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
    • Gunner84
    • By Gunner84 23rd Feb 18, 12:54 PM
    • 46Posts
    • 19Thanks
    Gunner84
    UKPC - SCS Claim form recieved
    • #1
    • 23rd Feb 18, 12:54 PM
    UKPC - SCS Claim form recieved 23rd Feb 18 at 12:54 PM
    I live in a flat in a gated development parking controlled by UKPC. The flat comes with two parking passes, one guest pass and one for my own car. Over the past year my partner suddenly began recieving tickets for her car in the visitor bay. We observed advice on these forums which we now sadly know was out of date, to ignore them. Given the reputation is easy to research, this seemed reasonable at the time given that we actually have a pass, and they seem to operate purely for commission rather than protecting the parking interests of residents.

    Flash forward several months - We now have a court claim letter against us. So here are the finer details about what supposedly went wrong here.

    They claim the guest pass is invalid. Some months ago i had my own guest pass for my numbered bay replaced. I did not receive this from the property management, or via any chain from UKPC. I got it from a tenant who says he often acts as a liason for the property management. Since guest passes were not numbered, I did not question the validity of the guest pass. We also did not receive any tickets around this time, so I had no reason to question it. The existing parking permit is undated, there is no such thing as an expiry date. When i recently spoke to the property management they informed me that they had posted a letter (did not recieve this) updating us on the new passes. When i mentioned I hadn't received this they referred me to a notice board, saying they did not have my landlords email address.

    Parking signs are several meters away from the bays which are marked "visitors bay". They state requirement for a valid pass, but do not detail validity dates on the pass themselves. I have lived here for 5 years. Passes were not updated annually, or to any pattern that is noticeable.

    My tenancy agreement was initially 12 months, but has been rolling ever since. I am not sure how relevant this is but worth mentioning.

    So just to clarify, my partner is the keeper of the ticketed vehicle, parking in the visitor bay with a permit that just suddenly became invalid. It is my permit, and the only one i had ever received until recently. Where does she/we stand here?

    The claim is for 4 figures. Since its several tickets ignored as we felt they were in error due to it being valid pass at our own home. We did inform the parking officers who stopped ticketing when we did. When i actually phoned UKPC to discuss it, suddenly they ticketed again. Almost appeared malicious.

    Any help is most appreciated.
    Last edited by Gunner84; 23-02-2018 at 1:01 PM.
Page 2
    • nosferatu1001
    • By nosferatu1001 6th Mar 18, 2:35 PM
    • 2,516 Posts
    • 3,081 Thanks
    nosferatu1001
    Part 18 does not apply. Just ask them for all doucments they intend to rely upon, in the interests of narrowing the subject under dispute and to meet the overriding objectives of the CPRs

    If it is a rolling agreement, then the original agreement terms stand unless it specifies otherwise.

    When you say"own bay... being included", WHAT is it included IN if not the agreement????
    • Gunner84
    • By Gunner84 6th Mar 18, 2:58 PM
    • 46 Posts
    • 19 Thanks
    Gunner84
    I am searching for some proof of this now, otherwise surely I will have to entirely dismiss Primacy of tenancy as a defence if no mention of parking is included here.

    Would my landlords own paperwork suffice to some extent? His own lease stating parking information?

    Thanks again Nosferatu.
    • Gunner84
    • By Gunner84 7th Mar 18, 2:57 PM
    • 46 Posts
    • 19 Thanks
    Gunner84
    Part 18 does not apply. Just ask them for all doucments they intend to rely upon, in the interests of narrowing the subject under dispute and to meet the overriding objectives of the CPRs

    If it is a rolling agreement, then the original agreement terms stand unless it specifies otherwise.

    When you say"own bay... being included", WHAT is it included IN if not the agreement????
    Originally posted by nosferatu1001

    I am requesting the documents to meet CPR overriding objectives, is there any meaningful way I can deadline this? Otherwise surely they will just delay?
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 7th Mar 18, 3:00 PM
    • 17,648 Posts
    • 27,902 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    I am requesting the documents to meet CPR overriding objectives, is there any meaningful way I can deadline this? Otherwise surely they will just delay?
    Originally posted by Gunner84
    'A response to this letter is required within x days'?
    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 7th Mar 18, 4:38 PM
    • 57,564 Posts
    • 71,135 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    otherwise surely I will have to entirely dismiss Primacy of tenancy as a defence if no mention of parking is included here.
    No you won't entirely dismiss what may well be your best defence point!

    Modern lease/tenancy agreements imply rights of way, which in turn can include parking:

    https://bmpa.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/115000364509-Bulstrode-v-Lambert-CHD-1953

    https://bmpa.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/214079425-Allocated-Car-Park-spaces

    http://lexisweb.co.uk/cases/2000/november/mcclymont-v-primecourt-property-management-ltd

    QUOTE
    That a right to use and access a roadway can reasonably include a right to park was accepted by the court in McClymont v. Primecourt Property Management Limited* [2000] All ER (D) 1871.

    ''On the facts, in McClymont, a grant of a right to use a private road included the right to park vehicles. The erection of gates by P restricted the available space, even for temporary parking for the owners of No 102. Accordingly that was a substantial interference with the right of way and interfered with the reasonable use of the right''.

    The flat comes with two parking passes, one guest pass and one for my own car.
    So clearly then, there is a reasonable expectation of the tenant being granted parking rights.

    Did those 'passes' come with a set of rules/regulations/warning of 100 charges? NOPE.

    Did those passes say ''further t&cs and parking charges of 100 apply, see signage in the car park which creates a contractual obligation and forms part of this permit agreement''? NOPE.

    Were you merely given the permits and told you could use those spaces? Yes...?

    Then you can argue primacy of contract, and if the tenancy agreement is silent about parking then that can be used in your favour, to prove that you were never alerted to any obligation, contract, charges, or any t&cs that could override the ostensibly 'free passes' or change/vary your agreement.
    Last edited by Coupon-mad; 07-03-2018 at 4:44 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.

    • Gunner84
    • By Gunner84 8th Mar 18, 10:05 AM
    • 46 Posts
    • 19 Thanks
    Gunner84
    No you won't entirely dismiss what may well be your best defence point!

    Modern lease/tenancy agreements imply rights of way, which in turn can include parking:

    https://bmpa.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/115000364509-Bulstrode-v-Lambert-CHD-1953

    https://bmpa.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/214079425-Allocated-Car-Park-spaces

    http://lexisweb.co.uk/cases/2000/november/mcclymont-v-primecourt-property-management-ltd




    So clearly then, there is a reasonable expectation of the tenant being granted parking rights.

    Did those 'passes' come with a set of rules/regulations/warning of 100 charges? NOPE.

    Did those passes say ''further t&cs and parking charges of 100 apply, see signage in the car park which creates a contractual obligation and forms part of this permit agreement''? NOPE.

    Were you merely given the permits and told you could use those spaces? Yes...?

    Then you can argue primacy of contract, and if the tenancy agreement is silent about parking then that can be used in your favour, to prove that you were never alerted to any obligation, contract, charges, or any t&cs that could override the ostensibly 'free passes' or change/vary your agreement.
    Originally posted by Coupon-mad
    To answer these questions as best I can:

    As far as the passes coming to me with a warning. No, never. In fact to my memory they were either put in my hands by the previous tenant, or the letting agency managing the initial agreement. Then accepted for 5 years without issue.

    As for passes coming with any warning of fines, there have been some. In the form of letters to residents from property management outlining the rules of the passes.It didn't come with the tenancy contract. I have attached the letter which clearly states leasehold PROPERTIES are allocated 1 x resident and 1x visitor pass. These seem to be no uncertain terms, but I am not sure where the whole letter stands legally. It's from 2014. The property management company has changed, and insists they posted a warning requiring me to purchase new ones. I did not receive this.

    I have attached to this two documents which I am hoping someone could advise me on in terms of how the wording assists me.

    First one. Tenancy contract redacted to protect identity. Section 5.1 seems to work in my favour. Could someone elaborate if possible on how to use this most effectively in my defence. If "Drives" does not describe both the parking bays and visitor parking, then what does it refer to?

    Second. A letter that I have detailing that properties were allocated 1 of each pass. It mentions when a new permit is purchased the previous becomes invalid. But it doesn't state that the undated permits have any sort of expiry.




    Am I on the right track here and starting to think in the correct way? Must have spent about 30 hours on this now plus.
    • nosferatu1001
    • By nosferatu1001 8th Mar 18, 12:47 PM
    • 2,516 Posts
    • 3,081 Thanks
    nosferatu1001
    Youre thinking the right way

    A letter doesnt form a contract, nor can it vary your tenancy agreement.
    • Gunner84
    • By Gunner84 8th Mar 18, 1:14 PM
    • 46 Posts
    • 19 Thanks
    Gunner84
    Youre thinking the right way

    A letter doesnt form a contract, nor can it vary your tenancy agreement.
    Originally posted by nosferatu1001
    Keeping in mind though this case isn't my "own space", but my visitors right to park. If the tenancy contract takes all permits out of consideration potentially, how do i then apply it to her vehicle in the visitors pass in a way that makes an effective argument?
    • Gunner84
    • By Gunner84 9th Mar 18, 2:12 PM
    • 46 Posts
    • 19 Thanks
    Gunner84
    Might be a silly question, but do I need to prepare my evidence and have reference points to it throughout my defence? Or is that all afterwards with the witness statement? I read up about it, but am trying to avoid confusion.
    • nosferatu1001
    • By nosferatu1001 9th Mar 18, 3:52 PM
    • 2,516 Posts
    • 3,081 Thanks
    nosferatu1001
    Its a silly question, because the newbies thread, post two guides you through every step. You MUST be referring to this at all points.

    Is there any mention in teh TA that the visitors spaces are in any way diffferent to the rest?
    • Gunner84
    • By Gunner84 9th Mar 18, 4:03 PM
    • 46 Posts
    • 19 Thanks
    Gunner84
    UPDATE:

    Received documents to be used as evidence following request for them from UKPC and SCS to meet overriding objectives of CPR.

    A series of contracts following each other have arrived chronologically. There are LOTS of redacted sections. Including a large one around the terms and conditions, a bullet point adhering to the requirements of the Property Management company (this is who the contract is with) and the previous property management. I cannot find anything about the landowners amongst this. Only lots of redactions, one current contract and one old and seemingly irrelevant one.

    Should I send a response? I feel like they might be sitting on a contract that links to the landowner. There is still a lack of a contract between the property management and the landowner here. I don't want to get blindsided down the line.

    Aside from that, all their evidence seems to consist of just all the notice to keepers, which are awful frankly. My photos of the area are far more detailed. The sign which they have watermarked with "Proof", also slightly differs from the ones on the land. I have pictures, however. Pictures that match up with their own.
    • Gunner84
    • By Gunner84 9th Mar 18, 4:04 PM
    • 46 Posts
    • 19 Thanks
    Gunner84
    Its a silly question, because the newbies thread, post two guides you through every step. You MUST be referring to this at all points.

    Is there any mention in teh TA that the visitors spaces are in any way diffferent to the rest?
    Originally posted by nosferatu1001

    No mention of them whatsoever. Only what you see above is whats written in my contract. "Communal parts, paths and drives". I don't know what can be considered communal drives in the area other than the parking bays and visitor bays surrounding?
    • nosferatu1001
    • By nosferatu1001 9th Mar 18, 4:19 PM
    • 2,516 Posts
    • 3,081 Thanks
    nosferatu1001
    Visitors spaces are, by definition, communal.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 9th Mar 18, 9:01 PM
    • 57,564 Posts
    • 71,135 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    I feel like they might be sitting on a contract that links to the landowner.
    I highly doubt it.
    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.

    • Gunner84
    • By Gunner84 12th Mar 18, 12:28 PM
    • 46 Posts
    • 19 Thanks
    Gunner84
    URGENT. 7 DAYS REMAINING TO DEFEND : Just a quick question, but my landlord has sent me his part of the tenancy agreement, one that was photographed upstairs. Hes scanned it as a PDF. Is it ok in terms of evidence that this is not the original copy?

    I have the other half of it myself, but its his scanned and signed half that clearly shows the terms upon which we will be reliant.

    Additionally, I cannot access my landlords lease agreement, but is the tenancy agreement alone enough? Surely nothing in the tenancy could have ever been legally agreed if that alone doesn't sufficiently demonstrate my rights? It in no way mentions my own numbered bay (which i have been allocated) either. It just says what you see in the images in this thread.

    I really need to get this defence clear now so i can have it up here in front of you guys by the end of the day.
    Last edited by Gunner84; 12-03-2018 at 2:38 PM.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 12th Mar 18, 7:22 PM
    • 57,564 Posts
    • 71,135 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    If you are only at defence stage then you include no evidence yet anyway. Evidence comes with WS, as explained in the NEWBIES thread post #2.
    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.

    • Gunner84
    • By Gunner84 13th Mar 18, 3:06 PM
    • 46 Posts
    • 19 Thanks
    Gunner84
    This is the first defence draft. I would appreciate any scrutiny, critiquing and so on. I would like to draw particular attention to a few points at the foot of the posted defence, as I have many issues I am not sure how to work in to the defence, or whether they belong in witness statements, and so on. I have used Jonersh defence as a template as I liked how succinct it was. Point 4 is obviously not correct, but I am not sure what do do here. The location address cites two different roads within the gated complex we live in, definitely not ones where we have parked, but the overall deed title is registered as ONE of those two street names. Where the vehicle was actually parked isn't name in either, so I am unsure if it just comes under that umbrella. Should i just leave this and admit to its location and fight on other points? The confusion is sidetracking.

    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.

    2. The Particulars of Claim fail to refer to the material terms of any contract and neither comply with the CPR 16 in respect of statements of case, nor the relevant practice direction in respect of claims formed by contract or conduct.
    Background
    3. It is admitted that at all material times the Defendant is the registered keeper of vehicle registration mark XXZZZ which is the subject of these proceedings. The vehicle is insured with [provider] with [number] of named drivers permitted to use it.

    4. It is disputed that on [date] the Defendant's vehicle was parked at [location]. The street address signposted on the location used by UKPC as photographic evidence does not match those stated on notice to keeper or particulars of claim. It is unknown to the Defendant as to whether the address photographed can be considered within the boundaries of the address stated on these documents. Unsure of how to word this or whether to leave it out entirely. They have stated 2 street names on the notice to keeper. The parking spaces are within the same gated development, but parked on a street name that is not shown on any documentation from UKPC.

    5. The Defendant is unable to identify the driver for the [dates]. The Claimant is put to strict proof.
    5.1. The Claimant has provided no evidence (in pre-action correspondence or otherwise) that the Defendant was the driver. The Defendant avers that the Claimant is therefore limited to pursuing the Defendant in these proceedings under the provisions set out by statute in the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 ("POFA")
    5.2. Before seeking to rely on the keeper liability provisions of Schedule 4 POFA the Claimant must demonstrate that:
    5.2.1. there was a relevant obligation either by way of a breach of contract, trespass or other tort; and
    5.2.2. that it has followed the required deadlines and wording as described in the Act to transfer liability from the driver to the registered keeper.
    It is not admitted that the Claimant has complied with the relevant statutory requirements.

    5.3. To the extent that the Claimant may seek to allege that any such presumption exist, the Defendant expressly denies that there is any presumption in law (whether in statute or otherwise) that the keeper is the driver. Further, the Defendant denies that the vehicle keeper is obliged to name the driver to a private parking firm. Had this been the intention of parliament, they would have made such requirements part of POFA, which makes no such provision. In the alternative, an amendment could have been made to s.172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988. The 1988 Act continues to oblige the identification of drivers only in strictly limited circumstances, where a criminal offence has been committed. Those provisions do not apply to this matter.

    Authority to Park and Primacy of Contract
    6. It is denied that the Defendant or lawful users of his/her vehicle were in breach of any parking conditions or were not permitted to park in circumstances where an express permission to park had been granted to the Defendant permitting the above mentioned vehicle to be parked by the current occupier of [address], whose tenancy agreement permits the parking of vehicle(s) on land. The Defendant avers that there was an absolute entitlement to park deriving from the terms of the tenancy agreement, which cannot be fettered by any alleged parking terms. The tenancy agreement contract terms provide the right to use, in common with others, any shared rights of access, stairways, communal parts, paths and drives. Visitor parking spaces are, by definition, communal drives. This is detailed without limitation as to type of vehicle, ownership of vehicle, the user of the vehicle or the requirement to display a parking permit.
    6.1 There is no mention on the tenancy agreement of any potential parking charges, or contractual agreements with a private parking company. A copy of the tenancy agreement will be provided to the Court, together with witness evidence that prior permission to park had been given by both the occupier and leaseholder.
    6.1.1 The tenant had been issued with a UKPC guest parking permit which they had received upon moving in to the property from the active property management company in November 2011, containing no expiry date, and having received no correspondence suggesting impending invalidity of said permit. Since the tenancy agreement makes no mention of their existence, these were displayed in good faith in cooperation with other residents and the property management company and demonstrate compliance. A copy of the visitor pass will be provided to the Court.

    7. The Defendant avers that the operator signs cannot (i) override the existing rights enjoyed by residents and their visitors and (ii) that parking easements cannot retrospectively and unilaterally be restricted where provided for within the lease or tenancy agreement. There is a large body of case law to support this. The Defendant will rely upon the judgments on appeal of HHJ Harris QC in Jopson v Homeguard Services Ltd (2016) and of Sir Christopher Slade in K-Sultana Saeed v Plustrade Ltd [2001] EWCA Civ 2011. The court will be referred to similar cases should the matter proceed to trial.

    7. Accordingly it is denied that:
    7.1. there was any agreement as between the Defendant or driver of the vehicle and the Claimant
    7.2. there was any obligation (at all) to display a permit; and
    7.3. the Claimant has suffered loss or damage or that there is a lawful basis to pursue a claim for loss.

    Alternative Defence - Failure to set out clearly parking terms
    8. In the alternative, the Defendant relies upon ParkingEye Ltd v Barry Beavis (2015) UKSC 67, in so far as the Court were willing to consider the imposition of 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 throughout the site.
    8.1. The Defendant avers that the parking signage in this matter was, without prejudice to his/her primary defence above, inadequate.
    8.1.1. At the time of the material events the signage was deficient in number, distribution, wording and lighting to reasonably convey a contractual obligation. Signage on site is not clearly legible or visible from the bays marked as visitor parking. One of the two nearest signs is mounted on the side of a neighbouring apartment block, in excess of 8 feet above ground level, parallel with the first floor apartments. Clear photographic evidence will be provided to the court.
    8.1.2. The largest wording present on the signage states !!!8220;NO UNAUTHORISED PARKING!!!8221;. This signage is forbidding, and does not constitute an offer of a contract. The defendant will rely on the judgements of DDJ Ellington in UKPC v Masterson B4GF26K6[2016].
    8.2. The Defendant avers that the residential site that is the subject of these proceedings is not a site where there is a commercial value to be protected. The Claimant has not suffered loss or pecuniary disadvantage. The penalty charge is, accordingly, unconscionable in this context, with ParkingEye distinguished.

    9. It is denied that the Claimant has standing to bring any claim in the absence of a contract that expressly permits the Claimant to do so, in addition to merely undertaking parking management. The Claimant has provided no proof of any such entitlement.

    10. It is denied that the Claimant has any entitlement to the sums sought.

    11. It is admitted that interest may be applicable, subject to the discretion of the Court on any sum (if awarded), but it is denied that interest is applicable on the total sums claimed by the Claimant.

    STATEMENT OF TRUTH
    I confirm that the contents of this Defence are true.



    Questions.

    1. I have tried to represent the guest passes we were handed by the previous property management, but not rely on them. Have I represented his in a way that makes sense?
    2. How do I represent my uncertainty that the keepers car location can be considered correct, despite it being within the development?
    3. Have I properly addressed the beavis comparisons? I don't believe it applies here at all, but is my argument comprehensive enough?
    4. I have gone in to some detail about sign legibility. Particularly because one of the two closer signs is at a ridiculous height. The other is on a wall curved away from visibility from the parking space. So you can see one, and you have to really seek it out. Was this the correct place for this within the defence? I'm unsure if i should be saving this for later?
    5. Site entrance says "permit holders only". My visitor displayed one. They deemed in invalid. Surely if they see there as being a contract with the keeper, they would have to acknowledge that permit as valid. If it is not valid, it does not apply to her vehicle. Would the "No Unauthorised Parking" sign not unequivocally be trespassing in this case? Surely they can't have their cake and eat it. Shes either a valid permit holder (so its valid), or shes not (so its trespassing?)
    6. Any feedback on the cases referenced, or if I should add more at this stage and i'd be incredibly grateful.
    7.The signage mentions marked bays. There is no visible markings on the visitors bays. How and where do i work this in to the defence to our advantage?
    8. My tenancy agreement is with the leaseholder of the individual flat. He cannot provide me his lease as its "archived", so I can't really anchor my tenancy agreement to his leasehold documents. Is my tenancy agreement enough for primacy of contract? Or is his inability to assist me somewhat undermining my rights?


    I need to send this off tomorrow really. How are we looking?


    Thanks in advance.



    Last edited by Gunner84; 13-03-2018 at 3:54 PM.
    • KeithP
    • By KeithP 13th Mar 18, 3:10 PM
    • 7,259 Posts
    • 6,782 Thanks
    KeithP
    I need to send this off tomorrow really.
    Originally posted by Gunner84
    Yesterday you had seven days.

    You are planning to email it aren't you?
    So you have several more days.

    Email to: ccbcaq@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk
    .
    • Gunner84
    • By Gunner84 13th Mar 18, 3:15 PM
    • 46 Posts
    • 19 Thanks
    Gunner84
    Yesterday you had seven days.

    You are planning to email it aren't you?
    So you have several more days.

    Email to: ccbcaq@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk
    Originally posted by KeithP
    Planning to send and post tomorrow in good time. Next Wednesday they need to receive it by, but I have a very ill family member that I need to tend to, so my working hours on this are limited. I'd like to be done and dusted, knowledgeable and organised so that they are unable to prey on my circumstances. Thats probably the more long winded explanation.
    • nosferatu1001
    • By nosferatu1001 13th Mar 18, 3:58 PM
    • 2,516 Posts
    • 3,081 Thanks
    nosferatu1001
    Just email it. Dont post it. Emai lis more certain and quicker.
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

48Posts Today

3,152Users 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