No stopping Parking Charge at Airport

Rjhsteel

Coupon-mad said:

OMG you aren't trying to pay the Claimant's hearing fee for them, I hope?

Sorry, my mistake. Thought i had to pay the court fee.

Redx

Definitely not , the court orders are copied to Claimant and defendant , same as your paperwork goes to claimant and court

Coupon-mad

Wow, you really need to go back to the drawing board and re-read IMPORTANT - KNOW WHAT HAPPENS WHEN (the red heading and info in the NEWBIES thread 2nd post). 

How on earth does ANYONE think they have to pay money to defend a scam court claim?  You MUST be on top of this, properly.

Rjhsteel

Coupon-mad said:

Wow, you really need to go back to the drawing board and re-read IMPORTANT - KNOW WHAT HAPPENS WHEN (the red heading and info in the NEWBIES thread 2nd post). 

How on earth does ANYONE think they have to pay money to defend a scam court claim?  You MUST be on top of this, properly.

It’s a wonder people ask for help on here with condescending posts like this. 

Redx

It's a simple enough reply from me

Pay a lawyer for legal advice with a legal topic , that is what MSE Martin Lewis would tell you to do

Perhaps that should have been everyone's reply ? This isn't a legal advice forum

You need to remember that this is YOUR problem , not ours

Coupon-mad

It was meant as a wake-up call, to re-read the WHAT HAPPENS WHEN section of the NEWBIES thread because to misread something as fundamental as 'the Claimant must pay the fee' and think you had to pay it (as the Defendant, why would you pay anything to defend an unproven claim?) is more than just misreading an Order.  It showed you need to re-read our guidance. 

I am glad you asked and that we stopped you, but we were shocked, to say the least, that any poster here thought that part of defending a claim involves you paying for the Claimant's hearing.

nosferatu1001

Rjhsteel said:

Coupon-mad said:

Wow, you really need to go back to the drawing board and re-read IMPORTANT - KNOW WHAT HAPPENS WHEN (the red heading and info in the NEWBIES thread 2nd post). 

How on earth does ANYONE think they have to pay money to defend a scam court claim?  You MUST be on top of this, properly.

It’s a wonder people ask for help on here with condescending posts like this. 

It's not condescending. It's asking why you think you have to pay something the Claimant is told to do. It means you've not read the simple court order properly. 

Ralph-y

 court section in newbies thread
.
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/64350585/#Comment_64350585

Ralph

MothballsWallet

Coupon-mad said:

But they are not facing oncoming traffic so drivers would have to stop to read them.   

This sort of no-stopping trap scam was ALSO mentioned by Sir Greg Knight, sponsor of the Bill in 2018:

https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/2018-02-02/debates/CC84AF5E-AC6E-4E14-81B1-066E6A892807/Parking(CodeOfPractice)Bill

Sir Greg Knight:

''I certainly would condemn that, and I will share an example with the House shortly of a similar case that I regard as outrageous.

Today, we have the opportunity to tackle this issue. I know that the worst abuses feature in the emails and postbags of all Members of Parliament. Not only my constituents in East Yorkshire but motorists right across the country are angry and calling for action.

One such motorist is Mr O’Keefe. He was driving in a private industrial estate, searching for a particular outlet that he was having difficulty finding, when he stopped in an empty lay-by for 15 seconds to check his satellite navigation settings. It transpired that he was caught by a passing security van equipped with a camera, and a week later he received a ticket for £100 for stopping in breach of a sign situated further back on the road that he had passed at 30 mph. The parking company agrees with his version of events—it accepts that he was stationary for only about 15 seconds—but when he made a complaint and then appealed to the Independent Appeals Service, he was fobbed off in both cases and he continues to receive threatening letters.''

I only just came back to this thread: the sign in the 2nd photo looks to be too high up for someone to read from a car, stationary or moving (my guess is a height of at least 6 feet off the ground).

Rjhsteel

Rjhsteel said:

By adding the Beavis sign I’m giving an example of what a clear sign should be right?
Playing devils advocate, wouldn’t you say these signs are clear?