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
    • Klaggers
    • By Klaggers 2nd Mar 18, 7:23 PM
    • 20Posts
    • 16Thanks
    Klaggers
    Yet another PCN in a private car park space.
    • #1
    • 2nd Mar 18, 7:23 PM
    Yet another PCN in a private car park space. 2nd Mar 18 at 7:23 PM
    Hello to all of the wonderful clever clogs who populate this forum, and do such a wonderful job of helping when dealing with these bullying contractors. I'm hoping that someone can cast a quick eye over my issue and advise me of my next course of action.

    I want to preface this by simply stating that this is a first for both my wife and I, and would have approached things MUCH differently with hindsight; however, we have gone partially down the rabbit hole and now I am worried that I cannot dig myself out.

    So, a bit of back story. My wife and I are tenants in a block of flats, and have been for just over 3 years. It was fair to say that the parking around the estate was becoming an increasing problem, and the Estates Management company (Warwick Estates) decided to contract the wonderful Parking Control Management (UK) Ltd. about 18 months ago to help sort this out. I hate to say it, but they have seemingly cleaned up the parking situation a lot, and stopped reckless and awkward parking which impacted on the residents of the area. That being said, my opinion has shifted when they decided to place a PCN on my wife's windscreen overnight, despite it being parked in our allocated bay. The rationale for the PCN was the following:

    “Parked without clearly displaying a valid PCM UK Ltd permit (at time of enforcement)”.

    In addition to this, the photo's provided in the evidence DID in fact reflect this; however, we rather naively thought this was an actual penalty charge notice, and was legally enforceable and did not do our homework and decided to appeal this that very morning. We argued on the appeal that this photo was disingenuous and did not accurately reflect the full extent of the dashboard. This is because my wife has a car with an overly curved dash, so she places it on a little flat shelf (still on the dash), however due to the curve of the dash, the shelf can be obscured when approached at certain angles, however it is still very much visible from the exterior of the car, it just depends how you approach it. This was very much the case as the permit was indeed sat on her dash (as it has done for over 6 months since she bought this car). This message was quickly composed over a space of about 10 minutes by my wife when she was at work, and she read it out to me over the phone after I had just come home from a rather gruelling night shift working for the emergency services. We both agreed that this was a reasonable case, and that it may have been the result of a genuine oversight, and as we are perfectly respectable residents of this estate, the PCN should be revoked. Nope. The appeal was rejected under as the permit was “Not clearly displayed”, and we had to take it to the IAS for another review should we believe that this decision was unfair.

    This led me to do a bit of research as it seemed completely unreasonable to pay £100 (or £60 should we pay in the first 2 weeks) for parking in our allocated bay, and has truly opened up the can of worms when it comes to the highly questionable practice of issuing PCN’s. My wife was more than ready to pay them the £60, as they were using the familiar bully tactics of using scare words such as “debt collectors” and the possibility of going to court. I dug my heels in and ordered her not to, and this is “how they win!” – By preying on innocent people who feel threatened! In light of this she has allowed me to take over the handling of this, and so here I am.

    So, after some basic research, this is where I realise we have already unwittingly dropped a couple of clangers by simply appealing (such as stating names, addresses and contact details), and I do not want to further this without using the guidance of someone who knows about it more than me. I am now keen to pursue this by simply highlighting that PCM have no right to issue a PCN as we as tenants have the primacy of contract for the use of this space, and a 3rd party contract cannot change this by simply slapping up a few signs in the area.

    I have dug out my tenancy agreement signed and found the section detailing our rights to using the bay. This states:

    “The Landlord lets to the Tenant the residential Premises known as (address) and shared use of the common parts as applicable, together with allocated parking bay no. XX as applicable (“the Premises”)”.

    As there is no mention of the requirement to park on this bay with the use of a permit, and I have not signed any documentation since the implementation of PCM on this site to allow them to do this, am I right in thinking they do not have a leg to stand on? The rationale for this is primarily derived from the court case "Pace Recovery and Storage v Mr N C6GF14F0 16/09/2016 Croydon", which can be perfectly extrapolated to this situation. In this case, District Judge Coonan ruled in favour of the resident, stating:

    "I have to deal with this on the evidence that is before me now. I have before me a tenancy agreement which gives Mr [N. redacted] the right to park on the estate and it does not say “on condition that you display a permit”. It does not say that, so he has that right. What Pace Recovery is seeking to do is, unilaterally outside the contract, restrict that right to only when a permit is displayed. Pace Recovery cannot do that. It has got to be the other contracting party, Affinity Sutton, which amends the terms of the tenancy agreement to restrict the right to park on a place in circumstances in which a permit is displayed but that is not in this tenancy agreement and you as a third party cannot unilaterally alter the terms of the tenancy agreement."

    I hasten to add I do not know what the Landlords agreement is in regards to their ownership of this space, and I am not 100% sure on how this is arranged. I have approached my Estate agents but they were no help (but to be honest, I may have been speaking rubbish as I struggle to differentiate between leaseholders, landowners, demising of land etc).

    As I currently stand I have sent a couple of pointed emails towards Warwick Estates detailing this, however they are quick to dismiss my issue and state they are not responsible for any parking disputes and I am to liaise with PCM directly. I have sent numerous emails stating that I am holding them jointly responsible with PCM for this issue, as I have the right to peaceful enjoyment of this parking space, and do not permit any 3rd party contractors to enforce their rules on this space whilst I remain a tenant in the development. Furthermore I have also requested a copy of the contract between Warwick Estates and PCM, but have yet to hear anything back from this.

    I have also typed a long-winded DRAFT appeal to the IAS which details my evidence suggesting that the parking attendant opted to take the photographs from a vantage point which deliberately obscured the permit [with evidence to show how different viewpoints do in fact show the permit]. In addition to this, I also highlighted that despite the disingenuous photos, PCM still have NO right to issue a PCN for the vehicle in this spot for the reasons I have already highlighted in this post. However, I am incredibly hesitant to submit this appeal as I know the opinion on this “independent” reviewer is not exactly positive, and doing so may actually hinder my case.

    So, what do you wonderful people recommend I do next? From what I can make out I have 3 options:

    1. Suck it up and pay them (not likely);
    2. Appeal to the IAS and await their completely unbiased verdict(!); or
    3. Ignore all further correspondence and allow them to take this forward however they see fit.

    I will not lie, I feel obliged to take option 2 as I feel I have a pretty solid case. And should it EVER go to small claims, I can demonstrate to a judge that I took reasonable steps to prevent it from getting this far.

    Any advice on this matter would be greatly appreciated and I thank anyone who has some input on this.

    Klaggers
Page 2
    • KeithP
    • By KeithP 6th Mar 18, 8:10 PM
    • 7,240 Posts
    • 6,771 Thanks
    KeithP
    They have up to six years to bring a court claim.

    Yes of course you can involve your local councillors.
    .
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 6th Mar 18, 8:55 PM
    • 57,564 Posts
    • 71,125 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    stating it is the responsibility of my estate agent as they have not updated my tenancy agreement after implementing PCM. Is this correct?
    No, because your estate agent didn't bring in PCM. The Management Company did, and it is their responsibility to communicate any changes to terms and conditions to all residents, and their failure to do so means there was NO agreed contract.

    Did you read Daniel san's thread from start to finish (and it's not over yet). His stand against Warwick Estates is brilliant, and Parliament agrees with you and him, not the ''bloodsuckers'' (Hansard).
    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.

    • Klaggers
    • By Klaggers 8th Mar 18, 2:30 PM
    • 20 Posts
    • 16 Thanks
    Klaggers
    They have up to six years to bring a court claim.

    Yes of course you can involve your local councillors.
    Originally posted by KeithP
    Guh, that's a long period to wait before I know I am in the clear. Or perhaps a better way to state it: I know I am free from being wrongfully harassed.

    No, because your estate agent didn't bring in PCM. The Management Company did, and it is their responsibility to communicate any changes to terms and conditions to all residents, and their failure to do so means there was NO agreed contract.
    Originally posted by Coupon-mad
    Unfortunately my MA are still sloping their shoulders and not wanting to engage with me. They are simply saying that as a tenant, they have no obligation to deal with me on this issue; rather the leaseholder (my landlord who lives in France..) is in fact responsible and they can raise a dispute if they think this is an injustice. It does seem that as I am only a tenant, that this makes my case more difficult to "prove" or motivate the PPC / Estates Management company to redact this blatant extortion as I do not own the legal paperwork which outlines the use of this land.

    Warwick Estates have implied that either the landlord or estate agent is a fault as they have not amended my tenancy agreement. If this is the case, it suggests that Warwick Estates did in fact inform the leaseholder / my landlord of their intention of implementing PCM. In light of this, my last correspondence with Warwick Estates is myself asking them how did they disseminate the information to the leaseholder (my landlord) that they were going to employ PCM to enforce parking regulations on their land, and how did the leaseholder respond (i.e. did they agree to this change, or did they even acknowledge this). In addition to this I also asked if they could send me the signed contract between Warwick Estates and PCM. However, they have yet to respond.

    I suppose a large smoking gun I am missing is that I do not know where to get the lease from which will detail the ownership and management (if any) of the allocated parking bays. My Estate Agents are just as clueless and say they do not own a copy of the lease. Would it be wise for me to ask my estate agent if they can liaise with my landlord, and at least send me the clause(s) which highlight the right of the parking bay?

    Did you read Daniel san's thread from start to finish (and it's not over yet). His stand against Warwick Estates is brilliant, and Parliament agrees with you and him, not the ''bloodsuckers'' (Hansard).
    Originally posted by Coupon-mad
    I have read large chunks of this thread - it is a beast to digest. There are some similar parallels which are undoubtedly informative, but I think they key difference in this case is that Daniel-San is a residents and owns the flat. That seems to be where I am getting stuck.
    -----
    Klaggers
    • Klaggers
    • By Klaggers 8th Mar 18, 6:05 PM
    • 20 Posts
    • 16 Thanks
    Klaggers
    Now, I appreciate this is going out on a limb, but I was looking over the "evidence" that PCM have used to issue this PCN, and the picture they have taken on the sign displaying this "contract" is cut off. I know PPC's rely heavily on the signage, as it is stipulating the alleged terms which you agree to by simply parking there.

    This evidence which they submitted can be seen here: imgur.com/a/IoWdM [no link posting permissions yet!] - please note I have cropped it, however I would argue that approx 1/4 of the sign was actually cropped on the right hand side due to the attendant taking a badly framed shot.

    Is this significant? As the "contract" has not been fully submitted as part of the "evidence" when issuing the PCN, can this in effect make it null and void? Or am I reading too much into this? Am I trying to grasp at straws in such a corrupt arena by trying to fight this on such a weak technicality?

    As always folks, your help in this is really appreciated. In addition, if you think I should remove this image / link for what ever reason please tell me.

    Much love!
    -----
    Klaggers
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 8th Mar 18, 8:57 PM
    • 57,564 Posts
    • 71,125 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    https://imgur.com/a/IoWdM

    Haha, that pic is rubbish! The parking charge could be a tenner...

    As the "contract" has not been fully submitted as part of the "evidence" when issuing the PCN, can this in effect make it null and void?
    I would grasp that straw, if that's the only signage photo, it looks a fair point, crying out to be made!
    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.

    • Guys Dad
    • By Guys Dad 9th Mar 18, 7:02 AM
    • 10,460 Posts
    • 9,747 Thanks
    Guys Dad
    The fact that you are a tenant and not the leaseholder is relevant. Warwick only need contact the leaseholder about changes and have no responsibility to you.

    The other main point is that your wife actually did display the permit. My advice would be to get a video of the permit in place and be ready to show the court how the warden deliberately used a picture that didn't show the permit. Or a series of still shots.

    If you can also find out if there is a warden incentive scheme in force to show why a fake ticket is to his advantage.

    Lastly, you admit that the PPC has cleared up the outsider parking problem. Unless most of the leaseholders have been bitten by the rottweiler they brought in, you may be in a minority and for all you know, your landlord may have been a supporter.
    • Klaggers
    • By Klaggers 9th Mar 18, 7:03 AM
    • 20 Posts
    • 16 Thanks
    Klaggers
    In light of this I'll type up an appeal to IAS today using this as the crux of my argument. Shall I post my draft here for review?
    -----
    Klaggers
    • Klaggers
    • By Klaggers 9th Mar 18, 8:09 AM
    • 20 Posts
    • 16 Thanks
    Klaggers
    The fact that you are a tenant and not the leaseholder is relevant. Warwick only need contact the leaseholder about changes and have no responsibility to you.
    Originally posted by Guys Dad
    I accept this.

    The other main point is that your wife actually did display the permit. My advice would be to get a video of the permit in place and be ready to show the court how the warden deliberately used a picture that didn't show the permit. Or a series of still shots.
    Originally posted by Guys Dad
    Done. I have snapped a bunch of still pics of varying angles displaying the permit. My issue is I am so reluctant to appeal to the IAS as the opinion on this forum is that it is a waste of time; however I am keen to use the service due to the following:

    1) Try every angle to nip this in the bud (hey, a 10% success rate is better than 0%);
    2) I'm under the impression that it costs the PPC money for every appeal lodged; and
    3) Should this go to small claims, I can demonstrate that I attempted to resolve this matter using all other avenues.

    If you can also find out if there is a warden incentive scheme in force to show why a fake ticket is to his advantage.
    Originally posted by Guys Dad
    I doubt I would ever get PCM to admit this..

    Lastly, you admit that the PPC has cleared up the outsider parking problem. Unless most of the leaseholders have been bitten by the rottweiler they brought in, you may be in a minority and for all you know, your landlord may have been a supporter.
    Originally posted by Guys Dad
    Then the argument on this is that the Landlord can be held responsible for failure to communicate this matter to the estate agent and has not updated the tenancy agreement. Surely a change to my tenancy cannot be implemented at LEAST without the tenant being informed? Anyway, I know the landlord is selling up, and I have to leave by August (I am in the process of purchasing a property as we speak), so this could not come at a more inconvenient time, and my wife is genuinely stressed and upset by this. And I cannot say I am enjoying being put in this position.

    Thank you for your input!
    Last edited by Klaggers; 09-03-2018 at 11:28 AM.
    -----
    Klaggers
    • Fruitcake
    • By Fruitcake 9th Mar 18, 8:23 AM
    • 36,648 Posts
    • 83,014 Thanks
    Fruitcake
    If the landlord has not informed you about changes implemented by the MA, it is possible that they never received anything from the MA and may not know about it, may have received something but ignored it, may have received something and agreed it but didn't tell you, or may have disapproved of it but the MA implemented it anyway.

    If the landlord is silent about this for whatever reason, and unless the scammers produce something in writing, I think they will have a job convincing a judge this was agreed.
    You simply say that the scammers have provided no proof that the landlord has agreed/changed your lease/AST to allow a third party to charge you for parking in your own demised space.
    Last edited by Fruitcake; 09-03-2018 at 9:18 AM.
    I married my cousin. I had to...
    I don't have a sister.

    All my screwdrivers are cordless.
    "You're Safety Is My Primary Concern Dear" - Laks
    • Klaggers
    • By Klaggers 9th Mar 18, 11:22 AM
    • 20 Posts
    • 16 Thanks
    Klaggers
    Hello all,

    I have a concise appeal drafted to the IAS - I figure I can give it a shot on the technicalities I have highlighted as above.
    Is it encouraged that I post the draft here to be scrutinised? I am all too aware that companies do frequent these boards, and as a result disclosing certain details can hinder any progress..

    Keep up the good work all
    -----
    Klaggers
    • nosferatu1001
    • By nosferatu1001 9th Mar 18, 12:13 PM
    • 2,516 Posts
    • 3,081 Thanks
    nosferatu1001
    Yes, post it here.
    • Klaggers
    • By Klaggers 9th Mar 18, 12:27 PM
    • 20 Posts
    • 16 Thanks
    Klaggers
    Ok- here goes. My intention was simply to be concise, not to give away any other details and to be reasonable.


    Dear Sir/Madam,

    Re: PCN Number: PMxxxxxxxx

    Thank you for taking this time to read my appeal. On xx/xx/2018 at xx:xx the registered keeper of this vehicle was issued a PCN by Parking Control Management (UK) Ltd (PCM). PCM provided the following reason for issuing this notice:

    'Parked without clearly displaying a valid PCM UK Ltd permit (at time of enforcement)'.

    This PCN is being appealed as it is asserted that PCM did not provide sufficient evidence when issuing this PCN to demonstrate that their signage was compliant with Schedule 1 of the Independent Parking Committee Code of Practice. This includes:

    'Identify the amount of any charge and explain when it becomes payable';

    PCM are requesting that the registered keeper of this vehicle pays £100 as the 'vehicle was parked in a manner whereby the driver is liable to pay £100 as stated on the signage throughout the area'; as demonstrated in EVIDENCE A.jpg*; however the registered keeper has not been shown adequate evidence which clearly displays the fee(s) charged to any motorists who do not comply with the signage. This is due to the fact that the photographic evidence of the signage supplied by PCM, which was obtained when the PCN was issued, fails to include the charges incurred, and as a result the charges stipulated on PCN have no basis and are unable to be applied in this case.

    'Identify yourself 'the Creditor'';

    The evidence provided by PCM fails to adhere to the use of the required language; specifically PCM do not identify themselves as 'the Creditor'.

    The evidence I am using to reinforce my position has been uploaded and titled EVIDENCE B.jpg**. In light of this, I am asserting that PCM are unable to impose any financial charge on the registered keeper for this alleged breach, as the costs outlined on the PCN have no basis. In addition to this, as PCM have not identified themselves as 'the Creditor' in the signage / evidence submitted by PCM, the registered keeper has no way of identifying that PCM are in fact responsible for this PCN.

    I do thank you for taking the time to read this appeal.

    Regards,

    The registered keeper




    * Evidence A = copy of the paper issued PCN stipulating why PCM are issuing this and how much they want
    ** Evidence B = the unedited picture PCM used as "evidence" when issuing the PCN.

    Any input is really appreciated!
    Last edited by Klaggers; 10-03-2018 at 6:58 PM.
    -----
    Klaggers
    • Klaggers
    • By Klaggers 10th Mar 18, 3:03 PM
    • 20 Posts
    • 16 Thanks
    Klaggers
    Quick bump.
    -----
    Klaggers
    • DoaM
    • By DoaM 10th Mar 18, 3:13 PM
    • 4,285 Posts
    • 4,333 Thanks
    DoaM
    If that's the real PCN number please edit your post to mask it, as PPC stooges browse this board and that will identify you to them.

    Can you link us to redacted copies of A and B please?
    Last edited by DoaM; 10-03-2018 at 3:19 PM.
    Diary of a madman
    Walk the line again today
    Entries of confusion
    Dear diary, I'm here to stay
    • Klaggers
    • By Klaggers 12th Mar 18, 12:36 PM
    • 20 Posts
    • 16 Thanks
    Klaggers
    Hello all.

    Sorry for the delay - I've just done a string of night work and I wasn't able to dedicate any real time to this.

    If that's the real PCN number please edit your post to mask it, as PPC stooges browse this board and that will identify you to them.
    Originally posted by DoaM
    Whoops! Done and done!

    Can you link us to redacted copies of A and B please?
    Originally posted by DoaM
    Evidence A - https://imgur.com/a/IoWdM
    Evidence B - https://imgur.com/a/1KZBz

    I am keen to get this submitted today - thank you all for your patience and support - I owe you all one.
    Last edited by Klaggers; 12-03-2018 at 1:18 PM. Reason: Typo
    -----
    Klaggers
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 12th Mar 18, 7:23 PM
    • 57,564 Posts
    • 71,125 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Submit it then!
    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.

    • Klaggers
    • By Klaggers 15th Mar 18, 9:07 PM
    • 20 Posts
    • 16 Thanks
    Klaggers
    Hello everyone,

    I have a quick question - although I am confident that I know the answer to this!

    Does the signage which Private Parking Companies are obliged to display, specifically when placed on private land, have to be compliant with any current legislation? For instance, should a PPC state that their signage is complaint with relevant guidelines AND legislation, are they talking absolute twaddle? I am under the impression there is currently no legislation which stipulates the requirements of their signage; rather they get their "jurisdiction" from following the IPC Code of Practice?

    Will update soon!

    Klaggers
    -----
    Klaggers
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 15th Mar 18, 9:31 PM
    • 57,564 Posts
    • 71,125 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Does the signage which Private Parking Companies are obliged to display, specifically when placed on private land, have to be compliant with any current legislation?
    Not as such especially for signage, but because the sign is an excuse for a 'contract' they could point to the Consumer Rights Act 2015 as legislation which does deal with t&cs in any consumer contract having to be clear and transparent, no hidden small print, etc.
    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.

    • Klaggers
    • By Klaggers 15th Mar 18, 9:37 PM
    • 20 Posts
    • 16 Thanks
    Klaggers
    Ah, never mind. I was hoping I could highlight the complete ignorance of the PPC in this instance. Best not point this out as it could backfire.

    Thank you so much for the prompt response. This website/forum is amazing and I'm so grateful of the help so far. No updates at this moment, but hopefully will have news before long.

    Klaggers
    -----
    Klaggers
    • Klaggers
    • By Klaggers 6th Apr 18, 9:51 AM
    • 20 Posts
    • 16 Thanks
    Klaggers
    Hello all,

    I thought I'd provide a brief courtesy update regarding my IAS appeal.

    I think you all will be shocked and amazed that my appeal was rejected!

    I fought it on the following points:
    • The "evidence" submitted my PCM omits the details which stipulates the "charge", therefore cannot be reasonably be enforced as there is no "contractual" binding - https://imgur.com/a/IoWdM
    • I parked in my own bay, and my tenancy agreement does not stipulate the mandatory use of a permit and previous court cases have set the precedent on this;
    • Provided the details of the court cases which demonstrate PCM's inadequate signage resulted in the claims being dismissed;
    • The fact that PCM have ticketed a legitimate resident of the estate which it is meant to be protecting from disruptive parking cannot be considered in the best interest of anyone apart from PCM, and this reckless and aggressive behaviour is the equivalent of extortion and has led to the proposed parliamentary interventions; and
    • The permit was ACTUALLY on the dashboard, however PCM have opted to take a photograph which purposefully obscures this.

    This was the long-and-short of it all and of course it was thrown out with some generic nonsense and my arguments were left primarily left unaddressed or, at best, vaguely mentioned and dismissed instantly.

    I did inform Mrs. Klaggers that the likelihood of this appeal being accepted is minimal, and it is like urinating into the wind. However, here comes the kicker: she wants to pay the charge and just move on with her life, although no money has been parted yet. I have pleaded with her to just ignore this nonsense as the likelihood of this being pursued any further is not likely to go beyond some letters with some clever writing / format which seem more important and clever than they truly are. Furthermore, the chances of this progressing to a small claims is relatively small, and when they do, with help from the wonderful people who populate this forum, the success rate is approx 99%! I'm afraid she is not happy with this still as she has described the underlying anxiety behind it all, and that when every time an email / letter came through in regards to this issue, it really upset her, and had a marked impact on her for the rest of the day etc. As a result of this, this made me upset on her behalf, and would ruin my mood for the day. And to throw a spanner in the works, we are moving house in a few months, and she doesn't want to leave any loose ends and one less thing to worry about.
    Anyway, I am even trying to make her contact PCM to pass over my details as the driver, and make me liable for this nonsense and I will simply ignore all further correspondence until necessary. She's not budging on this as she's saying this is her problem etc, and to pass them onto me is not acceptable.

    Well, that's about it. I've rambled on long enough. Who knows, I may convince her to make me liable and I'll be back in a short while requesting help with an impending court date! Anyway, I owe you all one and thank you for the help you have provided me with getting this far.

    Klaggers
    -----
    Klaggers
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

1,339Posts Today

5,859Users 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