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
    • grumpyawldwifey
    • By grumpyawldwifey 11th Dec 17, 8:23 PM
    • 90Posts
    • 66Thanks
    grumpyawldwifey
    9 months after alleged parking contravention I get a Final Reminder from Excel!
    • #1
    • 11th Dec 17, 8:23 PM
    9 months after alleged parking contravention I get a Final Reminder from Excel! 11th Dec 17 at 8:23 PM
    In March this year, some parking charges sent by Excel were challenged. They were imposed because, on dropping off a disabled lady at a hotel that the carpark served (amongst other businesses) on a few occasions, took longer than the 10mins allowed. The pay as you park function wasn't working. They were sent photographic evidence of this.
    On the 29 November, a final reminder arrived. Bearing in mind, the details of every notice received was listed on the original appeal and, as nothing was heard since, it was assumed that the appeal had been successful. Does anyone know if there's any way that I can check this?
    The notice states that an NTK was sent on 1st March 2017 and, because their records state that it wasn't responded to the right to appeal has been lost??
    The car in question has recently been sold and the number plate is unassigned. Could this have triggered them to act now?
    Re-appeal or just ignore?
    Last edited by grumpyawldwifey; 12-12-2017 at 6:10 PM.
Page 2
    • Crabman
    • By Crabman 24th Mar 18, 8:20 PM
    • 9,691 Posts
    • 7,117 Thanks
    Crabman
    Threads have been merged
    I'm a Board Guide on the Savings & Investments, ISAs & Tax-free Savings, Public Transport & Cycling, Motoring and Parking Fines, Tickets & Parking Boards. I volunteer to help get your forum questions answered and keep the forum running smoothly. Board Guides are not moderators & don't read every post. If you spot a contentious or illegal post then please report it to forumteam@moneysavingexpert.com (it's not part of my role to deal with this). Views are mine and not the official line of MoneySavingExpert.com

    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 25th Mar 18, 2:54 AM
    • 60,026 Posts
    • 73,181 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Thanks Coupon-mad. I was under the impression from reading the stickies and other links that the contract with the landowner is one of the things we ask for at LBC stage if they are acting as the agent of the landowner?
    Yes, but asking and getting are two different things!

    I would be replying robustly like this:





    Dear Excel Parking Services Ltd,

    re PCN xxxxxxxx - CEASE AND DESIST - you are in breach of the Equality Act 2010

    Your company continues to breach the Equality Act 2010. Cease and desist.

    Your continued contact and threats of court are harassing and causing significant distress to me and my family, especially the disabled passenger whose protected characteristics and use of a wheelchair, caused the issue that you have used as an excuse to charge a 3 figure sum. It is bad enough that Excel Parking Services Ltd's so-called 'Litigation Department' is misleading me about the law, patronising me and pretending you want me to telephone, so that you can 'help resolve' the matter. Even worse is that you claim to be a paralegal but you are breaking the law.

    In fact, if you want to resolve this matter, it is important that you now stop Excel's course of conduct, which undoubtedly can now be considered as unwarranted harassment, as found in Ferguson v British Gas Trading Ltd [2009] EWCA Civ 46.


    Disability discrimination.
    It is a fact that Excel Parking Services Ltd 'knew or should have known' (from my earlier appeal and contact) that the car was being used for 'assisted boarding and alighting' of a disabled wheelchair-bound passenger.

    I remind you of the facts - you already know them, but for the avoidance of doubt:

    A family member was staying long-term at the Hotel whilst their new house was being adapted. The only way to get vehicle access to the Hotel to drop off or pick up a disabled patron, is through this car park. The car was not parked or using a space, it was near to the Hotel entrance for a matter of minutes for the sole purpose of disability access to premises, at an area which is beyond the bays.

    On the four occasions in question, due to the wheelchair user being particularly slow getting out of the vehicle and into their chair and then having to be pushed to their room, the drivers (one of 3 possible relatives) HAD attempted to pay, despite not actually being parked. They realised that the insufficient 10 mins 'grace' would likely be exceeded but were given no advice by the Hotel or any offer of exemption or an extension of time. Knowing how unsympathetic parking cowboys can be, they tried to pay by phone, only to find that the advertised 'Pay Go' app did not recognise the location.

    Your company was sent photographic evidence of your advertised app rejecting the location, but the so-called Appeals Team refused to consider it unless the registered keeper named the driver(s) who - apparently - could then submit the appeal and photographic evidence all over again.

    Instead of cancelling the PCNs, it seems to me that the Appeals Team decided I was fair game to be lied to. I was told that Excel could not consider my appeal as keeper and that under the POFA, I 'must' name the driver. Not so, in fact I have discovered that Schedule 4 with its concept of 'keeper liability' was withheld from parking firms until nearer the end of 2012, until a suitable appeals system for registered keepers was in place in the form of POPLA. Whether you are in the BPA or the IPC, you must fairly consider appeals by registered keepers, and you must investigate any matters involving disability, to avoid discrimination.

    Service Providers - including Hotels and parking firms - have legal duties under statute, to ensure that:

    - disabled people can access services/premises
    - 'reasonable adjustments' are made to policies that would otherwise cause disadvantage
    - no detriment is caused to the disabled person and their carers
    - the disabled person/their carers are not harassed as a result of anything connected to the disability.

    Charging for the time taken for the purpose of assisted boarding/alighting, as if it was 'parking' time, is without a doubt in breach of the Equality Act 2010 (the EA).

    It is not enough - not a valid justification or lawful excuse - for Excel to say that they 'did not know' about the disabled passenger. Even if you did not know, your company is still guilty of an offence, called 'indirect discrimination' which is where an inflexible policy (e.g. an arbitrary time limit) causes unlawful detriment to the disabled population 'at large'. When guilty of that offence, the Service Provider cannot be heard to say 'we didn't know' about an individual's protected characteristics.

    It is not enough - not a valid justification or lawful excuse - for Excel to say that you allow a blanket grace period of, say ten minutes before 'enforcement' of parking charges. Whilst ten minutes may be enough for the able bodied population at large to access the car park, to drop someone off and leave without penalty, this is not the case when a passenger is using a wheelchair to get from the car to the Hotel room with the assistance of the driver/carer.

    Clearly a person getting in/out of a wheelchair is going to take longer to access the Hotel and will need their carer's car to stop much nearer to the entrance.

    Making a reasonable adjustment in this case, could include any/all of the following:

    (a) the Hotel (or an Excel employee posted on site, if possible) taking steps to 'manage parking' in a proper and fair way, by advising any disabled patron and carers to provide their VRN at the desk to add it to a 'white list'. This simple step would avoid a wrongful 'parking charge' when engaged in the lawful (non parking) activity of assisted boarding/alighting.

    (b) a Hotel (or Excel employee) noting that a disabled person is being assisted, and allowing more time than the arbitrary ten minutes, as policy. It is suggested that twenty minutes would be perfectly reasonable to wait, under the circumstances, before even considering 'enforcement'.

    (c) the parking firm having a policy that, when an appeal arrives describing activity that involves assisted boarding and/or alighting of a disabled person, any parking charge should be immediately cancelled and steps be taken to avoid such unfair PCNs being issued in the future, by adjusting the policy as in (a) or (b).

    Excel Parking Services Ltd did none of the above. You have continued to harass me, the registered keeper, for money that you allege is owed 'under contract'.

    Yet contract can never override a consumer's rights under statute.


    ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 (Beavis)
    This case can be fully distinguished from Beavis.

    A disabled person and their carer cannot, by any stretch of the imagination, be considered to have agreed to pay 100 for accessing a Hotel at the entrance; the driver taking a few minutes to meet the needs of the wheelchair user, with the required assistance to get them safely between the vehicle and their temporary residence in the Hotel room.

    In Beavis, the Supreme Court covered the issue of consumer rights under statute - which did not apply to Mr Beavis - at 107. ''In our opinion the term imposing the 85 charge was not unfair. The term does not exclude any right which the consumer may be said to enjoy under the general law or by statute.''

    But in this case, with these facts/this passenger, Excel's charge does. And that is illegal, and your continued harassment makes the company's legal position - and that of its principal, the Hotel - worse.


    Law of Agency.
    I suggest you might need to re-read your basic law books. You mean agent and principal (not 'principle') in your patronising sentence trying to mislead me about the law of agency. I expect you are thinking of throwing the case of Combined Parking Solutions Ltd v AJH Films Ltd at me next. I will save you the bother and hopefully stop this harassment once and for all. CPS v AJH has has no application in a case that does not involve employer/employee vicarious liability.

    As relevant authority on the matter, I refer you to Launchbury v Morgans (1972), a case heard in the House of Lords.

    Or perhaps you might recall such trials as the Appeal in C0DP9C4E/M17X062 Excel v Smith, a case heard by a Manchester Senior Circuit Judge who (as shown in the transcript) ripped into Excel, the legally represented party, for disingenuously failing to tell the erring Judge that their arguments about the law of agency had already been thrown out in an earlier case the previous week involving the same Defendant. Of course, the Appeal Judge threw Excel's case out and upheld Mr Smith's appeal, making it clear that CPS v AJH Films had no application.

    It is my opinion that Excel have selective amnesia, but this matter is not funny, this baseless pursuit of money at all costs, having denied me an appeal and ignored your legal duties under the EA, is an horrendous example of discrimination and unwarranted harassment.


    Harassment and distress
    This continued contact and demands for money represent a significant nuisance that is continuing to affect my peace of mind and that of my family, distracting me from my work and my daily life. Hours of my time have already been wasted on this matter, only to receive more threatening and misleading letters with ever increasing sums of money.

    This baseless but nasty financial attack on me is causing me serious distress.


    Counter Claim
    Take note that it is my intention to counter-claim for a sum not less than 500 (or such greater sum that the Judge might consider applies, given the facts) in compensation for my distress and that of my family.

    I draw your attention to a judgment at the Leeds County Court, 3SP00071 - Blamires v LGO. This was a claim for damages which I understand centred around a lack of reasonable adjustment and incorrect data being held/negligently processed, in breach of the Data Protection Act and the EA. The judge awarded a further 2,500 aggravated damages because of the manner in which the Defendant conducted its case, including the fact that, notwithstanding being told by the Claimant that its conduct was wrong, it took nearly two years for the Defendant to admit the mistake.

    The award in Blamires was of 'Vidal Hall' compensation; the judge saying there was no doubt that the breaches had ''caused distress to the claimant in their own rights as well as as a result of the consequences that flowed.'' Compensation can be awarded for pure distress alone.

    I am also aware of two recent successful counter-claims against parking operators:

    - on Friday 16th March 2018, in case D8HW7G7P in the Slough County Court, another notorious ex-clamper parking firm not dissimilar to Excel (UKPC) lost an unreasonable claim against a beleaguered motorist. UKPC were found liable for the Defendant's ordinary costs and his 500 counter-claim for distress for a DPA breach by processing his data contrary to the Data Protection Principles.

    - in May 2017, in case D6GM2199 CEL v Mr B, Bury County Court, before DJ Osborne, a motorist was awarded 900 against another parking company of your ilk (in this case, Civil Enforcement Limited). Mr B. was the vehicle keeper and as the NTK was not POFA compliant (rather like your NTK), the parking firm had no valid claim against the keeper. Mr B filed a counterclaim and this was upheld.

    In his judgment, DJ Osborne ruled that the tort of damages was applicable and that 500 for the resulting distress was not an unreasonable amount in the circumstances. He added an additional 405 in costs, part of which were awarded on the indemnity basis, under rule 27.14.2(g) for the unreasonable behaviour of the parking firm in bringing an unfounded case.

    Should your company proceed with a vexatious and misconceived claim, I will have no hesitation in seeking to claim punitive costs, pursuant to CPR Rule 27.14(2)(g) and I will not restrict those costs to 19 per hour (the usual LiP rate). I intend to seek recompense for the hours I have wasted on this at a rate of 60 ph (being approximately 50% of costs of a grade D fee earner) which I consider to be eminently reasonable, given the circumstances described.

    I will also ask the Court of its own initiative, to exercise its inherent powers to summarily dispose of issues which do not need full investigation and trial, pursuant to CPR Rule 1.4(2)(c) and Practice Direction 26, paragraph 5.1, namely to strike out your claim under CPR Rule 3.4 or, in the alternative, to summarily adjudge it pursuant to CPR Rule 24.

    I reserve the right to add the Hotel to the case, since under the law of agency, they are the party called the 'principal'. Applying the legal principle to your case, any parking agent such as Excel must have had the Hotel's authority to issue parking charges and therefore make(sic) them liable for any breach of the Equality Act that occurred in doing so.

    I expect to hear from you within 14 days to confirm that all charges are withdrawn and that my data as registered keeper is removed from all records held by you. All letters exchanged will be used in evidence in court.

    yours faithfully,
    Last edited by Coupon-mad; 25-03-2018 at 7:39 PM.
    PRIVATE PCN? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT TWO Clicks needed for advice:
    Top of the page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    Advice to ignore is WRONG, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • The Deep
    • By The Deep 25th Mar 18, 11:25 AM
    • 9,969 Posts
    • 9,760 Thanks
    The Deep
    This is an entirely unregulated industry which is scamming the public with inflated claims for minor breaches of contracts for alleged parking offences, aided and abetted by a handful of low-rent solicitors.

    Parking Eye, CPM, Smart, and another company have already been named and shamed, as has Gladstones Solicitors, and BW Legal, (these two law firms take hundreds of these cases to court each year). They lose most of them, and have been reported to the regulatory authority by an M.P. for unprofessional conduct

    Hospital car parks and residential complex tickets have been especially mentioned.

    The problem has become so rampant that MPs have agreed to enact a Bill to regulate these scammers. Watch the video of the Second Reading in the HofC recently.

    http://parliamentlive.tv/event/index/2f0384f2-eba5-4fff-ab07-cf24b6a22918?in=12:49:41

    and complain in the most robust terms to your MP. With a fair wind most of these companies may well be put out of business by Christmas.
    You never know how far you can go until you go too far.
    • grumpyawldwifey
    • By grumpyawldwifey 25th Mar 18, 4:32 PM
    • 90 Posts
    • 66 Thanks
    grumpyawldwifey

    I would be replying robustly like this:
    Originally posted by Coupon-mad
    WOW, thank you so much for this Coupon Mad. You have given me a whole new perspective on the case especially the hotel's liability.
    I know for a fact that the hotel staff are dismayed by the whole situation - it also meant that a district nurse was forced to park quarter of a mile away from the hotel in order to visit her patient without incurring parking charges!

    My letter is in the post as is a very strongly worded letter to my MP.
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 25th Mar 18, 7:24 PM
    • 18,883 Posts
    • 29,691 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    WOW, thank you so much for this Coupon Mad. You have given me a whole new perspective on the case especially the hotel's liability.
    I know for a fact that the hotel staff are dismayed by the whole situation - it also meant that a district nurse was forced to park quarter of a mile away from the hotel in order to visit her patient without incurring parking charges!

    My letter is in the post as is a very strongly worded letter to my MP.
    Originally posted by sueyw
    Good stuff. A real howitzer from CM.

    Please keep us informed of progress - so many slurp up all the information given by regulars freely during their own time to help complete strangers with their significant problem, who then just can't be 4rsed to let us know the outcome.

    Makes my blood boil, and leaves me questioning whether I can be 4rsed myself in helping in the future.
    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.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 25th Mar 18, 7:33 PM
    • 60,026 Posts
    • 73,181 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    I was up late after putting the clocks forward, finishing it but I think Excel will now cancel. They certainly should because that lays the groundwork for a counter-claim where you have more prospects of success, IMHO, than they do.

    I like using the adversary's own words against them, hence why this bit says (sic) as you have copied their own bad grammar:
    I reserve the right to add the Hotel to the case, since under the law of agency, they are the party called the 'principal'. Applying the legal principle to your case, any parking agent such as Excel must have had the Hotel's authority to issue parking charges and therefore make(sic) them liable for any breach of the Equality Act that occurred in doing so.
    PRIVATE PCN? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT TWO Clicks needed for advice:
    Top of the page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    Advice to ignore is WRONG, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • grumpyawldwifey
    • By grumpyawldwifey 10th Apr 18, 6:31 PM
    • 90 Posts
    • 66 Thanks
    grumpyawldwifey
    But they haven't!! They've ignored it!
    There isn't even an acknowledgement of it.

    I have had a letter today enclosing detailed Particulars of Claim which have also been filed at court.

    I'm in the process of uploading it all for your perusal.
    Last edited by grumpyawldwifey; 10-04-2018 at 7:06 PM. Reason: Further information added
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 10th Apr 18, 7:19 PM
    • 60,026 Posts
    • 73,181 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    If they had not cancelled then they would proceed. Their choice, do not be fazed.

    Ignoring a Cease & Desist letter citing disability discrimination makes their position pretty difficult, to say the least. Part of the reason for writing and sending the above (and I hope you can prove sending?) is to set the scene for your defence and give you good grounding to show their unreasonableness.

    I think you should file a counter claim (costs you a 25 fee up front when defending a claim, and then potentially another 25 - possibly - later, but only if you have to pay the hearing fee, if the Claimant discontinues their claim along the way and doesn't pay a hearing fee themselves). I am happy to help you write it. On pepipoo last month, Henry Hippo won his case and got a 500 counter-claim for distress granted, which I helped him write.
    PRIVATE PCN? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT TWO Clicks needed for advice:
    Top of the page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    Advice to ignore is WRONG, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • grumpyawldwifey
    • By grumpyawldwifey 10th Apr 18, 7:27 PM
    • 90 Posts
    • 66 Thanks
    grumpyawldwifey
    Part of the reason for writing and sending the above (and I hope you can prove sending?) is to set the scene for your defence and give you good grounding to show their unreasonableness.
    Originally posted by Coupon-mad
    Stupidly not! The one letter I didn't send recorded. I thought maybe if I reply to them by email (I have the litigation department's email address) thanking them for the information, attaching the letter and asking them to acknowledge that they have considered it before I submit my counter claim?
    • grumpyawldwifey
    • By grumpyawldwifey 10th Apr 18, 7:43 PM
    • 90 Posts
    • 66 Thanks
    grumpyawldwifey
    Something like this along the lines of their reminder letters?

    Dear Excel Parking Services Ltd

    Thank you for your letter dated X XXXX 2018 which I received today.

    Please confirm that you are proceeding with your claim despite having considered the letter that I sent to you on XX XXXXX 2018, a copy of which I have attached.

    If you have not, then I am prepared to give you further time, until close of business on 18 April 2018 in which to reconsider your position.

    If you would like to resolve the matter, please withdraw your claim, confirm that all charges have been withdrawn and ensure that my data as registered keeper is removed from all records held by you.

    If I have not heard from you by 18 April 2018, I will proceed to make a counter claim against you as detailed in the attached letter.
    Last edited by grumpyawldwifey; 10-04-2018 at 7:45 PM. Reason: redaction
    • grumpyawldwifey
    • By grumpyawldwifey 10th Apr 18, 8:43 PM
    • 90 Posts
    • 66 Thanks
    grumpyawldwifey
    Here's their letter and claim details.
    Sorry they're individual pages, I haven't sussed out how to scan multiple pages to one document with my ancient scanner!

    hxxps://www.dropbox.com/s/x10esp2sfwgb8mk/Claim%20lodged%20letter%20redacted.jpg?dl=0

    hxxps://www.dropbox.com/s/u8blofrofqseg5o/Claim%20p1%20redacted.jpg?dl=0

    hxxps://www.dropbox.com/s/zcnoxrsjwrku1ke/Claim%20p2%20redacted.jpg?dl=0

    hxxps://www.dropbox.com/s/fpxb61tbr9tvdzh/Claim%20p3%20redacted.jpg?dl=0

    hxxps://www.dropbox.com/s/5msng3l9qkpnh05/Claim%20p4%20redacted.jpg?dl=0
    • Castle
    • By Castle 10th Apr 18, 8:48 PM
    • 1,866 Posts
    • 2,532 Thanks
    Castle
    https://www.dropbox.com/s/x10esp2sfwgb8mk/Claim%20lodged%20letter%20redacted.jpg?dl=0

    https://www.dropbox.com/s/u8blofrofqseg5o/Claim%20p1%20redacted.jpg?dl=0

    https://www.dropbox.com/s/zcnoxrsjwrku1ke/Claim%20p2%20redacted.jpg?dl=0

    https://www.dropbox.com/s/fpxb61tbr9tvdzh/Claim%20p3%20redacted.jpg?dl=0

    https://www.dropbox.com/s/5msng3l9qkpnh05/Claim%20p4%20redacted.jpg?dl=0
    • KeithP
    • By KeithP 10th Apr 18, 9:08 PM
    • 8,634 Posts
    • 8,512 Thanks
    KeithP
    Sueyw, why don't you start posting real links instead of changing http to hxxp?

    You've been here long enough and you are just making work both for yourself and others.
    .
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 10th Apr 18, 9:09 PM
    • 60,026 Posts
    • 73,181 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Sounds reasonable.

    Did you send the letter to Excel, not their solicitors (remind me, are BW Legal not involved?).

    Have you actually seen a claim form yet?
    PRIVATE PCN? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT TWO Clicks needed for advice:
    Top of the page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    Advice to ignore is WRONG, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • grumpyawldwifey
    • By grumpyawldwifey 10th Apr 18, 10:06 PM
    • 90 Posts
    • 66 Thanks
    grumpyawldwifey
    Sueyw, why don't you start posting real links instead of changing http to hxxp?

    You've been here long enough and you are just making work both for yourself and others.
    Originally posted by KeithP
    Unfortunately, Keith, although I have been a member of the forums for a long time, I haven't posted enough to be afforded the privilege of posting links.

    Coupon-mad
    The letter went to Excel, they haven't involved BW Legal (I did wonder whether they'd dumped them finally or are they all just the same people anyway?)
    The only 'form' I've seen is from them was the LBC and the financial assessment forms!
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 10th Apr 18, 10:09 PM
    • 60,026 Posts
    • 73,181 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    No they haven't dumped them and are not the same company at all.

    Sometimes Excel run their own cases. I think your planned reply is good, make sure you email that tonight with a copy of your letter (do not say whether or not you have proof of posting, just express surprise that they did not reply, given the disability discrimination).
    PRIVATE PCN? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT TWO Clicks needed for advice:
    Top of the page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    Advice to ignore is WRONG, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • KeithP
    • By KeithP 10th Apr 18, 10:20 PM
    • 8,634 Posts
    • 8,512 Thanks
    KeithP
    Unfortunately, Keith, although I have been a member of the forums for a long time, I haven't posted enough to be afforded the privilege of posting links.
    Originally posted by sueyw
    Yes you have.

    A postcount of fifteen or so is usually enough.

    Be brave. Try it.

    Just copy and paste the link as you have before but do not bother to change the http to hxxp.
    .
    • grumpyawldwifey
    • By grumpyawldwifey 11th Apr 18, 9:28 PM
    • 90 Posts
    • 66 Thanks
    grumpyawldwifey
    My forms have arrived from the CC Business Centre and I have submitted the AOS online.
    Should I have been informed of the court location at this point?
    I'm not holding out much hope that they'll back down having received my email today.
    • KeithP
    • By KeithP 11th Apr 18, 9:33 PM
    • 8,634 Posts
    • 8,512 Thanks
    KeithP
    Should I have been informed of the court location at this point?
    Originally posted by sueyw
    No. That comes later, after you have filed a Defence.
    The reason being that unless you file a Defence there is no point in transferring the case anywhere.
    .
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 11th Apr 18, 9:34 PM
    • 18,883 Posts
    • 29,691 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    Should I have been informed of the court location at this point?
    No. But please read the NEWBIES FAQ sticky, post #2, which will give you full guidance as to what happens and when, right the way through to the hearing (should it ever get that far).
    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.
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

4,730Posts Today

7,063Users online

Martin's Twitter
  • Ta ta... for now. This August, as I try and do every few yrs, I'm lucky enough to be taking a sabbatical. No work,? https://t.co/Xx4R3eLhFG

  • RT @lethalbrignull: @MartinSLewis I've been sitting here for a good while trying to decide my answer to this, feeling grateful for living i?

  • Early days but currently it's exactly 50 50 in liberality v democracy, with younger people more liberal, older more? https://t.co/YwJr4izuIj

  • Follow Martin