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
    • azz007
    • By azz007 16th Nov 17, 6:39 PM
    • 134Posts
    • 27Thanks
    azz007
    Minster baywatch pcn
    • #1
    • 16th Nov 17, 6:39 PM
    Minster baywatch pcn 16th Nov 17 at 6:39 PM
    2 postal PCN from Minster Baywatch as being parked on a Mecca Bingo Car park on two occasions 24th Oct and 02 Nov 2017.

    these are monitored now with ANPR cameras .

    Now as keeper have 2 PCN and wrote a Without Prejudice Letter to hoefuly work to bring the matter to a close if they accecpt. as keeper will sent a letter via post with a cheque.


    This is what i have so far, i think maybe i should remove point 2, as ive read this no longer works??
    any thoughts , ammendants or things to add will be appreciated. see below

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    17/11/2017
    Without Prejudice

    Dear Sirs,

    I write further to your recent correspondences as the Keeper relating to the Parking Charges issued by yourselves. (See attached).
    Parking Charge Number 1: 12345
    Parking Charge Number 2: 12345

    I am challenging your parking charge dated 24/10/2017 & 02/11/2017) on the following grounds:
    1.

    2. The large sum demanded amounts to a penalty and/or is not an accurate reflection of any loss suffered so it is not a reasonable charge. Your monetary claim is disproportionate, punitive and unjustifiable in total. It may also be an unfair term and therefore in breach of Schedule 2 of the Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999.
    Please provide a breakdown of how your demanded charge is calculated so that I can consider further whether it amounts to a penalty as the charge that you are levying is punitive and therefore void against me. The charge of £100 is arbitrary and in no way proportionate to any alleged breach of contract. Nor does it even equate to local council charges.
    3. You were using an ANPR camera system but this has evidently not been advertised on the signage with prominence and not seen by the driver.
    4. Having examined your PCN I believe it is non-compliant demand for payment. Your notice in the text refers to being a PCN. This term is attributed to a penalty charge notice issued by a local authority. It is therefore easily confused with a statutory penalty charge notice. The BPA is clear in its rules that such abbreviations and terms are not permissible.

    As a gesture of goodwill and to bring the matter to a swift and amicable conclusion, I am offering you on a without prejudice basis only, the sum of £10.00 for both alleged breaches in full and final settlement of all claims you have against the Keeper. This should enable you to cover the costs of obtaining the vehicle details and your alleged loss of income you may have suffered arising from the alleged contract. I should point out that if you bank or negotiate this cheque this will be taken as your acceptance of the offer which cannot be retracted under any circumstance.

    If you choose to reject my offer to settle this matter and wish to pursue this matter through the courts then I shall bring to the Court!!!8217;s attention this letter.

    Yours Faithfully,

    PRINT NAME

    any feedback appreciated, i dont really want to ignore this one as ive already ignored another one i got from ECP in August and at the 2nd DRP+ LETTER stage.
    Last edited by azz007; 17-11-2017 at 11:02 AM.
Page 3
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 29th Nov 17, 11:41 AM
    • 17,593 Posts
    • 27,808 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    I thought it was first submitting the appeal , then POPLA and the PPC do the stuff behind the scene/review and then i get the decision/response from POPLA about if it was successful or unsuccessful

    if unsuccessful - i get it with their evidence pack.etc and take it from there,
    Originally posted by azz007
    Nope. Read my advice.
    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.
    • nosferatu1001
    • By nosferatu1001 29th Nov 17, 11:45 AM
    • 2,491 Posts
    • 3,038 Thanks
    nosferatu1001
    No, you get a chance to rebut before the decision. As it states in the newbies thread
    • azz007
    • By azz007 29th Nov 17, 11:52 AM
    • 134 Posts
    • 27 Thanks
    azz007
    Nope. Read my advice.
    Originally posted by Umkomaas
    So going back to my OP, as keeper received 2 PCNS , and one of the appeals on MINSTER website wasn't working for the one issued 24/10/17 (said i had 29 days to respond starting from 2 working days after issue date). Instead so i emailed them the appeal with the blue template on the 22nd Nov. Got the auto response saying they will review and get back to me 3 working days.

    now yesterday i revived the 2nd letter ,issued 22/11/17 for the one i emailed appeal, demanding £155(additional £55). They have discarded my emailed appeal by looks if it or not noticed it, and i have not received a response yet or any POPLA code for it. Yet thier system has just generated the robotic letter to be sent out.

    What should i do?
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 29th Nov 17, 11:55 AM
    • 17,593 Posts
    • 27,808 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    What should i do?
    Complain to the BPA and copy the complaint to the DVLA. Email addresses in the NEWBIES FAQ sticky.
    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.
    • azz007
    • By azz007 29th Nov 17, 12:12 PM
    • 134 Posts
    • 27 Thanks
    azz007
    Complain to the BPA and copy the complaint to the DVLA. Email addresses in the NEWBIES FAQ sticky.
    Originally posted by Umkomaas

    should i email steve direct at steve.c@britishparking.co.uk & CC dvla
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 29th Nov 17, 12:18 PM
    • 17,593 Posts
    • 27,808 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    should i email steve direct at steve.c@britishparking.co.uk & CC dvla
    Originally posted by azz007
    Why not, if that is the address in the sticky?
    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.
    • azz007
    • By azz007 29th Nov 17, 12:48 PM
    • 134 Posts
    • 27 Thanks
    azz007
    Why not, if that is the address in the sticky?
    Originally posted by Umkomaas
    Hows this

    To:steve.c@britishparking.co.uk
    CC:ccrt@dvla.gsi.gov.uk


    Dear Sirs,

    MINSTER BAYWATCH PCN ######. Issued Date 24/10/207.

    I appealed the above PCN as the Vehicle Keeper directly within 29 days as stated to Minster Baywatch Email address : (appeals@minsterbaywatch.co.uk) and received the automatic response (see at footer of this email) that this would get reviewed in 3 working days. However, I haven!!!8217;t had any rejection of the appeal nor a POPLA code.

    Instead they have sent out another letter demanding payment of £155(additional £55) to be paid by 06/12/17 or further action will be taken.


    As I understand it, the British Parking Association has a Code of Practice which clearly states:

    the following practices may be considered as Code breaches and must not be continued:
    !!!8226; Asking the motorist to enter into additional correspondence to obtain a POPLA code
    !!!8226; Failing to include a correct and/or valid POPLA Code within the Rejection correspondence
    !!!8226; Issuing a POPLA Code with a date identifier which is significantly different from the date of rejection
    !!!8226; Appearing to indicate that the issue of a POPLA Code is conditional on driver details being supplied !!!8220;
    The breach of this code is a breach of the KADOE (Keeper of a Vehicle at the Date of an Event using an Electronic Service) contract.

    This complaint is a complaint about a breach of the KADOE contract, this is in the DVLA!!!8217;s remit and as such it must be dealt with by DVLA and not by a third party.


    This matter has been escalated to the CCR team because I have no confidence in the data release team to take such a complaint seriously as it's in the public domain that they have dismissed these issues far too many times recently without so much as even supplying a copy of the DVLA complaints procedure leaflet.

    If my complaint is not resolved properly my intention is to involve my MP and to refer the issue to the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman.


    To summarise, my complaint is specifically about Minster Baywatch breaching the KADOE contract. I know it is not your responsibility to monitor parking companies and nor am I asking you to do so. Rather, I am informing the DVLA of a breach of the KADOE contract to which the DVLA is a party, and I would like to know what action the DVLA is going take.

    So either this PCN gets cancelled or I am to be issued with a POPLA code.


    Yours faithfully
    Last edited by azz007; 29-11-2017 at 12:51 PM.
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 29th Nov 17, 1:09 PM
    • 17,593 Posts
    • 27,808 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    I appealed the above PCN as the Vehicle Keeper directly within 29 days as stated to Minster Baywatch Email address :
    Does it state 29 days in their NtK? It!!!8217;s normally 28. Check it carefully, otherwise the BPA might argue you!!!8217;ve appealed outside the time limit - don!!!8217;t expose yourself to being a hostage to fortune.

    Otherwise it all looks ok.
    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.
    • azz007
    • By azz007 29th Nov 17, 2:00 PM
    • 134 Posts
    • 27 Thanks
    azz007
    Does it state 29 days in their NtK? It!!!8217;s normally 28. Check it carefully, otherwise the BPA might argue you!!!8217;ve appealed outside the time limit - don!!!8217;t expose yourself to being a hostage to fortune.

    Otherwise it all looks ok.
    Originally posted by Umkomaas

    it does say on the letter i have 29 days to respond or pay in full

    see letter here . i dont have the back side of letter to hand,

    hxxps://www.dropbox.com/sh/0vgcayxy572un3q/AAAhq1nOh5dYpp7tgT0OJ5pqa?dl=0


    but i suspect you maybe right about appealing within 28 days starting from issue date 24/10. So i might have missed the window by 1 day.

    Il jsut take the 29 days part out of the email and send it. would that be ok and see what happens?
    Last edited by azz007; 29-11-2017 at 2:14 PM.
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 29th Nov 17, 3:39 PM
    • 17,593 Posts
    • 27,808 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    Il jsut take the 29 days part out of the email and send it. would that be ok and see what happens?
    If it!!!8217;s ok with you, then go with it and just see what happens.
    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.
    • azz007
    • By azz007 29th Nov 17, 4:35 PM
    • 134 Posts
    • 27 Thanks
    azz007
    If it!!!8217;s ok with you, then go with it and just see what happens.
    Originally posted by Umkomaas
    Sent the email. got a reply in 5 minutes directly from Steve Clark, Head of Business operations that one of his managers will look into this for me .

    i dont think his direct email in in the NEWBIES thread, maybe worth adding
    steve.c@britishparking.co.uk

    Just a waiting game now,
    Last edited by azz007; 29-11-2017 at 4:44 PM.
    • azz007
    • By azz007 5th Dec 17, 9:39 AM
    • 134 Posts
    • 27 Thanks
    azz007
    So Minster have got back to me and rejected the appeal and have given a POPLA code, so looks like im straight onto POPLA.

    am i ok using the EXACT same POPLA appeal as my 1st one? It shouldnt matter should it. they both were issued at the same location.
    • Redx
    • By Redx 5th Dec 17, 11:13 AM
    • 18,115 Posts
    • 22,903 Thanks
    Redx
    definitely

    adapt it where necessary , but if it covers all the point required then use it as your own template, if you had another 10 then use it ten times more too

    there is no reason to be starting again, that would be foolish and unnecessary
    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
    • azz007
    • By azz007 13th Dec 17, 3:03 PM
    • 134 Posts
    • 27 Thanks
    azz007
    So its been 14 days since the POPLA appeal has been submitted and is at the 2nd stage 'Operator information and evidence., '

    As keeper still haven't submitted the 2nd POPLA - is it a good idea to wait until i hear soemting back - the potential outcome- before submitting the 2nd one?

    Or should i just submit the 2nd one now... still have around 20 days to do so?
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 13th Dec 17, 3:18 PM
    • 17,593 Posts
    • 27,808 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    As long as you don!!!8217;t miss the 28 day POPLA deadline (you can squeeze an extra couple of days on that, but no more) you can leave it up to the wire to see if you get a positive response to your first appeal, then you can quote it to POPLA as a !!!8216;precedent!!!8217;.

    But be aware, if the first appeal is rejected, you can be sure that MB will do exactly the same.

    In terms of MB responding to POPLA with their evidence pack to your first appeal, they have 21 days to do so, you then get 7 days to respond, POPLA will probably take a few more days to reach their decision. So you need to calculate the logistics and work out whether there is any benefit in going early with your second appeal.

    I think I!!!8217;d leave it a bit longer, because even if the result of appeal #1 isn!!!8217;t known at that stage, it will be known by the time you get to your 7 days to respond to the MB evidence pack #2, where if the decision from #1 is in your favour, you can draw that to POPLA!!!8217;s attention at that point.

    So its been 14 days since the POPLA appeal has been submitted and is at the 2nd stage 'Operator information and evidence., '
    Have you received a copy of MB!!!8217;s evidence pack? If not, check your email Spam file. You only get 7 days to respond, including the day of receipt, so effectively only 6 days.
    Last edited by Umkomaas; 13-12-2017 at 3:21 PM.
    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.
    • azz007
    • By azz007 13th Dec 17, 4:09 PM
    • 134 Posts
    • 27 Thanks
    azz007
    But be aware, if the first appeal is rejected, you can be sure that MB will do exactly the same.
    Originally posted by Umkomaas
    if it is in the lines of rejection i can then adjust the 2nd POPLA accordingly. rejection was on 5th Dec > So 28 days from that till around 02/01/18.

    Have you received a copy of MB’s evidence pack? If not, check your email Spam file. You only get 7 days to respond, including the day of receipt, so effectively only 6 days.
    Originally posted by Umkomaas
    nothing so far just online tracking say In Progress ' - Operator information and evidence' . Cant click anything or do anything. All i got was the auto email of POPLA appeal submitted which was 29th Nov (this email info@popla.co.uk came through fine). Checked all folders nothing ...etc. what email address does it come from?
    • Edna Basher
    • By Edna Basher 13th Dec 17, 5:34 PM
    • 667 Posts
    • 1,740 Thanks
    Edna Basher
    I expect that MB will wait the full 21 days before uploading their evidence pack. When they do you should receive an email notification from info@popla.co.uk.

    When you then log back on to the POPLA website, the In Progress status will have changed from "Operator and Evidence" to "Motorist Comments". The evidence pack should be available to download as a PDF - however this sometimes doesn't appear straight away and you might have to leave your cursor hovering for 10-20 seconds before it becomes visible.
    • azz007
    • By azz007 19th Dec 17, 12:44 PM
    • 134 Posts
    • 27 Thanks
    azz007
    So next stage. Minster have sent the evidence pack 52 pages *rofl * - with images of the site, landowner agrrements, site agreemnts etc. sent today as email and also shows in the POPLA Motorist comments section as PDF.

    there is a box with 2000 word limit. is that all i get. HeRe is their Point i need to REBUTT - Theyve literlly just argues back what the POPLA appeal said each point. Have 7 days

    any good points that usually work that i can add further to the comments to thier so called evidence and what i should look out for to rebutt.

    Much appreciated.
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    1 !!!8211; Signage
    Minster Baywatch refer to the Images section, which evidences the signs on site. As
    previously mentioned, these signs are formatted to BPA standard and the lettering is
    both large and the signage itself is 22!!!8221; by 22!!!8221;. The signs are no more than six feet
    off the ground at their highest point so as to be visible above vehicles and four feet
    at their lowest point so as to be clearly legible to drivers. The signage at the site is
    also numerous and of high contrast. There is also evidence of the entrance signs
    into this car park, which are both large and clearly state that the driver is entering
    private land. Details of the parking charge amount are detailed in red lettering on all
    signage within the car park.
    There is a grace period in operation at this site, in accordance with BPA code, which
    allows for drivers to observe the signage and leave if they wish to. Mr ABC overstayed
    this grace period, as well as the other, higher grace period in operation at this site.

    2 !!!8211; Amount demanded is a penalty
    As the main point of Mr ABC argument here is that the signage was allegedly
    inadequate, Minster Baywatch refer to their previous comments. The signage
    follows the BPA standard, and thus we can be sure that the contract was made
    apparent to the driver before the vehicle was parked.

    3 !!!8211; The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact
    liable for the charge
    The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 clearly outlines that the Keeper does not need
    to be proven to be the Driver in order to be held liable for the value of the charge. This
    was made apparent in the original Notice to Keeper sent on 02/11/17:
    !!!8220;You are warned that if, after 29 days from the date given (which is
    presumed to be the second working day after the Date Issued), the
    Parking Charge has not been paid in full and we do not know both
    the name and current address of the driver, we have a right to
    recover any unpaid part of the Parking Charge from you as the
    registered keeper of the vehicle.!!!8221;

    4 !!!8211; BPA Code of Practice !!!8211; further non-compliance !!!8211; photo evidence.
    The images on Mr ABC PCN have time and date stamps in the top left corner (please
    see Images section for this). These photos also show the vehicle entering and exiting
    the site. The ANPR cameras are situated in such a place that they only register
    vehicles entering and exiting. The images of the number plates are in fact not cropped
    but are taken by an infrared camera at the time of the main photo. It may also be of
    note that Mr ABC appeal to POPLA seems to confuse Minster Baywatch with Euro
    Car Parks Limited in this paragraph.
    5 !!!8211; Landowner Authority
    Minster Baywatch refers to the Other Evidence section in which the license agreement
    between the managing agent Bransby Wilson and Minster Baywatch can be found,
    and relatedly, the managing agreement between Bransby Wilson and the site owner,
    evidencing full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice.

    6 !!!8211; ANPR accuracy and compliance
    Mr ABC arguments referring to ANPR monitoring is factually incorrect. ANPR is a
    valid method of enforcement and our signage clearly states: !!!8220;this site may be
    monitored by camera technology for the purpose of ensuring compliance.!!!8221;
    Please see Images section.
    Regarding Mr ABC request for dates and times of camera maintenance, our ANPR
    cameras are checked daily and there have been no reported issues at this site
    surrounding the date and time of contravention.
    Minster Baywatch assert that Mr ABC vehicle far outstayed the BPA required grace
    period, as well as the site grace period which is higher.
    Minster Baywatch assert that the driver was made aware of the site rules by the
    numerous high contrast yellow signs situated around the site. As such, we maintain
    that the charge was issued correctly.
    Last edited by azz007; 19-12-2017 at 9:27 PM.
    • azz007
    • By azz007 19th Dec 17, 7:16 PM
    • 134 Posts
    • 27 Thanks
    azz007
    the 2000 character limit is not sufficient so would i be able to send my POPLA REBUTTAL via email instead. to info@popla.co.uk and what should i wirtie in the comments box on popla site for them to know and acknowldge my comments for appeal.

    i havent responed to their claims about grace periods on Points 1&6 as the POPLA appeal didnt argue that to begin with. Shoul i say something along the lines

    I never argued or appealed grace periods.or just ignore

    any comments , further advice , critique is welcomed.


    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    1 – Signage
    The terms and conditions on all of the signs included in Minster Baywatch evidence is in such a small font it cannot be read unless close proximity as almost all evidence photos have been taken from 1 feet away. This backs up my assertion that the signage in this Car Park does not comply with the BPA Code of Practice and are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces to form any contract with a driver. They have also stated there are entrance signs when this is NOT the case. There are NO Entrance signs upon entering the car park from John Street or any details of the parking charge, so no contract with driver has been made. Lastly there is no information as to how the driver is supposed to get on the ‘whitelist’.

    Site Entrance Photo (insert here)

    2 – Amount demanded is a penalty
    As to my first point the signs are not legible on entry to the car park and the parking charge £100 is not clearly visible in the mountain of text for the driver to read from a moving vehicle nor is it safe to do so.

    3 – The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact liable for the charge.
    Minster Baywatch have still failed to show that the individual it is pursuing is in fact liable for charge. Further to this I would like to note that page 4, Minster Baywatch points out it ‘does not draw any assumption as to who the driver was’ .
    Prior to this MB Contradict by stating, ‘Minster Baywatch assert it is the driver’s responsibility to ensure they abide by the rules of this site when parking here. This responsibility includes ensuring one’s car is registered on the authorised user list for the site. This Mr ABC failed to do.’
    This is a blatant assumption on the part of MB and should be treated as such which is confirmation they are not using POFA2012 and have therefore failed to transfer liability from the driver to the keeper. I am the registered keeper of the vehicle, I was not the driver, so I am not liable for this charge.


    4 – BPA Code of Practice – further non-compliance – photo evidence.
    The BPA Code of Practice point 20.5a stipulates that:
    "When issuing a parking charge notice you may use photographs as evidence that a vehicle was parked in an unauthorised way. The photographs must refer to and confirm the incident which you claim was unauthorised. A date and time stamp should be included on the photograph. All photographs used for evidence should be clear and legible and must not be retouched or digitally altered."

    On page 23 there is no time stamp on the actual image, this is on a black marking on the outside edge top left of the image and may have been doctored and edited. The time stamp isn’t anywhere on the actual image shot of the ANPR image. This Just shows a vehicle allegedly entering and exiting with no location to where this is at. There is no confusion here, my appeal is against Minster Baywatch and my supporting images states this fact.
    My photo below; shows the ANPR camera high up on a 12ft + pole which cannot be seen by the driver and can easily be mistaken for a street lamp/light. The ANPR camera is not at the site entrance, and more located towards the actual car park.

    ANPR Camera Photo (insert here)

    5 -Landowner Authority

    No evidence has been submitted to confirm that this MINSTER Baywatch have the authority to act on behalf of the landowner, especially with regards to entering into long-term contracts with 3rd party companies and issue Parking charges. Therefore, I once again question Minster Baywatch authority to issue parking tickets at this site. There is no correlation or any agreements to specify that there is an agreement currently present. The evidence provided is redacted which it is impossible to conclude that it complies with para 7 of the BPA CoP and whether it is still current (if signed years ago) and that Bransby Wilson are merely a car park management company and an associate company of Minster Baywatch; both are owned 100% by the Bransby Wilson Group: http://www.bransbywilson.co.uk/ They are NOT the landowner and this contract fails as 'evidence' since the company connection means this is like a contract signed by Minster Baywatch themselves.
    Minster Baywatch have still failed to show they have authorisation from the landowner to operate here. Terms are also redacted, and the text is not clear at all. For these reasons it cannot be accepted as valid evidence, and previous POPLA appeals have been upheld on this basis

    6 – ANPR accuracy and compliance
    Minster Baywatch has provided no proof on of the latest dates and times of when the cameras at this car park were checked, adjusted, calibrated, synchronised for quality control. No signs at the car park clearly tell drivers about this technology nor how the data captured by ANPR cameras will be used, it is merely in small print as shown on page 37 scrambled in a wall of text.
    Last edited by azz007; 19-12-2017 at 9:33 PM.
    • azz007
    • By azz007 19th Dec 17, 7:17 PM
    • 134 Posts
    • 27 Thanks
    azz007

    Have you received a copy of MB’s evidence pack? If not, check your email Spam file. You only get 7 days to respond, including the day of receipt, so effectively only 6 days.
    Originally posted by Umkomaas
    Jus recieved today and my rebutall points above, any advice apprecited
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

2,429Posts Today

8,087Users online

Martin's Twitter
  • It's the start of mini MSE's half term. In order to be the best daddy possible, Im stopping work and going off line? https://t.co/kwjvtd75YU

  • RT @shellsince1982: @MartinSLewis thanx to your email I have just saved myself £222 by taking a SIM only deal for £7.50 a month and keeping?

  • Today's Friday twitter poll: An important question, building on yesterday's important discussions: Which is the best bit of the pizza...

  • Follow Martin