Not inside the lines

Coupon-mad

The bold is there to draw attention.

The info about how to do the AOS is a dropbox link to page by page screenshots, put together by a leading PPC fighter.

I've never heard it described as complicated. Here's a new poster calling AOS 'a simple form filling exercise' and not only is it simple but we also give you every page & what to put:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81699140/#Comment_81699140

Literally just do the AOS in 5 minutes then move to defence which is 90% copy & paste.

James_Poisson

still_savin said:

 Then I came back here to write this: if this forum is sponsored by parking companies, with the specific goal of confusing drivers so much that they don't know if it's raining or Wednesday, and imtimidating them into paying whatever fee is demanded of them, it's doing a great job. 

Sorry but you have to be joking, this forum is manned on a daily basis by regulars from all walks of life some of whom are even solicitors, that give up their time freely to help others fight this unregulated scam industry.

There are two sham appeals processes that are designed to trip you up and one boasts to prospective members it only allows around 4% of appeals, both "services" are paid for by the PPC's so go figure whose side they endeavour to fall on.

As for your accusation above, how do you propose to rewrite advice about fighting an unregulated scam industry that has by design wrapped itself in complicated terms, conditions, jargon, misinterpretations multiplied by the number of halfwitted individuals running companies sailing very close to the rules.

No the forum has the best private parking advice there is but is made purposely difficult confusing and time consuming by the very scammers that operate in it, don't bite the hand that feeds you it's not their fault.

But the info is there it needs studying.  

Le_Kirk

What is the issue date of the claim form?  If you post it, we will give you the deadline for the AoS and submitting your defence.

still_savin

Issue date was 14 October. I filed the AoS yesterday on MCOL, eventually - you have no choice but to use a Government Gateway ID. I read on one of the threads here that I can't find now that "MCOL should be treated as Read Only once the AoS is filed", so I'm guessing I shouldn't use it to file my defence but not sure why not

ChirpyChicken

No you log your defence on MCOL that changed a few months ago

Nellymoser

The advice changed because the CNBC kept losing emailed defences! You'll see this is explained in the first 2 posts of the Template defence thread (same place as you found the NEWBIES thread).
Note and follow the first 8 steps in the Template defence thread.

Le_Kirk

still_savin said:

Issue date was 14 October. I filed the AoS yesterday on MCOL, eventually - you have no choice but to use a Government Gateway ID. I read on one of the threads here that I can't find now that "MCOL should be treated as Read Only once the AoS is filed", so I'm guessing I shouldn't use it to file my defence but not sure why not

With an issue date of 14/10/25 and having completed the AoS after 19/10/25 and before 02/11/25

your defence deadline date is 4.00 p.m. on 17/11/25 That is advice when defences were submitted by email.  Now, the advice is to file your defence using MCOL, see template defence thread, one of the announcements on first page of forum.

still_savin

Here are my proposed paragraphs 3 and 4 to insert into the Template Defence. I'm not sure whether to put them the other way round? 

3. The alleged breach relates to not parking fully within the bay markings. However, the vehicle was only marginally outside of the bay due to the adjacent space being occupied by a car which had itself encroached across the line. To avoid damage to that vehicle or difficulty exiting, the driver made a practical and reasonable adjustment. The encroachment lasted only 3–4 minutes while collecting a heavy sack of dog food from Pets At Home, and the Claimant's own photograph shows the adjacent car had already left and that the car park was nearly empty, with many spaces available. The sums claimed are wildly disproportionate, and there is no legitimate commercial interest in justifying a penalty-style charge, contrary to what the courts were trying to uphold in Parking Eye v Beavis.

4. In addition, signs indicating conditions of parking were only on alternate rows of bays and not present at all in the row where the driver parked. It is denied that the driver could see one of the signs and agreed to any conditions on it. Where the signs are present, the conditions state "All vehicles must be parked within a marked bay", which implies that the condition only relates to ensuring that vehicles do not park elsewhere on the site other than in bays: it does not make clear that the condition means that no part of a vehicle may be over the edge of any bay, which the claimant now claims in the statement "Not Parked Correctly Within The Markings Of The Bay Or Space". 

still_savin

Here's the sign, but obviously I can't send that with my template defence, it's for the Witness Statement later on

1505grandad

Can you post a picture of the PoC ( Particulars of Claim) on the claim form redacting the VRM.