PCN advise before submitting claim

Coupon-mad

I agree, it is pointless saying you are not liable as keeper, unless the signage was so poor that you can argue there was no 'adequate notice of the parking charge' and no 'relevant contract or relevant obligation' (POFA re-requisites) that the driver had a fair opportunity to learn about.

I think that should be your approach to this defence, surely, because what you've written at the moment sounds like unnecessary fly parking and not looking for signs.  Why do people seek out private car parks when they can park on street for brief stops and errands.  This drives me mad! 

Use the street parking or even a double or single yellow for dropping people off or stopping due to illness, as well as loading/unloading, all of which are exempt from PCNs from Councils and they can't issue PCNs from cameras, either.  Use roadways; it's what the kerb, bays and even yellow lines are for.  Please forget car parks, you do not need a car park to stop a car.

Redx

In simple terms , the claimant has complied with an 8.5 year old law named POFA , so as keeper you are liable for the actions of your vehicle. The Beavis case made Barry liable for the same reasons , driver or not !!

So you cannot hide behind POFA and win on POFA , so pointless adding it to the DEFENCE

You defend as keeper based on poor and inadequate signage , no landowner authority , the CRA 2015 etc ( but not POFA ). Use points that may win , not points that are irrelevant

12b3

I hvae taken on board the advise and done the below draft , please provide feedback , looks like at this point in time it doesn't matter who was driving , I can provide evidence (through my phone location data) that I the registerd keeper wasn't present at the location of the date and time the allaged offence took place , will that be of any use ? 
I need to submit this via email before 1600 BST today so please let me know if ok to proceed with the below or anything else can be added: 

IN THE COUNTY COURT

Claim No.: 

Between

(Civil Enforcement Ltd) 

(Claimant) 

- and -  

                

 (Defendant)

____________________

DEFENCE

____________________

1.       The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.  It is denied that a contract was entered into - by conduct or otherwise - whereby it was ‘agreed’ to pay a ‘parking charge’ and it is denied that this Claimant (understood to have a bare licence as managers) has standing to sue, nor to form contracts in their own name at the location.

The facts as known to the Defendant:

2.       It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle in question but liability is denied. 

3.  . This demand of payment first came to the Defendant’s attention through a letter in the post sent to the  Defendant as  registered keeper. 

4. The charge is disputed on the grounds that  The signage in this car park does not comply with the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice. Wording is not conspicuous, clear or legible and there is insufficient emphasis of the parking charge itself to bring it to the attention of the motorist.

It is submitted that there was no contract or agreement on the parking charge since the driver did not have a fair opportunity to read about any terms or conditions relating to it. Furthermore, The automated phone message gave no mention whatsoever of “Terms and Conditions”, or that an incorrect vehicle registration could invoke a Parking Charge. The driver was in the location due to a medical emergency of a pregnant passanger being unwell and this needs tobe taken into account  they did not have any intention to park or use the space as allaged by the claimant. 

Within section 18.1 of the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice it states as follows: “You must use signs to make it easy for them to find out what your terms and conditions are.”

 

Section 18.3 states that signs showing terms and conditions should be at least 450 mm x 450 mm.

 Although the signs in the Frimley car park are 600 mm high by 500 mm wide, the majority of the sign is taken up explaining the parking fees and the method of payment.

 

The section of the sign devoted to terms and conditions (including the notification of the parking charge) is only 160 mm high by 500 mm wide and the font is a tiny ¼ inch (6 mm) high, thin, white lettering against a blue background. The charge is totally inconspicuous to motorists, even when they stand directly in front of the sign 3 feet away from it. From inside a vehicle, parked directly in front of it, the terms and conditions including the parking charge are not readable at all.

 

The principle that a particularly onerous term in a contract, such as the £100 charge, should be explicitly brought to the attention of the motorist, is explained by application of Lord Denning’s so called “RED HAND RULE”, the origin for which is to be found in Spurling v Bradshaw Ltd, where Lord Denning said:

 

“The more unreasonable a clause is, the greater the notice which must be given of it. Some clauses would need to be printed in red ink with a red hand pointing to it before the notice could be held to be sufficient.”

 5. The Defendant questions the operator’s authority to operate on the land. The landowner is not identified on the signage

 

The entry sign does not state the name of the landowner. There is no evidence that the operator has sufficient landowner authority to carry out car parking management on the land in compliance with the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice.

 

Section 7.1 of the BPA Code of Practice outlines to operators, “If you do not own the land on which you are carrying out parking management, you must have the written authorisation of the landowner (or their appointed agent) before you can start operating on the land in question. The authorisation must give you the authority to carry out all the aspects of the management and enforcement of the site that you are responsible for. In particular, it must say that the landowner requires you to keep to the Code of Practice and that either you have the authority to pursue outstanding parking charges, through the courts if necessary, or that you have the authority to pursue outstanding parking charges and, with their permission, through the courts if necessary.”

 

As this operator does not have proprietary interest in the land then the Defendant requires that they produce for inspection a copy of the contract with the landowner.

 

6.  The Particulars of Claim set out an incoherent statement of case and the quantum has been enhanced in excess of any sum hidden in small print on the signage that the Claimant may be relying upon.  Claiming ‘costs/damages’ on an indemnity basis is stated to be unfair in the Unfair Contract Terms Guidance, CMA37, para 5.14.3.  That is the official Government guidance on the Consumer Rights Act 2015 ('CRA 2015') legislation which must be considered, given the duty in s71.  The Defendant avers that the CRA 2015 has been breached due to unfair terms and/or unclear notices (signs), pursuant to s62 and with regard to the requirements for transparency and good faith, and paying regard to examples 6, 10, 14 and 18 in Sch2.  NB: this is different from the UTCCRs considered by the Supreme Court, in that there is now a requirement for contract terms and notices to be fair.

7.       It is denied that the exaggerated sum sought is recoverable.  The Defendant's position is that this moneyclaim is in part/wholly a penalty, applying the authority in ParkingEye cases (ref: paras 98, 100, 193, 198) ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 and para 419 of HHJ Hegarty’s High Court decision in ParkingEye Ltd v Somerfield Stores Ltd ChD [2011] EWHC 4023(QB) where the parking charge was set at £75 (discounted to £37.50 for prompt payment) then increasing ultimately to £135.  Much like the situation in this claim, the business model involved sending a series of automated demands to the keeper.  At para 419, HHJ Hegarty found that adding £60 to an already increased parking charge 'would appear to be penal' and unrecoverable.  ParkingEye had dropped this punitive enhancement by the time of Mr Beavis' famous parking event.

8.       Even if the Claimant had shown the global sum claimed in the largest font on clear and prominent signs - which is denied - they are attempting double recovery of the cost of their standard automated letter-chain.  It is denied that the Claimants have expended additional costs for the same letters that the Beavis case decision held were a justification for the (already increased from the discount) parking charge sum of £85.  

9.  The Claimant cannot be heard to base its charge on the Beavis case, then add damages for automated letter costs; not even if letters were issued by unregulated 'debt recovery' third parties.  It is known that parking firms have been misleading the courts with an appeal at Salisbury Court (the Semark-Jullien case) where the Judge merely reset an almost undefended case back for a hearing.  He indicated to Judges for future cases how to consider the CRA 2015 properly and he rightly remarked that the Beavis case was not one that included additional 'costs' per se, but he made no finding of fact about the illegality of adding the same 'automated letter costs' twice.  He was not taken by either party to Somerfield in point #5 above and in any event it is worth noting that the lead Southampton case of Britannia v Crosby was not appealed.  It is averred that District Judge Grand's rationale remains sound, as long as a court has sufficient facts to properly consider the CRA 2015 s62, 63 and 67 before turning to consider the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Sch4 ('the POFA').

10.  Pursuant to Sch4 of the POFA at 4(5), the sum claimed exceeds the maximum potentially recoverable from a registered keeper, even in cases where a parking firm has complied with its other requirements (denied in this case).  It is worth noting that even though the driver was known in Beavis, the Supreme Court considered the POFA, given that it was the only legislation specifically dealing with parking on private land.  There is now also the Parking (Code of Practice) Act 2019 with a new, more robust and statutory Code of Practice being introduced shortly, which evolved because the two Trade Bodies have failed to properly govern this industry.

 

The ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 case is distinguished

11.       Unlike in this case, ParkingEye demonstrated a commercial justification for their £85 private PCN, which included all operational costs, and they were able to overcome the real possibility of the charge being dismissed as punitive and unrecoverable.  However, their Lordships were very clear that ‘the penalty rule is plainly engaged’ in such cases.  

12.       Their decision was specific to what was stated to be a unique set of facts: the legitimate interest/commercial justification, the car park location and prominent and clear signs with the parking charge itself in the largest/boldest text.  The unintended consequence is that, rather than persuade courts considering other cases that all parking charges are automatically justified, the Beavis case facts and pleadings (and in particular, the brief and very conspicuous yellow/black signs) set a high bar that this Claimant has failed to reach.

13.   Without the Beavis case to support the claim and no alternative calculation of loss/damage, this claim must fail.  Paraphrasing from the Supreme Court, deterrence is likely to be penal if there is a lack of an overriding legitimate interest in performance extending beyond the prospect of compensation flowing directly from the alleged breach.  

14.   The Supreme Court held that the intention cannot be to punish a motorist - nor to present them with concealed pitfalls, traps, hidden terms or unfair/unexpected obligations - and nor can the operator claim an unconscionable sum. In the present case, the Claimant has fallen foul of the tests in Beavis.

15.       The Claimant’s signs have vague/hidden terms and a mix of small font, such that they would be considered incapable of binding any person reading them under common contract law, and would also be considered void pursuant to Sch2 of the CRA.  Consequently, it is the Defendant’s position that no contract to pay an onerous penalty was seen, known or agreed.

16.   Binding Court of Appeal authorities which are on all fours with a case involving unclear terms and a lack of ‘adequate notice’ of an onerous parking charge, would include:

(i)                 Spurling v Bradshaw [1956] 1 WLR 461 (the ‘red hand rule’ case) and

(ii)                Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking Ltd  [1970] EWCA Civ 2,

both leading authorities confirming that an unseen/hidden clause cannot be incorporated after a contract has been concluded; and

(ii)                 Vine v London Borough of Waltham Forest: CA 5 Apr 2000,

where the Court of Appeal held that it was unsurprising that the Defendant did not see the sign ''in view of the absence of any notice on the wall opposite the southern parking space''.  In many cases where parking firm Claimants have cited Vine in their template witness statements, they have misled courts by quoting out of context from Roch LJ, whose words related to the Respondent’s losing case, and not from the ratio.  To pre-empt that, in fact Miss Vine won because it was held as a fact that she was not afforded a fair opportunity to learn of the terms by which she would be bound.

17.   Fairness and clarity are paramount in the new statutory CoP being finalised by the MHCLG and this stance is supported by the BPA and IPC alike. In the November 2020 issue of Parking Review, solicitor Will Hurley, the Chief Executive of the IPC Trade Body, observed:  'Any regulation or instruction either has clarity or it doesn’t. If it’s clear to one person but not another, there is no clarity. The same is true for fairness. Something that is fair, by definition, has to be all-inclusive of all parties involved – it’s either fair or it isn’t. The introduction of a new ‘Code of Practice for Parking’ provides a wonderful opportunity to provide clarity and fairness for motorists and landowners alike."   The Defendant's position is that the signs and terms the Claimant is relying upon were not clear, and were in fact, unfair and the Beavis case is fully distinguished.

 

18.  In the alternative, the Claimant is also put to strict proof, by means of contemporaneous and unredacted evidence, of a chain of authority flowing from the landholder of the relevant land to the Claimant.  It is not accepted that the Claimant has adhered to the landholder's definitions, exemptions, grace period, hours of operation, etc. and any instructions to cancel charges due to complaints.  There is no evidence that the freeholder authorises this Claimant to issue parking charges or what the land enforcement boundary and start/expiry dates are, nor whether this Claimant has standing to enforce such charges by means of civil litigation in their own name rather than a bare licence to act as an agent ‘on behalf of’ the landowner.

 

In the matter of costs, the Defendant seeks:

19.   (a) standard witness costs for attendance at Court, pursuant to CPR 27.14, and

(b) that any hearing is not vacated but continues as a costs hearing, in the event of a late Notice of Discontinuance.  The Defendant seeks a finding of unreasonable behaviour in the pre-and post-action phases by this Claimant, and will seek further costs pursuant to CPR 46.5.

20.   The Defendant invites the court to find that this exaggerated claim is entirely without merit and to dismiss the claim. 

Statement of Truth

I believe that the facts stated in this defence are true.  I understand that proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against anyone who makes, or causes to be made, a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth.

Defendant’s signature:

Date:

Le_Kirk

You need to number every paragraph.

12b3

Le_Kirk said:

You need to number every paragraph.

done:
Anyone has any comments on the defense , or good to submit ? 

IN THE COUNTY COURT

Claim No.: 

Between

(Civil Enforcement Ltd) 

(Claimant) 

- and -  

                      

 (Defendant)

____________________

DEFENCE

____________________

1.       The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.  It is denied that a contract was entered into - by conduct or otherwise - whereby it was ‘agreed’ to pay a ‘parking charge’ and it is denied that this Claimant (understood to have a bare licence as managers) has standing to sue, nor to form contracts in their own name at the location.

2.       It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle in question but liability is denied. 

3.  . This demand of payment first came to the Defendant’s attention through a letter in the post sent to the  Defendant as  registered keeper. The driver has not been identified.

4. The charge is disputed on the grounds that  The signage in this car park does not comply with the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice. Wording is not conspicuous, clear or legible and there is insufficient emphasis of the parking charge itself to bring it to the attention of the motorist

5.It is submitted that there was no contract or agreement on the parking charge since the driver did not have a fair opportunity to read about any terms or conditions relating to it. Furthermore, The automated phone message gave no mention whatsoever of “Terms and Conditions”, or that an incorrect vehicle registration could invoke a Parking Charge.

6.Within section 18.1 of the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice it states as follows: “You must use signs to make it easy for them to find out what your terms and conditions are.”Section 18.3 states that signs showing terms and conditions should be at least 450 mm x 450 mm.Although the signs in the Frimley car park are 600 mm high by 500 mm wide, the majority of the sign is taken up explaining the parking fees and the method of payment.

 

7.The section of the sign devoted to terms and conditions (including the notification of the parking charge) is only 160 mm high by 500 mm wide and the font is a tiny ¼ inch (6 mm) high, thin, white lettering against a blue background. The charge is totally inconspicuous to motorists, even when they stand directly in front of the sign 3 feet away from it. From inside a vehicle, parked directly in front of it, the terms and conditions including the parking charge are not readable at all.

8.The principle that a particularly onerous term in a contract, such as the £100 charge, should be explicitly brought to the attention of the motorist, is explained by application of Lord Denning’s so called “RED HAND RULE”, the origin for which is to be found in Spurling v Bradshaw Ltd, where Lord Denning said:

“The more unreasonable a clause is, the greater the notice which must be given of it. Some clauses would need to be printed in red ink with a red hand pointing to it before the notice could be held to be sufficient.”

 9. The Defendant questions the operator’s authority to operate on the land. The landowner is not identified on the signage

The entry sign does not state the name of the landowner. There is no evidence that the operator has sufficient landowner authority to carry out car parking management on the land in compliance with the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice.Section 7.1 of the BPA Code of Practice outlines to operators, “If you do not own the land on which you are carrying out parking management, you must have the written authorisation of the landowner (or their appointed agent) before you can start operating on the land in question. The authorisation must give you the authority to carry out all the aspects of the management and enforcement of the site that you are responsible for. In particular, it must say that the landowner requires you to keep to the Code of Practice and that either you have the authority to pursue outstanding parking charges, through the courts if necessary, or that you have the authority to pursue outstanding parking charges and, with their permission, through the courts if necessary.” As this operator does not have proprietary interest in the land then the Defendant requires that they produce for inspection a copy of the contract with the landowner.

 

10.  The Particulars of Claim set out an incoherent statement of case and the quantum has been enhanced in excess of any sum hidden in small print on the signage that the Claimant may be relying upon.  Claiming ‘costs/damages’ on an indemnity basis is stated to be unfair in the Unfair Contract Terms Guidance, CMA37, para 5.14.3.  That is the official Government guidance on the Consumer Rights Act 2015 ('CRA 2015') legislation which must be considered, given the duty in s71.  The Defendant avers that the CRA 2015 has been breached due to unfair terms and/or unclear notices (signs), pursuant to s62 and with regard to the requirements for transparency and good faith, and paying regard to examples 6, 10, 14 and 18 in Sch2.  NB: this is different from the UTCCRs considered by the Supreme Court, in that there is now a requirement for contract terms and notices to be fair.

11.   It is denied that the exaggerated sum sought is recoverable.  The Defendant's position is that this moneyclaim is in part/wholly a penalty, applying the authority in ParkingEye cases (ref: paras 98, 100, 193, 198) ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 and para 419 of HHJ Hegarty’s High Court decision in ParkingEye Ltd v Somerfield Stores Ltd ChD [2011] EWHC 4023(QB) where the parking charge was set at £75 (discounted to £37.50 for prompt payment) then increasing ultimately to £135.  Much like the situation in this claim, the business model involved sending a series of automated demands to the keeper.  At para 419, HHJ Hegarty found that adding £60 to an already increased parking charge 'would appear to be penal' and unrecoverable.  ParkingEye had dropped this punitive enhancement by the time of Mr Beavis' famous parking event.

12.       Even if the Claimant had shown the global sum claimed in the largest font on clear and prominent signs - which is denied - they are attempting double recovery of the cost of their standard automated letter-chain.  It is denied that the Claimants have expended additional costs for the same letters that the Beavis case decision held were a justification for the (already increased from the discount) parking charge sum of £85.  

13.  The Claimant cannot be heard to base its charge on the Beavis case, then add damages for automated letter costs; not even if letters were issued by unregulated 'debt recovery' third parties.  It is known that parking firms have been misleading the courts with an appeal at Salisbury Court (the Semark-Jullien case) where the Judge merely reset an almost undefended case back for a hearing.  He indicated to Judges for future cases how to consider the CRA 2015 properly and he rightly remarked that the Beavis case was not one that included additional 'costs' per se, but he made no finding of fact about the illegality of adding the same 'automated letter costs' twice.  He was not taken by either party to Somerfield in point #5 above and in any event it is worth noting that the lead Southampton case of Britannia v Crosby was not appealed.  It is averred that District Judge Grand's rationale remains sound, as long as a court has sufficient facts to properly consider the CRA 2015 s62, 63 and 67 before turning to consider the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Sch4 ('the POFA').

14.  Pursuant to Sch4 of the POFA at 4(5), the sum claimed exceeds the maximum potentially recoverable from a registered keeper, even in cases where a parking firm has complied with its other requirements (denied in this case).  It is worth noting that even though the driver was known in Beavis, the Supreme Court considered the POFA, given that it was the only legislation specifically dealing with parking on private land.  There is now also the Parking (Code of Practice) Act 2019 with a new, more robust and statutory Code of Practice being introduced shortly, which evolved because the two Trade Bodies have failed to properly govern this industry.

 

The ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 case is distinguished

15.       Unlike in this case, ParkingEye demonstrated a commercial justification for their £85 private PCN, which included all operational costs, and they were able to overcome the real possibility of the charge being dismissed as punitive and unrecoverable.  However, their Lordships were very clear that ‘the penalty rule is plainly engaged’ in such cases.  

16.       Their decision was specific to what was stated to be a unique set of facts: the legitimate interest/commercial justification, the car park location and prominent and clear signs with the parking charge itself in the largest/boldest text.  The unintended consequence is that, rather than persuade courts considering other cases that all parking charges are automatically justified, the Beavis case facts and pleadings (and in particular, the brief and very conspicuous yellow/black signs) set a high bar that this Claimant has failed to reach.

17.   Without the Beavis case to support the claim and no alternative calculation of loss/damage, this claim must fail.  Paraphrasing from the Supreme Court, deterrence is likely to be penal if there is a lack of an overriding legitimate interest in performance extending beyond the prospect of compensation flowing directly from the alleged breach.  

18.   The Supreme Court held that the intention cannot be to punish a motorist - nor to present them with concealed pitfalls, traps, hidden terms or unfair/unexpected obligations - and nor can the operator claim an unconscionable sum. In the present case, the Claimant has fallen foul of the tests in Beavis.

19.       The Claimant’s signs have vague/hidden terms and a mix of small font, such that they would be considered incapable of binding any person reading them under common contract law, and would also be considered void pursuant to Sch2 of the CRA.  Consequently, it is the Defendant’s position that no contract to pay an onerous penalty was seen, known or agreed.

20.   Binding Court of Appeal authorities which are on all fours with a case involving unclear terms and a lack of ‘adequate notice’ of an onerous parking charge, would include:

(i)                 Spurling v Bradshaw [1956] 1 WLR 461 (the ‘red hand rule’ case) and

(ii)                Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking Ltd  [1970] EWCA Civ 2,

both leading authorities confirming that an unseen/hidden clause cannot be incorporated after a contract has been concluded; and

(ii)                 Vine v London Borough of Waltham Forest: CA 5 Apr 2000,

where the Court of Appeal held that it was unsurprising that the Defendant did not see the sign ''in view of the absence of any notice on the wall opposite the southern parking space''.  In many cases where parking firm Claimants have cited Vine in their template witness statements, they have misled courts by quoting out of context from Roch LJ, whose words related to the Respondent’s losing case, and not from the ratio.  To pre-empt that, in fact Miss Vine won because it was held as a fact that she was not afforded a fair opportunity to learn of the terms by which she would be bound.

21.   Fairness and clarity are paramount in the new statutory CoP being finalised by the MHCLG and this stance is supported by the BPA and IPC alike. In the November 2020 issue of Parking Review, solicitor Will Hurley, the Chief Executive of the IPC Trade Body, observed:  'Any regulation or instruction either has clarity or it doesn’t. If it’s clear to one person but not another, there is no clarity. The same is true for fairness. Something that is fair, by definition, has to be all-inclusive of all parties involved – it’s either fair or it isn’t. The introduction of a new ‘Code of Practice for Parking’ provides a wonderful opportunity to provide clarity and fairness for motorists and landowners alike."   The Defendant's position is that the signs and terms the Claimant is relying upon were not clear, and were in fact, unfair and the Beavis case is fully distinguished.

22.  In the alternative, the Claimant is also put to strict proof, by means of contemporaneous and unredacted evidence, of a chain of authority flowing from the landholder of the relevant land to the Claimant.  It is not accepted that the Claimant has adhered to the landholder's definitions, exemptions, grace period, hours of operation, etc. and any instructions to cancel charges due to complaints.  There is no evidence that the freeholder authorises this Claimant to issue parking charges or what the land enforcement boundary and start/expiry dates are, nor whether this Claimant has standing to enforce such charges by means of civil litigation in their own name rather than a bare licence to act as an agent ‘on behalf of’ the landowner.

In the matter of costs, the Defendant seeks:

23.   (a) standard witness costs for attendance at Court, pursuant to CPR 27.14, and

(b) that any hearing is not vacated but continues as a costs hearing, in the event of a late Notice of Discontinuance.  The Defendant seeks a finding of unreasonable behaviour in the pre-and post-action phases by this Claimant, and will seek further costs pursuant to CPR 46.5.

24.   The Defendant invites the court to find that this exaggerated claim is entirely without merit and to dismiss the claim. 

 

 

Statement of Truth

I believe that the facts stated in this defence are true.  I understand that proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against anyone who makes, or causes to be made, a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth.

Defendant’s signature:

Date:

Redx

In 2 , add a sentence stating that the defendant was not the driver at the time and has evidence of being at another location when the event occurred

Your problem is that the claimant can use POFA to show that you !!!!!! keeper are liable , your vehicle , your problem !!

12b3

Ok thanks I am adding that anyways and submitting it now , let's see where this goes from here on.

12b3

Hello all posting here because there has been a devleopment in this case , I received a Direction questioare (N180) form from County court whihc I have filled using the guid on

 https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/71763411#Comment_71763411

I have read here  that this needs to be emailed to one or all of the following emails ? Not sure about which one to use for my case so any steer from the memebers will be appreciated.

CCBCAQ@Justice.gov.uk

moneyclaims@justice.gov.uk

ccbcfees@justice.gov.uk

caps@justice.gov.uk

tec@justice.gov.uk

ccbc@justice.gov.uk

Also in the 1st link above it says I have to send a copy to the Claimant as well, In my case that would be Civil Enforcment Ltd , does anyone know of an email for them that I can send this to or do I have to send it by Post ? Didn't find any email address  on their site https://www.ce-service.co.uk/

Many thanks 

Regards

Coupon-mad

Somewhere we have CEL emails, so have a look on other CEL court threads from earlier this year.

The email addy you use for the CCBC is the same one you used to submit your defence.  THEN (AFTER DQ!) YOU NEVER USE IT AGAIN BECAUSE THE CASE WILL BE ALLOCATED LOCALLY.

But don't leave this forum for 2 months (like you just did before) because we need you soon, please join us in something important!

Please do us and yourself (and the driving public) a favour and stick around on this forum every week - at least for the Summer - to ensure you see when the Government publish and open the final Technical Consultation.

We will be talking about it and the public will have about 4 weeks we think, to tell the MHCLG what you think about the level of parking charges, that the MHCLG has admirably decided already will start at £50 (50% discount) and not £100:

Outcome of 2020 Consultation (look what the public comments achieved so far):

https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/parking-code-enforcement-framework/outcome/parking-code-enforcement-framework-consultation-response

Planned Summer 2021 additional Public Consultation:

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/government-to-open-technical-consultation-on-fairer-parking-charges

It's not open yet but please keep check here to see when it is. 

We need real people like you to counter the spamming that happened last time from the industry.

KeithP

12b3 said:

Hello all posting here because there has been a devleopment in this case , I received a Direction questioare (N180) form from County court whihc I have filled using the guid on

 https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/71763411#Comment_71763411

I have read here  that this needs to be emailed to one or all of the following emails ? Not sure about which one to use for my case so any steer from the memebers will be appreciated.

CCBCAQ@Justice.gov.uk

moneyclaims@justice.gov.uk

ccbcfees@justice.gov.uk

caps@justice.gov.uk

tec@justice.gov.uk

ccbc@justice.gov.uk

Also in the 1st link above it says I have to send a copy to the Claimant as well, In my case that would be Civil Enforcment Ltd , does anyone know of an email for them that I can send this to or do I have to send it by Post ? Didn't find any email address  on their site https://www.ce-service.co.uk/

Many thanks 

Regards

In that list of instructions you were following when you filed your Defence it says...

Is that not clear?

Please suggest how that guidance can be improved.