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
    • Sniffa
    • By Sniffa 15th Mar 18, 12:47 PM
    • 11Posts
    • 3Thanks
    Sniffa
    I've got a County Court Claim for a 2yr old PCN
    • #1
    • 15th Mar 18, 12:47 PM
    I've got a County Court Claim for a 2yr old PCN 15th Mar 18 at 12:47 PM
    I need some advice please.

    I received a Parking Charge Notice from Civil Enforcement Ltd in May 2016 related to parking at a Sports Club on 21/4/2016 and requesting that I pay a £60 charge (increasing to £100 after 14 days).

    I responded immediately in writing to Civil Enforcement explaining that there must have been an error as, although at the time I was taking my son to the A&E department of the hospital, I was authorised to park there, because my son was a member of the Sports Club. At the time I was unaware that the car parking system had recently changed and drivers needed to enter their details onto a terminal in the clubhouse, which I would have done had I been aware.

    6 months later I received a letter from a company called ZZPS Ltd related to this incident and stating that I owed £200 (surely it should have been £100 at most?).

    I again responded explaining the circumstances and requested that they cancel the PCN. I thought that was the end of the matter as I have heard nothing since from either company.

    Now, a further 18 months later, I find that Civil Enforcement Ltd is taking me to court for £271.54 plus costs of £75.

    What can I do?
Page 1
    • pogofish
    • By pogofish 15th Mar 18, 1:49 PM
    • 9,000 Posts
    • 9,376 Thanks
    pogofish
    • #2
    • 15th Mar 18, 1:49 PM
    • #2
    • 15th Mar 18, 1:49 PM
    Post two of the Newbies Sticky will set you on the way - Post back here when you have something together for further help.

    Also read post four, which will explain why you were a complete fool to contact ZZPS - This probably is what marked you out as a hooked fish to be reeled-in.
    • The Deep
    • By The Deep 15th Mar 18, 7:08 PM
    • 10,242 Posts
    • 10,134 Thanks
    The Deep
    • #3
    • 15th Mar 18, 7:08 PM
    • #3
    • 15th Mar 18, 7:08 PM
    This is an entirely unregulated industry which is scamming the public with inflated claims for alleged breaches of contracts for alleged parking offences, aided and abetted by a handful of low-rent solicitors.

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

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

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

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

    and complain in the most robust terms to your MP. With a fair wind most of these companies may well be put out of business by Christmas.
    You never know how far you can go until you go too far.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 15th Mar 18, 9:24 PM
    • 62,736 Posts
    • 75,672 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    • #4
    • 15th Mar 18, 9:24 PM
    • #4
    • 15th Mar 18, 9:24 PM
    Search the forum for CEL defence and read all the others...do the same as everyone else!
    • Sniffa
    • By Sniffa 18th Mar 18, 10:50 PM
    • 11 Posts
    • 3 Thanks
    Sniffa
    • #5
    • 18th Mar 18, 10:50 PM
    Critique needed :)
    • #5
    • 18th Mar 18, 10:50 PM
    In the County Court Business Centre
    Between:
    Civil Enforcement Limited V xxxx

    Claim Number: xxxx

    I am xxxx, the defendant in this matter and was the registered keeper of vehicle xxxx. I currently reside at xxxx.
    I deny I am liable for the entirety of the claim for each of the following reasons:
    1. The Claim Form issued on the 12th March 2017 by Civil Enforcement Ltd was not correctly filed under The Practice Direction as it was not signed by a legal person but signed by “Civil Enforcement Limited” (Claimant’s Legal Representative)”.

    2. This Claimant has not complied with pre-court protocol (as outlined in the new Pre Action Protocol for Debt Claims, 1 October 2017).
    a. There was no complaint “Letter before County Court Claim”, under the Practice Direction.
    b. This is a speculative serial litigant, issuing a large number of “draft particulars”.
    c. There has been nothing that could be considered a fair exchange of information.
    Furthermore, the Claim Form Particulars did not contain any evidence of contravention or photographs. These documents, and the “Letter before County Court Claim” should have been produced, pursuant to paragraph 6 of the Practice Direction – Pre Action Conduct. This constitutes a deliberate attempt to thwart any efforts to defend the claim or to “take stock”, pursuant to paragraph 12 of the Practice Direction. Again, this totally contradicts the guidance outlined in the new Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims (2017), the aims of which are:
    i. Early engagement and communication between the parties, including early exchange of sufficient information about the matter to help clarify whether there are any issues in dispute.
    ii. Enable the parties to resolve the matter without the need to start court proceedings, including agreeing a reasonable repayment plan or considering using an Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) procedure.
    iii. Encourage the parties to act in a reasonable and proportionate manner in all dealings with one another (for example, avoiding running up costs which do not bear a reasonable relationship to the sums in issue).
    iv. Support the efficient management of proceedings that cannot be avoided”.

    The Defence therefore asks the Court to strike out the claim as disclosing no cause of action and having no reasonable prospect of success as currently drafted.


    !!!8195;
    Alternatively, the Defendant asks that the Claimant is required to file Particulars with Practice Directions and include at least the following information:
    i. A copy of any contract it is alleged was in place (e.g. copies of signage) detailing how it affects members of the Sports Club.
    iii. How any contract was concluded (if by performance, then copies of signage maps in place at the time).
    iv. Whether keeper liability is being claimed, and if so copies of any Notice to Driver / Notice to Keeper.
    v. Whether the Claimant is acting as Agent or Principal, together with a list of documents they will rely on in this matter.
    vi. If charges over and above the initial charge are being claimed, the basis on which this is being claimed.
    vii. If interest charges are being claimed, the basis on which this is being claimed.

    Once these Particulars have been filed, the Defendant asks for a reasonable time to file another defence.

    3. The Claimant failed to meet the Notice to Keeper obligations of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. Absent such a notice served within 14 days of the parking event and with fully compliant statutory wording, this Claimant is unable to hold me liable under the strict “keeper liability” provisions.
    a. Schedule 4 also states that the only sum a keeper can be pursued for (if Schedule 4 is fully complied with, which it was not, and if there was a “relevant obligation” and “relevant contract”, fairly and adequately communicated, which there was not) is the sum on the Notice to Keeper.

    4. The Claimant has added unrecoverable sums to the original parking charge. It is believed that the employee who drew up the paperwork is remunerated and the particulars of claim are templates, so it is simply not credible that additional costs were incurred.

    5. This case can be distinguished from ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 (the Beavis case) which was dependent upon an undenied contract, formed by unusually prominent signage forming a clear offer and which turned on unique facts regarding the location and the interests of the landowner. Strict compliance with the BPA Code of Practice (CoP) was paramount and Mr Beavis was the driver who saw the signs and entered into a contract to pay £85 after exceeding a licence to park free. As far as I can ascertain, based upon the particulars of this claim and complete lack of evidence and photographs, and without having been furnished with the alleged signage “contract”, none of this applies in this material case.

    6. In the absence of any proof of adequate signage contractually bound the Defendant then there can have been no contract and the Claimant has no case.
    a. The Claimant is put to strict proof at the time of the alleged event they had both advertisement consent and the permission from the site owner to display the signs
    b. In the absence of strict proof I submit that the Claimant was committing an offence by displaying their signs and therefore no contract could have been entered into between the driver and the Claimant.
    c. Inadequate signs incapable of binding the driver – this distinguishes this case from the Beavis case:
    i. Sporadic and illegible (charge not prominent nor large lettering) of site/entrance signage - breach of the POFA 2012 Schedule 4 and the BPA Code of Practice and no contract formed to pay any clearly stated sum.
    ii. It is believed the signage was not lit and any terms were not transparent or legible; this is an unfair contract, not agreed by the driver and contrary to the Consumer Rights Act 2015 in requiring a huge inflated sum as “compensation” from by an authorised party using the premises as intended
    iii. No promise was made by the driver that could constitute consideration because there was no offer, neither known nor accepted. No consideration flowed from the Claimant.
    iv. The signs are believed to have no mention of any debt collection additional charge, which cannot form part of any alleged contract.

    d. BPA CoP breaches – this distinguishes this case from the Beavis case:
    i. The signs were not compliant in terms of the font size, lighting or positioning.
    ii. The sum pursued exceeds £100.
    iii. There is/was no compliant landowner contract.

    7. No standing – this distinguishes this case from the Beavis case:
    a. It is believed Civil Enforcement Ltd do not hold a legitimate contract at this car park. As an agent, the Claimant has no legal right to bring such a claim in their name which should be in the name of the landowner.

    8. The charge is an unenforceable penalty based upon a lack of commercial justification. The Beavis case confirmed that the penalty rule is certainly engaged in any case of a private parking charge and was only disengaged due to the unique circumstances of that case, which do not resemble this claim.

    10. Due to the length of time, the Defendant has little to no recollection of the day in question. It would not be reasonable to expect a registered keeper to be able to recall the exact details of a situation when a car was parked nearly 2 years previously (although I have given what details I can remember below). In any case, there is no such obligation in law and this was confirmed in the POPLA Annual Report 2015 by parking expert barrister and Lead Adjudicator, Henry Greenslade, who also clarified the fact that a registered keeper can only be held liable under the POFA Schedule 4 and not by presumption or any other legal argument.

    The Defendant denies any liability whatsoever to the Claimant in any matter and asks the Court to note that the Claimant has:
    1. Failed to disclose any cause of action in the incorrectly filed Claim Form issued on 11th October 2017.
    2. Sent a template, well-known to be generic cut and paste “Particulars” of claim relying on irrelevant case law (Beavis) which ignores the fact that this Claimant cannot hold registered keepers liable in law, due to their own choice of non-POFA documentation.
    3. The insufficient Particulars of Claim disclose no clear cause of action. The court is invited to strike out the claim of its own volition as having no merit and no reasonable prospects of success.


    Should I include these details?
    I received a Parking Charge Notice from Civil Enforcement Ltd issued on 10th May 2016 related to parking at xxx Sports Club on 21/4/2016 (issued outside of the required 14 day period) and requesting that I pay a £60 charge (increasing to £100 after 14 days).

    I responded immediately in writing to Civil Enforcement explaining that there must have been an error as, although at the time I was taking my child to the A&E department of the hospital, I was authorised to use the car park, because we were legitimate members of the club as my son played cricket for them.

    Now, 2 years months later, I find that Civil Enforcement Ltd is taking me to court for £271.54 plus costs of £75. I refute that the initial £60 was a legitimate charge, as explained above and therefore request that the court find that there is no case to answer.

    I confirm that the above facts and statements are true to the best of my knowledge and recollection.
    • Sniffa
    • By Sniffa 18th Mar 18, 10:59 PM
    • 11 Posts
    • 3 Thanks
    Sniffa
    • #6
    • 18th Mar 18, 10:59 PM
    • #6
    • 18th Mar 18, 10:59 PM
    Particulars of Claim, as detailed on the form:-

    Claim for monies relating to a Parking Charge for parking in a private car park managed by the Claimant in breach of the T&Cs. Drivers are allowed to park in accordance with T&Cs of use ANPR cameras and/or manual patrols are used to monitor vehicles entering and exiting the site.

    Debt + damages claimed the sum of 236.00
    Violation date: 21/4/2016
    Time in: 16:29 Time out: 17:51
    PCN Ref: xxx
    Car reg: xxxxxxx
    Car Park:- xxxx Sports Club

    Total due – 236.00 (Ref: ceserevice url or Tel 01158225020)
    The claimant claims the sum of 271.54 for monies relating to a parking charge per above including 35.54 interest pursuant to s.69 of the County Courts Act 1984
    Rate 8%pa from dates above to 9/3/18
    Same rate to judgment or (sooner) payment
    Daily rate to judgment- 0.05
    Total debt and interest due:- 271.54
    • The Slithy Tove
    • By The Slithy Tove 19th Mar 18, 7:19 AM
    • 3,430 Posts
    • 5,033 Thanks
    The Slithy Tove
    • #7
    • 19th Mar 18, 7:19 AM
    • #7
    • 19th Mar 18, 7:19 AM
    Did you ever complain to the sports club? Could have saved you a whole lot of aggro.
    • Le_Kirk
    • By Le_Kirk 19th Mar 18, 9:40 AM
    • 3,286 Posts
    • 2,231 Thanks
    Le_Kirk
    • #8
    • 19th Mar 18, 9:40 AM
    • #8
    • 19th Mar 18, 9:40 AM
    There was no complaint Letter before County Court Claim, under the Practice Direction.
    Do you mean compliant?
    • Sniffa
    • By Sniffa 19th Mar 18, 10:14 AM
    • 11 Posts
    • 3 Thanks
    Sniffa
    • #9
    • 19th Mar 18, 10:14 AM
    • #9
    • 19th Mar 18, 10:14 AM
    Did you ever complain to the sports club? Could have saved you a whole lot of aggro.
    Originally posted by The Slithy Tove
    They told me I would have to contact the parking company.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 19th Mar 18, 6:22 PM
    • 62,736 Posts
    • 75,672 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Remove this:
    I currently reside at xxxx.
    12th March 2017
    Should be 2018


    Fed up with seeing this again:

    http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?p=73943093#post73943093

    Is that defence in the NEWBIES thread? I must remove it and replace it. Fed up with Groundhog Day!
    • Sniffa
    • By Sniffa 20th Mar 18, 1:20 AM
    • 11 Posts
    • 3 Thanks
    Sniffa
    Remove this:

    Should be 2018

    Changed, thanks

    Fed up with seeing this again:



    Is that defence in the NEWBIES thread? I must remove it and replace it. Fed up with Groundhog Day!
    Originally posted by Coupon-mad
    So have I copied and edited the wrong defence? I think I took it from another CEL thread.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 20th Mar 18, 3:35 PM
    • 62,736 Posts
    • 75,672 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    I just yesterday added a newer one instead, to the sticky thread, take a look.
    • Sniffa
    • By Sniffa 21st Mar 18, 12:16 AM
    • 11 Posts
    • 3 Thanks
    Sniffa
    2nd draft taking onboard advice seen here and in other threads (sorry the cut and paste is rubbish, the word document is formatted correctly):-

    In the County Court Business Centre
    Between:
    Civil Enforcement Limited V xxxx

    Claim Number: xxxx

    I am xxxx, the defendant in this matter and the registered keeper of vehicle xxxx.
    I deny I am liable for the entirety of the claim for each of the following reasons:
    1) The Claim Form issued on the 12th March 2018 by Civil Enforcement Ltd was not correctly filed under The Practice Direction as it was not signed by a legal person but signed by !!!8220;Civil Enforcement Limited!!!8221; (Claimant!!!8217;s Legal Representative)!!!8221;.
    2) This Claimant has not complied with pre-court protocol (as outlined in the new Pre Action Protocol for Debt Claims, 1 October 2017).
    a) There was no compliant !!!8220;Letter before County Court Claim!!!8221;, under the Practice Direction.
    b) This is a speculative serial litigant, issuing a large number of !!!8220;draft particulars!!!8221;.
    c) The Claim Form Particulars did not contain any evidence of contravention or photographs. These documents and the !!!8220;Letter before County Court Claim!!!8221; should have been produced, pursuant to paragraph 6 of the Practice Direction !!!8211; Pre Action Conduct. This constitutes a deliberate attempt to thwart any efforts to defend the claim or to !!!8220;take stock!!!8221;, pursuant to paragraph 12 of the Practice Direction. Again, this totally contradicts the guidance outlined in the new Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims (2017), the aims of which are:
    i) Early engagement and communication between the parties, including early exchange of sufficient information about the matter to help clarify whether there are any issues in dispute.
    ii) Enable the parties to resolve the matter without the need to start court proceedings, including agreeing a reasonable repayment plan or considering using an Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) procedure.
    iii) Encourage the parties to act in a reasonable and proportionate manner in all dealings with one another (for example, avoiding running up costs which do not bear a reasonable relationship to the sums in issue).
    iv) Support the efficient management of proceedings that cannot be avoided!!!8221;.
    d) The Defence therefore asks the Court to strike out the claim as disclosing no cause of action and having no reasonable prospect of success as currently drafted.
    3) The Claimant failed to meet the Notice to Keeper obligations of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. Absent such a notice served within 14 days of the parking event and with fully compliant statutory wording, this Claimant is unable to hold me liable under the strict !!!8220;keeper liability!!!8221; provisions.
    a) Schedule 4 also states that the only sum a keeper can be pursued for (if Schedule 4 is fully complied with, which it was not, and if there was a !!!8220;relevant obligation!!!8221; and !!!8220;relevant contract!!!8221;, fairly and adequately communicated, which there was not) is the sum on the Notice to Keeper.
    b) The Claimant did not comply with POFA 2012 and give the registered keeper opportunity, at any point, to identify the driver. A Notice to Keeper can be served by ordinary post and the Protection of Freedoms Act requires that the Notice, to be valid, must be delivered no later than 14 days after the vehicle was parked. No ticket was left on the windscreen and no notice to keeper was sent within the 14 days required to comply with POFA 2012, only a speculative invoice entitled Parking Charge Notice which was sent outside of the 14 day period, which did not comply with POFA 2012. This would exclude the registered keeper being liable for any charges.

    Henry Greenslade, lead adjudicator of POPLA in 2015 and an eminent barrister and parking law expert, stated that !!!8220;However keeper information is obtained, there is no !!!8216;reasonable presumption!!!8217; in law that the registered keeper of a vehicle is the driver. Operators should never suggest anything of the sort.!!!8221; Schedule 4 also states that the only sum a keeper can be pursued for (if Schedule 4 is fully complied with, which it was not, and if there was a 'relevant obligation' and !!!8216;relevant contract' fairly and adequately communicated, which there was not) is the sum on the Notice to Keeper. They cannot pluck another sum from thin air and bolt that on as well when neither the signs, nor the NTK mentioned a possible £346.54 for outstanding debt and damages. The additional costs, which the defendant contests have not been incurred, are none of its concern.
    4) The Claimant has added unrecoverable sums to the original parking charge. It is believed that the employee who drew up the paperwork is remunerated, and the particulars of claim are templates, so it is simply not credible that £50 legal representative!!!8217;s costs were incurred. The Defendant believes that Civil Enforcement Ltd has artificially inflated this claim. They are claiming legal costs when not only is this not permitted (CPR 27.14) but the Defendant believes that they have not incurred legal costs. According to Ladak v DRC Locums UKEAT/0488/13/LA the claimant can only recover the direct and provable costs of the time spent on preparing the claim in a legal capacity, not any administration cost. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to any interest whatsoever. The claimant has not explained how the claim has increased from the original parking notice to £346.54. If the Claimant alleges that they claim the cost of its in-house administration, these cannot be recovered - they are staff performing the task that they have been employed for and essential to the Claimant's business plan.
    5) This case can be distinguished from ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 (the Beavis case) which was dependent upon an undenied contract, formed by unusually prominent signage forming a clear offer and which turned on unique facts regarding the location and the interests of the landowner. Strict compliance with the BPA Code of Practice (CoP) was paramount and Mr Beavis was the driver who saw the signs and entered into a contract to pay £85 after exceeding a licence to park free. As far as I can ascertain, based upon the particulars of this claim and complete lack of evidence and photographs, and without having been furnished with the alleged signage !!!8220;contract!!!8221;, none of this applies in this material case.
    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. All Sports Club Members are allowed use of the car park. The Defendant avers that there was an absolute entitlement to park, which cannot be fettered by any alleged parking terms. The club allowed members the right to park a vehicle, without limitation as to type of vehicle, ownership of vehicle, the user of the vehicle or the requirement to display a parking permit.
    a) The Defendant avers that the operator!!!8217;s signs cannot (i) override the existing rights enjoyed by club members.
    b) Accordingly it is denied that:
    i) there was any agreement as between the Defendant or driver of the vehicle and the Claimant.
    ii) there was any obligation (at all) to display a permit; and
    iii) the Claimant has suffered loss or damage or that there is a lawful basis to pursue a claim for loss.
    7) In the POPLA Annual Report 2015 by parking expert barrister and Lead Adjudicator, Henry Greenslade, he clarified the fact that a registered keeper can only be held liable under the POFA Schedule 4 and not by presumption or any other legal argument.
    The Defendant denies any liability whatsoever to the Claimant in any matter and asks the Court to note that the Claimant has:
    a. Failed to disclose any cause of action in the incorrectly filed Claim Form issued on 11th October 2017.
    b. Sent a template, well-known to be generic cut and paste !!!8220;Particulars!!!8221; of claim relying on irrelevant case law (Beavis) which ignores the fact that this Claimant cannot hold registered keepers liable in law, due to their own choice of non-POFA documentation.
    The insufficient Particulars of Claim disclose no clear cause of action. The court is invited to strike out the claim of its own volition as having no merit and no reasonable prospects of success.

    Alternative Defence - Failure to set out clearly parking terms
    In the alternative, the Defendant relies upon ParkingEye Ltd v Barry Beavis (2015) UKSC 67 insofar 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 - both upon entry to the site and throughout.
    a. The Defendant avers that the parking signage in this matter was, without prejudice to his/her primary defence above, inadequate.
    b. At the time of the material events the signage was deficient in number, distribution, wording and lighting to reasonably convey a contractual obligation;
    c. 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
    d. 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
    e. The Defendant avers that the 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.

    I confirm that the above facts and statements are true to the best of my knowledge and recollection.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 21st Mar 18, 12:23 AM
    • 62,736 Posts
    • 75,672 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Looks good, after a skim read. Needs a heading 'DEFENCE' and signing/dating then attaching to an email as a PDF, to submit to the CCBCAQ email address shown on this forum on CEL threads, and on the CCBC contact webpage.
    • Sniffa
    • By Sniffa 21st Mar 18, 10:53 AM
    • 11 Posts
    • 3 Thanks
    Sniffa
    Thanks very much for your help.

    Claim acknowledged & Defence emailed.

    How long does it normally take for the next stage?
    • nosferatu1001
    • By nosferatu1001 21st Mar 18, 12:59 PM
    • 3,722 Posts
    • 4,532 Thanks
    nosferatu1001
    The next stage is DQ, and that requires the C to say they want the claim to continue (they will)
    That can take a month or so. Log onto MCOL and it will tel lyou if the DQ has been sent - just download N180 if you dont get your own one through tht epost, as failing to return it leads to a default judgement against you.
    • KeithP
    • By KeithP 21st Mar 18, 1:00 PM
    • 9,870 Posts
    • 10,199 Thanks
    KeithP
    How long does it normally take for the next stage?
    Originally posted by Sniffa
    Have a look at some of the hundreds of other CEL claims recently progressed here for you answer.
    .
    • Sniffa
    • By Sniffa 11th May 18, 8:00 PM
    • 11 Posts
    • 3 Thanks
    Sniffa
    Nice to see things moving along . Seven weeks and still nothing.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 11th May 18, 8:42 PM
    • 62,736 Posts
    • 75,672 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Log back in on MCOL, what does it say?

    Maybe CEL have not confirmed that they are proceeding.

    Ring the CCBC and ask if your DQ form N180 has been posted out yet, and if not, just download one by Googling it.
    • Sniffa
    • By Sniffa 13th May 18, 12:33 PM
    • 11 Posts
    • 3 Thanks
    Sniffa
    Nothing showing on MCOL since this:-

    Your acknowledgment of service was submitted on 21/03/2018 at 01:06:40
    Your acknowledgment of service was received on 21/03/2018 at 08:01:49
    Your defence was received on 21/03/2018
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

192Posts Today

1,358Users online

Martin's Twitter