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
    • hartynoll
    • By hartynoll 12th Jan 18, 2:18 PM
    • 30Posts
    • 8Thanks
    hartynoll
    Gladstones LBC help please!!
    • #1
    • 12th Jan 18, 2:18 PM
    Gladstones LBC help please!! 12th Jan 18 at 2:18 PM
    Hi Guru's

    First of all, I have read through the Newbie's thread and googled for a few hours but I am not 100% sure what action to take next so please accept my apologies if you feel that you guys are repeating yourselves.

    First of all, I parked on an unfinished housing site in July 2017, along with about 30 other parents who had been asked to attend a meeting for the kick off of the local rugby elite u16s squad.

    When I returned to my car, I along with most of the others, had PCNs from Millennium on our windscreens. I must say, as others have posted, the signage was tiny and I didn't notice them when driving in.

    I sent them an email on 6th July 2017, which I copied from the NEWBIE thread stating that the signs did not adhere to the large lettering etc etc and requested a POPLA code, or cancel the charge.

    ON 21 July, I had a response from MPG and suprise surprise, I did not get the charge cancelled but neither did I get a POPLA code. They referred me to the IAS, which I can see from here is a waste of time.

    I subsequently had 3 DRP letters, followed by 2 Zenith letters which I have ignored but kept.

    This morning I had a letter from Gladstones Solicitors with a 'Letter Before Claim' heading. Please note that the reference begins with '1' and it asks me to pay the solicitors directly, rather than a DRP.

    I understand that I must now respond to the solicitors, but the examples I have found on here have suggested that MPG or Gladstones provide me with all evidence etc, which they kind of already did in the response to my initial letter.

    Also, there was some regulation change in October 2017, but as the incident was prior to that, should the regulation still need to be followed?

    Thank you for any advice guys, these things really get me down and affect me.

    I also find it strange that the solicitors have only asked for the same amount £160 as MPG did, with none of the usual admin fee or markup that I would have expected
Page 2
    • hartynoll
    • By hartynoll 13th Apr 18, 9:04 PM
    • 30 Posts
    • 8 Thanks
    hartynoll
    I will do the online response this weekend and won’t touch the form as per the newbie thread.

    Could it not be the case that my father, for instance was the driver. And I am responding on behalf of my wife?
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 13th Apr 18, 9:19 PM
    • 59,410 Posts
    • 72,561 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    No, because of your first post here in public, from January. Don't lie.

    Your wife should have been the appellant, but that ship sailed when you appealed, now be the honest driver.
    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.

    • hartynoll
    • By hartynoll 27th Apr 18, 12:31 PM
    • 30 Posts
    • 8 Thanks
    hartynoll
    Hi All

    I am having a real problem drafting my defence, my own fault completely as I am not the RK so have to admit to being the driver.

    My only defence is around the signage, the ridiculous amount of the fine, the harrassment and the roboclaim angle - is this actually enough to fight the claim?

    I have been advised to send a CPR request to Gladstones, copied below but should I also include the comments posted by Couponmad previously:

    "(should the case go to trial) you will include the transcript of the 2nd February 2018 Parliamentary debate as evidence for the Judge, and will provide evidence of the significant distress caused to the whole family as well as the recipient of these horrendously intrusive and unjustified demands, should this matter proceed to court. Add that you will pursue your costs on the indemnity basis, due to the unreasonable conduct and vexatious claim against a keeper with no proper evidence, no contract, and no similarity with the Beavis case to fall back on to excuse the punitive and predatory 'parking charge', now inflated with imaginary sums"?
    • hartynoll
    • By hartynoll 27th Apr 18, 12:33 PM
    • 30 Posts
    • 8 Thanks
    hartynoll
    Oh, and the CPR as it is is below:

    Dear Sir/Madam

    Re: Millennium Door and Event Security Ltd v xxx - Case No:

    CPR 31.14 Request

    On xxx I received the claim form in this case issued by you out of the Northampton County Court Business Centre.

    I confirm having returned my acknowledgement of service to the court, in which I indicate my intention to contest all of your claim.

    Please treat this letter as my request made under CPR 31.14 for the disclosure and the production of a verified and legible copy of each of the following documents mentioned in your Particulars of Claim:
    1. the contract between Millennium Door and Event Security Ltd and the landowner that assigns the right to enter into contracts with the public and make claims in their own name.
    2. proof of planning permission granted for signage etc. under the Town and Country Planning Act 2007.
    3. copies of the notice to driver, notice to keeper and any other correspondence from Millennium Door and Event Security Ltd & Gladstones Solicitors Limited to the defendant that they intend to rely upon in court.

    You should ensure compliance with your CPR 31 duties and ensure that the documents I have requested are disclosed at your earliest convenience.

    Your CPR 31 duties extend to making a reasonable and proportionate search for the originals of the documents I have requested, better for you in being able to verify the document's authenticity and to provide me with a legible copy.

    Further, where I have requested a copy of a document, the original of which is now in the possession of another person, you will have a right to possession of that document if you have mentioned it in your case. You must take immediate steps to recover and preserve it for the purpose of this case.
    Where I have mentioned a document and there is in your possession more than one version of that same document owing to a modification, obliteration or other marking or feature, each version will be a separate document and you must provide a copy of each version of it to me. Your obligations extend to making a reasonable and proportionate search for any version(s) to include an obligation to recover and preserve such version(s) which are now in the possession of a third party.

    In accordance with CPR 31.15(c), I undertake to be responsible for your reasonable copying costs incurred in complying with this CPR 31.14 request.
    If you are unable to comply with this request within 14 days, and believe that you will never be able to comply with this request, please confirm in your response.

    You are reminded that as this case is yet to be allocated to a track, CPR31:14 does apply, a refusal to comply because you 'think' at this stage you don!!!8217;t have to will be used against you in any filed defence.
    • nosferatu1001
    • By nosferatu1001 27th Apr 18, 12:54 PM
    • 2,805 Posts
    • 3,500 Thanks
    nosferatu1001
    CPR stands for civil procedure rules. SO it isnt a "CPR" below, it is your request being made under the CPR. However theyll refuse as CPR31 doesnt apply in small claims, from memory. Instead state you make this request in order to narrow the issues under disagreement and to comply with the overriding objectives.

    Absolutely SURE its only the signs? And the other 3 usual arguments, usually around having authority?
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 27th Apr 18, 11:01 PM
    • 59,410 Posts
    • 72,561 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    My only defence is around the signage (yes) the ridiculous amount of the fine (no), the harrassment (no), and the roboclaim angle (no), - is this actually enough to fight the claim?
    Signage can certainly be the winning point - but as for the rest of your 'points', no.

    the signage was tiny and I didn't notice them when driving in.
    And it looked like public highway and there were no signs/lines...it was dark...etc.

    Read other defences about a Gladstones claim unclear signs (obvious forum search words).
    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.

    • hartynoll
    • By hartynoll 30th Apr 18, 3:23 PM
    • 30 Posts
    • 8 Thanks
    hartynoll
    Just a thought.....the sign lists #1 in T&Cs as:
    Vehicles must park wholly in a marked bay

    This was housing estate and I don't believe there were any 'bays' to speak of ( I will check). Can this be used in my defence against the unclear signs?
    • hartynoll
    • By hartynoll 1st May 18, 6:40 PM
    • 30 Posts
    • 8 Thanks
    hartynoll
    Hi Guru's

    Please see below for my first draft of the Defence, please let me know your comments:

    DEFENCE
    Preliminary
    1. The Particulars of Claim lack specificity and are embarrassing. The Defendant is prejudiced and is unable to prepare a full and complete Defence. The Defendant reserves the right to seek from the Court permission to serve an Amended Defence should the Claimant add to or expand his Particulars at a later stage of these proceedings and/or to limit the Claimant only to the unevidenced allegations in the Particulars.
    Background

    2. It is admitted that at the time of the alleged infringement the Defendant was one of the named drivers vehicle registration mark XXXX XXX which is the subject of these proceedings.

    3. Millennium Parking Services are not the lawful occupier of the land. I have the reasonable belief that they do not have the authority to issue charges on this land in their own name and that they have no rights to bring action regarding this claim.
    3.1. The Claimant is not the landowner and is merely an agent acting on behalf of the landowner and has failed to demonstrate their legal standing to form a contract.
    3.2. The Claimant is not the landowner and suffers no loss whatsoever as a result of a vehicle parking at the location in question
    3.3 The Claimant is put to proof that it has sufficient interest in the land or that there are specific terms in its contract to bring an action on its own behalf. As a third party agent, the Claimant may not pursue any charge

    4. The Claimant has at no time provided an explanation how the parking charge has been calculated, the conduct that gave rise to it or how the amount has escalated from £100 to £248.46. This appears to be an added cost with apparently no qualification and an attempt at double recovery, which the POFA Schedule 4 specifically disallows.
    4.1. The Protection of Freedom Act Para 4(5) states that the maximum sum that may be recovered from the keeper is the charge stated on the Notice to Keeper.
    4.2. The driver did not enter into any 'agreement on the charge', no consideration flowed between the parties and no contract was established.
    4.2.1. The Defendant denies that the driver would have agreed to pay the original demand of £100 to agree to the alleged contract had the terms and conditions of the contract been properly displayed and accessible.
    4.2.2The amount demanded is excessive and unconscionable and especially so when compared to the level of Penalty Charge Notice issued by the local Council which is set at £50 or £25 if paid within 14 days.

    Failure to set out clear parking terms
    5. The Defendant relies upon ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis (2015) UKSC 67 insofar as the Court were willing to impose a penalty in the context of a site of commercial value and where the signage regarding the penalties imposed for any breach of parking terms were clear - both upon entry to the site and throughout.
    5.1. The Defendant avers that the parking signage in this matter was, without prejudice to his/her primary defence above, woefully inadequate.
    5.1.1. At the time of the material events the signage was deficient in number, distribution, wording and lighting to reasonably convey a contractual obligation;
    5.1.2. The signage did not comply with the requirements of the Code of Practice of the Independent Parking Committee!!!8217;s ("IPC") Accredited Operators Scheme, an organisation to which the Claimant was a signatory; and
    5.1.3. The signage contained particularly onerous terms not sufficiently drawn to the attention of the visitor as set out in the leading judgment of Denning MR in J Spurling v Bradshaw [1956] EWCA Civ 3.
    5.2. The Code of Practice of the Independent Parking Committee!!!8217;s ("IPC") Accredited Operators Scheme, an organisation to which the Claimant is a signatory, states that !!!8220;Text should be of such a size and in a font that can be easily read by a motorist having regard to the likely position of the motorist in relation to the sign!!!8221;. The signage in the area does not meet this requirement.
    5.2.1. It is therefore denied that the signs used by this claimant could have formed a fair or transparent contract with a driver or was capable of being formed in any event. The signs were insufficient in terms of their distribution, wording and lighting hence incapable of binding the driver, which distinguishes this case from the Beavis case:
    5.3. The signage that is present at the site is prohibitive and no contract has been offered. It states that !!!8220;Permit Holders only!!!8221; are permitted, therefore no contract can be offered to !!!8220;Non-Permit Holders!!!8221; with the displayed Terms and Conditions.

    6. The Claimant has sent threatening and misleading demands which stated that further debt recovery action would be taken to recover what is owed by passing the debt to a recovery agent adding further unexplained charges with no evidence of how these extra charges have been calculated.
    No figure for additional charges was 'agreed' nor could it have formed part of the alleged 'contract' because no such indemnity costs were quantified on the signs. Terms cannot be bolted on later with inflated figures, as if they were incorporated into the small print when they were not.

    7. The Defendant denies the claim in its entirety, voiding any liability to the Claimant for all amounts due to the aforementioned reasons. The Defendant asks that the court gives consideration to exercise its discretion to order the case to be struck out under CPR Rule 3.4, for want of a detailed cause of action and/or for the claim having no realistic prospects of success.

    8. If the court is not minded to make such an order, then when Directions are given, the Defendant asks that there is an order for sequential service of witness evidence (rather than exchange) because it is expected that the Claimant will use its witness statement to provide the sort of detail which should have been disclosed much earlier, and the Defendant should have the opportunity to consider it, prior to serving evidence and witness statements in support of this defence.
    9. The Particulars of Claim fail to fulfil CPR Part 16.4 because it does not include a statement of the facts on which the claimant relies, only referring to a Parking Charge Notice with no further description; it fails to establish a cause of action which would enable the Defendant to prepare a specific defence:
    !!!8216;The driver of the vehicle registration
    XXXX XXX incurred the parking
    charge(s) on XX/XX/2018 for breaching the
    terms of parking on the land at XXXX.
    The Defendant was driving the Vehicle and/or
    is the Keeper of the Vehicle
    AND THE CLAIMANT CLAIMS
    £160.00 for Parking Charges / Damages and
    indemnity costs if applicable, together with
    interest of £xxx pursuantto s69 of the
    County Courts Act 1984 at 8% pa, continuing
    to Judgement at £0.04 per day!!!8217;

    STATEMENT OF TRUTH
    I confirm that the contents of this Defence are true.
    • KeithP
    • By KeithP 1st May 18, 6:44 PM
    • 7,983 Posts
    • 7,844 Thanks
    KeithP
    No need to quote the Claimant's PoCs.

    So your para. 9 should end with:
    ...it fails to establish a cause of action which would enable the Defendant to prepare a specific defence.
    And perhaps para 9 should be merged with para 1, to become para 1.1.
    Last edited by KeithP; 01-05-2018 at 6:46 PM.
    .
    • hartynoll
    • By hartynoll 3rd May 18, 3:18 PM
    • 30 Posts
    • 8 Thanks
    hartynoll
    Thanks Keith

    I have also added this:

    5.4. The displayed !!!8220;Terms and Conditions!!!8221; on the signage state that !!!8220;Vehicles must park within a marked bay!!!8221;. However, at the time of the incident, no bays were marked on the site, therefore making compliance with this term impossible.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 3rd May 18, 3:42 PM
    • 59,410 Posts
    • 72,561 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Remove this completely; I agree with KeithP:
    The driver of the vehicle registration
    XXXX XXX incurred the parking
    charge(s) on XX/XX/2018 for breaching the
    terms of parking on the land at XXXX.
    The Defendant was driving the Vehicle and/or
    is the Keeper of the Vehicle
    AND THE CLAIMANT CLAIMS
    £160.00 for Parking Charges / Damages and
    indemnity costs if applicable, together with
    interest of £xxx pursuantto s69 of the
    County Courts Act 1984 at 8% pa, continuing
    to Judgement at £0.04 per day'
    Your defence is missing the facts of the case as the Defendant understands them, like in this one:

    https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?p=74235485#post74235485

    Give the poor Judge a chance to see near the start, what the issue is really about, no terms seen (in the dark or not?) because the signs were so sparse and tiny and no-one among the 30 parents saw them. There were no lines on the road, nor an entrance sign to give anyone a clue that this was 'managed private land'. It appeared to be public highway (was not a car park) and looked, to any reasonably circumspect driver, like unrestricted parking at the kerbside.

    Like in that example, state as well that that the Defendant did engage with the Claimant at the outset to appeal, and contrary to the BPA Code of Practice, the Claimant did not make ADR available in the form of POPLA, nor tell the Defendant about the appellant's rights to any ADR at all, which is against the law:

    http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2015/542/pdfs/uksi_20150542_en.pdf

    Decide now if you are going to the hearing as the DRIVER so you can talk honestly about the signs/lack of lines, or as registered keeper.

    Personally I would go with the former, in a case where you can honestly say that pretty much ALL the cars there fell victim to this predatory ticketing, which breaches the BPA CoP and fails the test of fairness and transparency within the Consumer Rights Act 2015.

    You also need a point distinguishing your case from Beavis (YOU MUST DO THIS), and the linked example defence gives you the citation number.

    Can you gather witness statements from several parents, signed & dated and naming the date, location and facts of the lack of signs, especially from others who got PCNs and the debt collection letters themselves? WS stage comes later but I would suggest you look to file not just your OWN WS (which IS required at a later stage) but a couple of others to corroborate your story.

    Again this is for later but I wanted you to start gathering your evidence, photos of the place (maybe a video?) and other people's signed/dated WS, once your defence is in. Preparation is key. If others have court claims, help each other out with WS.

    Oh, and read the recent court decision recorded by DJ Iyer in Pace v Lengyel, which was about a case where the driver did not and could not have had a permit:

    Click on the one called PACE v LENGYEL

    Summarised here, and you need some of these issues raised in your defence:

    http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2017/06/pace-given-pasting-in-manchester.html

    1) PACE did not have authority from the landowner to enter into contracts with driver. It did have the authority to issue tickets, but this would be on behalf of the landowner, so only the landowner could sue.

    2) The signage failed the fairness tests established in ParkingEye v Beavis and because of the imprecise wording and failure to adhere to the...code of practice, no contract was entered into by the driver.

    3) As parking required a permit, and as the driver did not and could not have a permit, the contract in any case failed by the doctrine of impossibility. As many other judges have found with this type of signage, this would mean no contract could be in place and the driver would be a trespasser. As the claim did not argue trespass, it was therefore bound to fail.
    Just to show you that not having a permit does not mean a Defendant is doomed!
    Last edited by Coupon-mad; 07-05-2018 at 3:56 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.

    • hartynoll
    • By hartynoll 7th May 18, 3:09 PM
    • 30 Posts
    • 8 Thanks
    hartynoll
    I think I am there now:

    In the County Court

    Claim Number:

    Between
    X v X


    Defence


    1. It is acknowledged that the Defendant was the driver who parked vehicle XXXX XXX on the material date on the land at XXXX.

    2. It is denied that any "parking charges or indemnity costs" (whatever they might be) as stated on the Particulars of claim are owed and any debt is denied in its entirety.
    3. The facts as the Defendant knows them, are that the Defendant parked at XXXX on XXXX.
    3.1 The land at XXX appears to be a public road, thus the Defendant had no reason to believe that any trespassing occurred. There were no lines on the road and looked, to any reasonably circumspect driver, like unrestricted parking at the kerbside.
    3.2 The signage at the site was sparse and insufficiently sized for ease of visibility. At the time of the incident, approximately 20 other drivers were parked at the site, all of which received PCNs from the claimant on the same date.
    3.3 The signage at the site is prohibitive and no contract has been offered. It states that !!!8220;Permit Holders only!!!8221; are permitted, therefore no contract can be offered to !!!8220;Non-Permit Holders!!!8221; with the displayed Terms and Conditions. This is similar to the recent court decision recorded by DJ Iyer in the case of Pace v Lengyel.
    3.4. The displayed !!!8220;Terms and Conditions!!!8221; on the signage state that !!!8220;Vehicles must park within a marked bay!!!8221;. However, at the time of the incident, no bays were marked on the site, therefore making compliance with this term impossible.
    3.5 The Defendant has reasonable grounds to believe that Claimant is not in possession of the land and has no locus standi.

    4. The claim form itself is vague and lacks pertinent information as to the grounds for the claimant's case. The particulars of claim fail to meet CPR16.4 and PD16 7.3-7.5 and merely state 'for breaching the terms of parking on the land at XXX XXX XXX(xxx)' provide a date, due date, and an "amount" consisting of a completely unsubstantiated and inflated three-figure sum, vaguely and incoherently adduced by the claimant's solicitors.

    5. From the outset, the Defendant engaged with the claimant, and submitted a detailed appeal, which was rejected on invalid grounds. Once Gladstones became involved, despite the Claimant's meritless basis for any claim, the Defendant completed their own side of the pre-action protocol and sent a request for further and better particulars, but no reply was forthcoming. Due to what amounts to missing Particulars of Claim, the Defendant had to cover all eventualities in defending such a 'cut & paste' claim which has caused significant distress and has denied the Defendant a fair chance to defend this claim in an informed way.

    6. This claimant has failed to save their charge from Lord Dunedin's four tests for a penalty, which the Supreme Court Judges in ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 found was still adequate in less 'complex' cases, such as this allegation.

    7. The Defendant agrees with the view of MPs in the House of Commons during the second reading of the Private Parking (Code of Practice) Bill in February 2018, who unanimously condemned as an 'outrageous scam' (Hansard 2.2.18) the practices of parking companies. Rogue parking firms using the small claims method as a form of aggressive, automated debt collection is not something the courts should be seen to support.

    8. The amount demanded in the claim is excessive and unconscionable and especially so when compared to the level of Penalty Charge Notice issued by the local Council which is set at £50 or £25 if paid within 14 days.
    8.1 Based on the excessive amount, the claim can only be recognise as a penalty charge rather than commercial justification, making this case easily distinguishable from ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis.

    9. It is submitted that (apart from properly incurred court fees) any added legal fees/costs are simply numbers made up out of thin air, and are an attempt at double recovery by the Claimant, which would not be recoverable in the small claims court.

    10. It is submitted that the conduct of the Claimant is wholly unreasonable and vexatious. As such, the Defendant is keeping a note of all wasted time/costs in dealing with this matter.

    11. The Defendant requests that the court - acting upon its own volition and using its case management powers - strikes out this claim for the reasons stated above, and for similar reasons cited by District Judge Cross of St Albans County Court on 20/09/16 where a similar claim was struck out without a hearing, due to Gladstones' template particulars for a private parking firm being 'incoherent', failing to comply with CPR16.4, and ''providing no facts that could give rise to any apparent claim in law''.

    I confirm that the contents of this statement are true to the best of my knowledge and belief.


    Name/signature

    Date
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 7th May 18, 4:11 PM
    • 59,410 Posts
    • 72,561 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    That reads better IMHO, tells the Judge what it is about.

    I would just tweak point #8 as follows:

    8. The amount demanded in the claim is excessive and unconscionable and especially so when compared to the level of Penalty Charge Notice issued by the local Council which is set at £50 or £25 if paid within 14 days. The Claimant dresses up the 'PCN' to mimic a council ticket and this was on what looked like public highway, so the comparison with a real PCN is a valid consideration, given the facts of this case.

    8.1 Based on the excessive amount and predatory nature of ticketing some twenty cars, based on wholly inadequate signage, this claim can only be held to be an unrecoverable and unconscionable penalty. There can be no commercial justification for penalising drivers here, making this case easily distinguishable from ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 (the Beavis case) which turned on a unique 'legitimate interest' which disengaged the usual penalty rule in that case only. This meant ParkingEye could charge more than a nominal sum in damages in that particular retail park where a free licence to park meant Mr Beavis (who saw the signs) had entered into a contract. In Beavis, there was no evidence of predatory ticketing (as there is here) and the case also turned on the prominent, clear notices with the charge in the largest lettering, including at the entrance. Not so in this case.

    8.2. Even if all the unfairly caught out drivers of the cars at this location on the material day - including the Defendant - were 'unauthorised' and trespassing, then the landowner could sue under tort for any damages. The Beavis case reiterated that a private parking firm not in possession cannot claim damages and trespass was not pleaded.

    8.3. The Defendant categorically denies 'agreeing to' any parking charge or even seeing any terms or signage at this location, and avers that this was not due to any failing on his part.
    Last edited by Coupon-mad; 07-05-2018 at 4:14 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.

    • hartynoll
    • By hartynoll 8th May 18, 2:20 PM
    • 30 Posts
    • 8 Thanks
    hartynoll
    Thanks to everyone for their help

    Defence posted today - let's see

    Am I right in saying that I don't need to do anything else on the MCOL website?
    • KeithP
    • By KeithP 8th May 18, 2:25 PM
    • 7,983 Posts
    • 7,844 Thanks
    KeithP
    Am I right in saying that I don't need to do anything else on the MCOL website?
    Originally posted by hartynoll
    Yes you are right to say that.
    .
    • hartynoll
    • By hartynoll 12th Jul 18, 1:10 PM
    • 30 Posts
    • 8 Thanks
    hartynoll
    Crikey I am leaving this tight.

    I've been away on business for the past two weeks, and have come back to a letter from court saying my WS etc needs to be submitted by 18/7 and I am away this weekend too!!

    Some quick questions please:

    - I have seen WS templates, is the content mostly the same as my defence, but quoting exhibits?
    - Do the exhibits have to be sent to the court AND the claimant by the date quoted?
    - Can I request a 1 week extension from the court?
    - If I can get everything together in time, post it first class on 17/7 but for some reason it doesn't get received in time, will I be punished for that?

    Thanks all, will get back with my WS shortly
    • nosferatu1001
    • By nosferatu1001 12th Jul 18, 1:55 PM
    • 2,805 Posts
    • 3,500 Thanks
    nosferatu1001
    The content is a series of facts, nor arguments, with references to exhibits that support your statements
    Yes, thats what the court letter told you
    No, this is your lack of planning, not their isssue to deal with. Any request will likely be ignored as they dont look at much unles you pay them to do so.
    Doubtful, as the C would have to show they have been disadvantaged

    HOw about
    Hand deliver to court 0- should be local to you - and emai lto claimant?
    • hartynoll
    • By hartynoll 12th Jul 18, 2:09 PM
    • 30 Posts
    • 8 Thanks
    hartynoll
    "HOw about
    Hand deliver to court 0- should be local to you - and email to claimant?"

    Genius - gives me an extra day or two
    • hartynoll
    • By hartynoll 12th Jul 18, 3:26 PM
    • 30 Posts
    • 8 Thanks
    hartynoll
    Do I have to give exhibits when referring to similar cases? Or just quote them?
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 12th Jul 18, 3:29 PM
    • 59,410 Posts
    • 72,561 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Yes. You have to file the transcripts, which is why the ParkingPrankster provides them.

    And you will want to file the usual other evidence mentioned in the NEWBIES thread where I talk about Witness Statements and typical things to provide as evidence.
    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.

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

634Posts Today

7,278Users online

Martin's Twitter