Parking eye court claim form

4consumerrights

Quentin wrote: »

(Ask your colleague and workmate and fellow nit picker to explain it to you and save you more embarrassment as your ignorance is being revealed)

I think your ignorance is more forthcoming in this matter..

My colleague as ever is correctly states the facts in a more eloquent manner than I did in this matter.

4consumerrights

Quentin wrote: »

And your colleague and workmate accuses me of "nit-picking"!

You do and you like trolling....

Quentin

4consumerrights wrote: »

My colleague as ever is correctly states the facts in a more eloquent manner than I did in this matter.

Your colleague stated the truth which corrected you!

bargepole wrote: »

... The Judgment is registered as soon as it is made, but if the defendant pays within a month, it is then deleted from the register as if it never existed......

Irrespective of when PE or any successful claimant requests payment to be made by, you have 30 days to do so to avoid the CCJ going on the Register for the next 6 years!

grahamcaley

Guys please.....you've both given me advice and been helpful (although quentin it does seem that if I had just put the simple one line defence that I denied owning them any monies I would be up the proverbial Creek without a paddle!)

I will put my defence as what you said about the hotel manager striking the thing off. (in your Wordage consumer)

I was also going to include about me being a patron.

Should I include the discrepancies with no signage at entry (if I'm not sure,whether they asked the bpa for permission or not)

About the lighting being sub-standard (broken!)

Foliage covering some signs

Any mitigation about me not seeing it therefore not being aware I was bound into a contract

My vision not being 20/20 and having problems with peripheral vision (which cannot be corrected with aids to vision however affecting my ability to drive)

Don't want to get myself tied in knots or include anything they could pounce on.

Thanks

Quentin

grahamcaley wrote: »

..(although quentin it does seem that if I had just put the simple one line defence that I denied owning them any monies I would be up the proverbial Creek without a paddle!) .....

Not so.

But you are stuck in the middle of this choppy sea, and seemingly get other (apparently better) advice "off forum", so wonder what is your objective using this avenue too?

No wonder you are getting confused

grahamcaley

Quentin I think if it gets to court.....this would be a massive point to expand on and maybe your right the judge might hear it.....but apparently you have to pay an extra £50 for more lines of defence....I like your cavalier approach! Would just rather to doing something else than waiting a day of my life for these f@#tards in court....eventhough well it might have been a little of my negligence that it's gone this far....any pointers with the defence peeps....quentin I'd like a more conservative cavalier approach if I haven't miffed you off?

4consumerrights

grahamcaley wrote: »

Quentin I think if it gets to court.....this would be a massive point to expand on and maybe your right the judge might hear it.....but apparently you have to pay an extra £50 for more lines of defence....I like your cavalier approach! Would just rather to doing something else than waiting a day of my life for these f@#tards in court....eventhough well it might have been a little of my negligence that it's gone this far....any pointers with the defence peeps....quentin I'd like a more conservative cavalier approach if I haven't miffed you off?

@ GrahamCaley

I supplied a suggested text for filing which I believe you may have seen?

Naturally, I have now deleted the message to avoid any other prying Eyes.

Quentin

4consumerrights wrote: »

.....Naturally, I have now deleted the message to avoid any other prying Eyes.

Pointless.

You need to be aware that once you post something it goes into the cache for all to see.

You say you have off forum contact with the OP

Why not use it for sensitive "private" stuff?

You tell us that they pay staff to read up what's going on here, so why give them such a definite link to the identity of the OP?

Guys_Dad

Quentin wrote: »

Pointless.

You need to be aware that once you post something it goes into the cache for all to see:

Well that's really helpful to the OP, isn't it? I bet only a minuscule number of MSE contributors (and PPC scouts) knew that.

And now you have displayed it to the world.

Your spiteful feuds with others has hurt the OP who you should be helping.

GREAT WORK QUENTIN - you make trolling seem almost a harmless pastime in comparison.

Be decent for a change - remove that post.

4consumerrights

Quote:
Originally Posted by grahamcaley View Post
..(although quentin it does seem that if I had just put the simple one line defence that I denied owning them any monies I would be up the proverbial Creek without a paddle!) ....

Quentin wrote: »

Not so.

But you are stuck in the middle of this choppy sea, and seemingly get other (apparently better) advice "off forum", so wonder what is your objective using this avenue too?

No wonder you are getting confused

And your advice was so, so helpful to the OP !


Your one liner was considered a load of bollux off forum by respected members of the community.

It is clearly apparent your main intention on the forum and in particular bouncing on threads posted by certain members are clearly visible to be of a trolling effect in the attempt to derail help for the main purpose of this forum.


I ask you again.

What experience have you got personally in assisting motorists with their parking charges.

how many successful appeals have you done?

What experience of court cases have you got?