice, Part E, schedule 1 - Signage “Contrast and Illumination, signage - Black text on a white background or white text on a black background will provide a suitable contrast”.

      b)
      There is no warning on signage that if a charge remains unpaid for a period of 28 days after issue then an application will be made to DVLA for the keeper’s details, contrary to IPC Code of Practice, Part E, Schedule 1 - Signage, Other signs, condition 3.


      c) The signage was not lit and any terms were not transparent or legible; this is an unfair contract, not agreed by the driver and contrary to the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999.


      d) 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.


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

      f) The defendant believes the signs have been placed to cause confusion with motorists. BPA Approved Code Operator Scheme Code of Practice 18.3 ‘You must place signs containing the specific parking term throughout the site, so that drivers are given a chance to read thethe time of parking or leaving their vehicle’. The Defendant refers to (Exhibit b) where no signs are visible in a 360 degree turn.


      11.The Defendant was aware a new machine had been installed in the car park (which is not managed by the claimant) and was not clear which car park the machine related to so brought a ticket and sought clarification.
      The Defendant sought clarification upon immediately entering the soft play of the Claimaints premises. The Defendant was advised by the Claimants employee that the Defendant was not liable to pay any parking tariffs due as the Defendants using the onsite facilities.


      13.The defendant denies the claim in its entirety voiding any liability to the claimant for all amounts claimed due to the aforementioned reasons.

      14.I request the court strike out this claim for the reasons stated above, and for similar reasons cited by District Judge Cross of St Albans County Court on 20/09/16 where a similar claim was struck out without a hearing, due to Gladstones' template particulars for a private parking firm being 'incoherent', ''providing no facts that could give rise to any apparent claim in law''.

      Statement of Truth: I confirm that the contents of this statement are true to the best of my knowledge and belief


    • Illiterateplonker
    • By Illiterateplonker 4th Dec 17, 9:19 PM
    • 13 Posts
    • 3 Thanks
    Illiterateplonker
    Defence - gladstones
    Evening All,


    I don't suppose somebody could please advise me on my defence.
    Unfortunately, I hadn't found this site when I originally received my Court Claim Form and panicked, I stupidly wrote a rather rushed defence and accepted part liability. (STUPID I know) I even offered to pay what I believed was owed (Just under an hours tariff) The only reason I hadn't paid for the full was because an employee advised me I didn't have to as I was using the facilities and that they were free.


    My Defence is below...I would be really grateful if somebody could offer me any kind of advice before I submit as I would rather not making any more silly mistakes... Thank you all in advance.




    • It is acknowledged that the defendant, xxx, residing at xxx is the registered keeper of the vehicle.
    • It is denied that any "parking charges or indemnity costs" (whatever they might be) as stated on the Particulars of claim are owed and any debt is denied in it's entirety.
    • It is denied that the Claimant has authority to bring this claim. The proper Claimant (if any debt exists, which is denied) would be the landowner. Strict proof is required that there is a chain of contracts leading from the landowner to HX Parking Management, and no proof has been provided.
    • The Defendant has requested copies of all paperwork as per Section 7 of the data protection Act 1998, and despite being received and signed for on the 27/10/2017, no copy documentation has been received by the Defendant. The Defendant believes this is a deliberate attempt to ensure the Defendant is unable to successfully defend themselves.
    • The Claimant’s solicitors are known to be a serial issuer of generic claims similar to this one, with no due diligence, no scrutiny of details nor even checking for a true cause of action.
      HMCS have identified over 1000 similar poorly produced claims and the solicitor's conduct in many of these cases is believed to be currently the subject of an active investigation by the SRA.
      I believe the term for such conduct is ‘robo-claims’ which is against the public interest, demonstrates a disregard for the dignity of the court and is unfair on unrepresented consumers.
      I have reason to believe that this is a claim that will proceed without any facts or evidence supplied until the last possible minute, to my significant detriment as an unrepresented Defendant.

    • The alleged debt as described in the claim are unenforceable penalties, being just the sort of unconscionable charges exposed as offending against the penalty rule, in ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis.
    • This case can be easily distinguished from ParkingEye v Beavis which the Judges held was 'entirely different' from most ordinary economic contract disputes.
      Charges cannot exist merely to punish drivers. This claimant has failed to show any comparable 'legitimate interest' to save their charge from Lord Dunedin's four tests for a penalty, which the Supreme Court Judges found was still adequate in less complex cases, such as this allegation.

    • It is submitted that (apart from properly incurred court fees) any added legal fees/costs are simply numbers made up out of thin air, and are an attempt at double recovery by the Claimant, which would not be recoverable in the small claims court.

    • It is denied that there was any 'relevant obligation' or 'relevant contract' relating to any single parking event.
    • It is denied that the signs used by this claimant can have created a fair or transparent contract with a driver in any event. The signs were insufficient in terms of their distribution, wording and lighting hence incapable of binding the driver, which distinguishes this case from the Beavis case: a)Site/entrance signage – Has been placed within tree branches which would not be visible in the height of Summer when the trees are in full bloom. (Exhibit a) The Defendant was only made aware of these signs when returning to the site in October to take pictures for evidence. The Defendant also notes the sign has not only been placed within the branches of a tree but it is also green and white thus not making it clear to read. The Defendant refers to the Terms and Conditions that are almost unreadable as they are displayed in such small font. Contrary to IPC Code of Practice, Part E, schedule 1 - Signage “Contrast and Illumination, signage - Black text on a white background or white text on a black background will provide a suitable contrast”.
      b) There is no warning on signage that if a charge remains unpaid for a period of 28 days after issue then an application will be made to DVLA for the keeper’s details, contrary to IPC Code of Practice, Part E, Schedule 1 - Signage, Other signs, condition 3.

      c) The signage was not lit and any terms were not transparent or legible; this is an unfair contract, not agreed by the driver and contrary to the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999.
      d) 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.
      e) Absent the elements of a contract, there can be no breach of contract.

      f) The defendant believes the signs have been placed to cause confusion with motorists. BPA Approved Operator Scheme Code of Practice 18.3 ‘You must place signs containing the specific parking terms throughout the sight, so that drivers are given a chance to read them at the time of parking or leaving their vehicle’. The Defendant refers to (Exhibit b) where no signs are visible in a 360 degree turn
    • The Defendant was aware a new machine had been installed in the car park (which is not managed by the claimant) but was not clear which car park the machine related to so brought a ticket and sought clarification. The Defendant sought clarification upon immediately entering the soft play of the Claimants premises. The Defendant was advised by the Claimants employee that parking was free for people using the facilities.
    • The purported contract entered into by the motorist is a simple consumer financial contract. An offer of parking is made in return for payment of a small tariff. The Operator is seeking to impose a charge for breach of contract. The loss for failure to make this payment is easily calculable as that unpaid tariff. Anything in excess is clearly a penalty and unfair contract term
    • The Defendant made an offer of the unpaid tariff without accepting any liability. Which the Defendants believes to be a true representation of costs included.
    • The Defendant does however deny any claim in its entirety voiding any liability to the claimant for all amounts claimed due to the aforementioned reasons

      Statement of Truth: I confirm that the contents of this statement are true to the best of my knowledge and belief
    • KeithP
    • By KeithP 4th Dec 17, 9:34 PM
    • 4,717 Posts
    • 3,041 Thanks
    KeithP
    I'm not sure the court will allow a second attempt at a defence statement without paying them a lot of money.

    Hopefully someone will be able to confirm that, one way or another.
    .
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 4th Dec 17, 9:45 PM
    • 15,841 Posts
    • 24,567 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    My understanding is that it’s £255. A plea as an unrepresented LiP, totally naive about the court procedures might have some sway, but if it’s a wholesale change of direction, then I think this might be tricky.
    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.
    • Lamilad
    • By Lamilad 4th Dec 17, 9:50 PM
    • 1,193 Posts
    • 2,360 Thanks
    Lamilad
    If this is related to your other thread then you should post it on there one issue > one thread! Ask a board guide to merge your threads

    If you have already submitted your defence then you cannot change it without paying the relevant court fee.
    • Illiterateplonker
    • By Illiterateplonker 4th Dec 17, 10:11 PM
    • 13 Posts
    • 3 Thanks
    Illiterateplonker
    Sorry Lamilad, I had Included this question in my original thread however I hadn’t received a response. I shall look into merging them right now as I’m not sure what a board guide is.

    With regards to me defence I had received a ‘general form of judgement’ which states I have 28 days to send an amended defence. My defence is a more ‘professional’ (I think) than my original. However it is still based on the exact same facts.

    I will look into merging them now. Thank you
    • Lamilad
    • By Lamilad 4th Dec 17, 10:21 PM
    • 1,193 Posts
    • 2,360 Thanks
    Lamilad
    With regards to me defence I had received a ‘general form of judgement’ which states I have 28 days to send an amended defence
    A rather important detail to omit? In that case, of course, you can submit another defence.
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 4th Dec 17, 10:25 PM
    • 15,841 Posts
    • 24,567 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    A rather important detail to omit? In that case, of course, you can submit another defence.
    Originally posted by Lamilad
    Thank goodness that’s come out now, this could have consumed significant forum resources in guiding the OP completely down the wrong path.

    A real example of why a new thread about the same case, divorced from background detail, is not acceptable - and one which could have been potentially costly.
    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.
    • Illiterateplonker
    • By Illiterateplonker 4th Dec 17, 10:28 PM
    • 13 Posts
    • 3 Thanks
    Illiterateplonker
    Apologies. This is all new to me. I had up until now never used a forum. (I wish I’d looked into it earlier). I’ve requested somebody to merge my threads. (Thanks for making me aware - I think I’m slowly getting to grips with how it all works now.
    I have read the ‘Newbies’ bible which has been an absolute god send, and pretty interesting actually.
    Are you able to offer any advise on my defence at all.
    The problem I have which is what I’m questioning in my defence is the fact I purchased a ticket initially. I definitely believe I have a case on the signage, but I’m pretty sure, the fact I was verbally told I needn’t have purchased one won’t actually stand up in a court of law.
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

368Posts Today

1,850Users online

Martin's Twitter