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
    • Elmo111
    • By Elmo111 10th Apr 18, 8:58 PM
    • 51Posts
    • 37Thanks
    Elmo111
    Letter Before Claim - UKPPO
    • #1
    • 10th Apr 18, 8:58 PM
    Letter Before Claim - UKPPO 10th Apr 18 at 8:58 PM
    Hi everyone,

    After receiving this 'Letter Before Claim' from UK Parking Patrol Office, I'm wondering what my next move should be. Attached is a Google Drive link to a PDF I've compiled.

    hxxp://bit.ly/2JBgY3Q

    As seen on the first and second page of the LBC, they're intending to commence legal action to recover the amount of 665.02 from 4 separate parking charge notices, one dated from July last year and 3 from September. On page 3, they've attached a DEFENDANT'S REPLY FORM, which states my reason to reply based on their legal action.

    I've replied to them via e-mail stating that this is the absolute FIRST I have heard about the 4 parking charge notices and the fact that it's gone this far without any debt collectors letters or correspondence from themselves and leads me to believe I am in a difficult situation.

    Since the e-mail to UKPPC, I have been in an e-mail chain with them disputing the delivery/the acceptance of these letters and as a matter of 'good-will', they will knock the amount outstanding to 600.00.

    I'm trying to keep this thread short and sweet, as from previous forum posts on MSE, I understand the complexities of where this may lead me. After replies directly with 'Karen', from 'UKPPO Legal Department', I've got 7 days worth of correspondence between myself and Karen and will post if requested. As a slight summary of where I'm at with replies from Karen, she's telling me to dispute the letters I've not received from the debt recovery company called 'Debt Recovery Plus', and the 600 outstanding still stands. Based on the original 30 days, I'm now left with 7 days. I have also mentioned that I am absolutely in no way disputing the original parking charge notices and I'm more than willing to pay the initial figure of each notice, just not this figure based on their inability to tell me where this inflated number comes from.

    According to the date on the letter, the LBC was sent on the 20th March, but unfortunately, I'd received the letter on the 1st of April, so this instantly took 11 days off the 30 days they'd given me to respond/make payment. Karen has seemingly signed off today's reply with a rather informal 'Balance to be paid within 7 days'.

    I would absolutely love some support with this matter and I am unbelievably grateful of any time spent with me on this.

    (A slight spelling giggle from the letter - looks like they can't copy and paste a link from a URL bar...)

    Kind regards,
Page 5
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 11th May 18, 1:42 AM
    • 61,458 Posts
    • 74,340 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Bump for comments.

    Please copy & paste the defence in a reply, Elmo111, in full, because some might not be able to, or be happy to, click on unknown links.
    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.

    • Elmo111
    • By Elmo111 11th May 18, 7:43 PM
    • 51 Posts
    • 37 Thanks
    Elmo111
    Hey Coupon-Mad

    Here is my first draft. As said in my comments on the previous page, it's very much grabbing information from previous defences/chopping and changing here and there and adding bits in. Out of curiosity, this was a previous attachment in a previous email from Karen, would this be an acceptable (compliant) NTK? https://drive.google.com/file/d/1XQu2BjmIdzdSsoL4xlCQuAM8BIXqM5kQ/view

    **********

    IN THE COUNTY COURT
    Claim No.: XXXXXXXX

    Between

    UKPPO Ltd
    (Claimant)

    -and-


    XXXXX
    (Defendant)

    __________________________________________________ _________________________

    DEFENCE STATEMENT
    __________________________________________________ _________________________


    I assert that I am not liable to the Claimant for the sum claimed, or any amount at all, for the following reasons:

    The claimant failed to issue a Notice to Keeper (NTK) for the alleged infringement. This is not in accordance with the requirements of The Protection of Freedom Act 2012 (POFA). Under schedule 4, paragraph 4 of the POFA, an operator can only establish the right to recover any unpaid parking charges from the keeper of a vehicle if certain conditions are met as stated in paragraphs 5, 6, 11 & 12. UK Parking Patrol have failed to fulfil the conditions which state that the keeper must be served with a compliant NTK in accordance with paragraph 9, which stipulates a mandatory timeline and wording:-
    The notice must be given by; (a) handing it to the keeper, or leaving it at a current address for service for the keeper, within the relevant period; or (b) Sending it by post to a current address for service for the keeper so that it is delivered to that address within the relevant period.

    Paragraph 5.2 of the October 2012 pre-action protocol, which UK Parking Patrol Office Ltd suggested the defendant use, states that in our pre-action communications:-
    If the debtor requests a document or information, the creditor must:- (a) provide the document or information; or (b) explain why the document or information is unavailable, within 30 days of receipt of the request.

    UK Parking Patrol Office Ltd could not supply the defendant with a copy of a compliant NTK and (b) did not explain why the requested NTK is unavailable. Instead, UK Parking Patrol Ltd decided to continually evade providing the defendant with a copy of the required documents, vital to their case.

    The particulars of claim do not meet the requirements of Practice Direction 16 7.5 as there is nothing which specifies how the terms were breached. Indeed the particulars of claim are not clear and concise as is required by CPR 16.4 1(a).

    The claimant has not provided enough details in the particulars of claim to file a full defence;
    4.1. During pre-action communication, UK Parking Patrol Office Ltd informed the defendant that it sets a fine of 60.00 per PCN (Parking Charge Notice) if acknowledged within 14 days and 100.00 if acknowledged between days 14 and 28. On 10/04/2018, as a gesture of !!!8216;goodwill!!!8217;, UK Parking Patrol Office Ltd granted a final payment of 600.00
    4.2. The Claimant has stated that 4 !!!8216;parking charges!!!8217; were incurred.
    4.3. The Claimant has given no indication of the nature of the alleged charge in the Particulars of Claim. The Claimant has therefore disclosed no cause of action.
    4.4. The Particulars of Claim contains no details and fails to establish a cause of action which would enable the Defendant to prepare a specific defence. It simply states !!!8216;parking charges!!!8217;; which does not give any indication of on what basis the claim is brought.

    It was only during pre-action communication that information regarding why the charge arose, what the initial charge was, what the alleged contract was and anything which could be considered a fair exchange of information. The Particulars of Claim are incompetent in disclosing no cause of action.


    It is denied that the Defendant was the driver of the vehicle. 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 keeper 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 !!!8216;relevant obligation!!!8217;; 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.

    UK Parking Patrol Office Ltd have failed to adhere to POFA 2012 and should chase the appropriate party.

    The Court is invited to dismiss the Claim, and to allow such Defendant!!!8217;s costs as are permissible under Civil Procedure Rule 27.14.

    I believe the facts stated in this Defence Statement are true.

    **********

    Hope it's not bad for a first attempt, looking forward to seeing how I can improve.
    Last edited by Elmo111; 11-05-2018 at 9:41 PM.
    • KeithP
    • By KeithP 11th May 18, 8:35 PM
    • 9,197 Posts
    • 9,371 Thanks
    KeithP
    Elmo111, please stop using bit.ly links.

    I for one won't click on them because they hide the real URL.
    .
    • Elmo111
    • By Elmo111 11th May 18, 9:43 PM
    • 51 Posts
    • 37 Thanks
    Elmo111
    Elmo111, please stop using bit.ly links.

    I for one won't click on them because they hide the real URL.
    Originally posted by KeithP
    Understood, I've fixed the link above my defence statement.
    • Elmo111
    • By Elmo111 12th May 18, 5:08 PM
    • 51 Posts
    • 37 Thanks
    Elmo111
    Hi everyone,

    Bumping to the top as I'd love some critique on my first draft. It's posted above, post #82.

    Any comments or additions are welcome.

    Thanks!
    • Elmo111
    • By Elmo111 15th May 18, 9:48 AM
    • 51 Posts
    • 37 Thanks
    Elmo111
    Morning all,

    Bumping again for critique on my defence statement above, comment #82.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 15th May 18, 3:14 PM
    • 61,458 Posts
    • 74,340 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Bumping for comments by anyone around.
    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.

    • Elmo111
    • By Elmo111 16th May 18, 9:40 AM
    • 51 Posts
    • 37 Thanks
    Elmo111
    @Coupon-Mad: thanks for your support on this so far!

    It seems that these defences are meant to be as meticulous as possible and I know that time is of the essence, with just under 2 weeks to get this done.

    Do you have any thoughts yourself on how this looks so far? Have I missed anything crucial that I should mention in past correspondence with UKPPO? For example, their use of the Interpretations Act?

    At this point I'd just like somebody to tell me I'm on the right lines with how this should look.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 17th May 18, 12:17 AM
    • 61,458 Posts
    • 74,340 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    I've only skim read, and saw these:

    UKPPO Ltd
    (Claimant)
    Put their name in full as it appears on the Claim Form.

    Not 'statement':
    DEFENCE STATEMENT
    I assume on your word document, all the paragraphs are numbered?

    Are you actually DENYING, or saying the driver has not been identified? Think about it, this is court, you must be honest. No 'denying' being the driver if you KNOW that's not true:
    It is denied that the Defendant was the driver

    This bit is odd and makes them look reasonable, don't call their demands a 'gesture of goodwill' even if they did. I would delete this entirely:
    During pre-action communication, UK Parking Patrol Office Ltd informed the defendant that it sets a fine of 60.00 per PCN (Parking Charge Notice) if acknowledged within 14 days and 100.00 if acknowledged between days 14 and 28. On 10/04/2018, as a gesture of 'goodwill' UK Parking Patrol Office Ltd granted a final payment of 600.00

    I didn't see much, if anything, about unclear signs/no contract/permits?

    I am not seeing anything at the start that tells the Judge what it's about? To see claims that start that way, search 'defence common ground' as keywords.
    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.

    • Computersaysno
    • By Computersaysno 17th May 18, 12:25 PM
    • 1,012 Posts
    • 787 Thanks
    Computersaysno
    Amazed that PPO are doing court.....
    Welcome to the world of 'Protect the brand at the cost of free speech'
    • Computersaysno
    • By Computersaysno 17th May 18, 5:24 PM
    • 1,012 Posts
    • 787 Thanks
    Computersaysno
    Ask them if the money they obtain goes to the court [as it should do] or do they keep it for themselves/the landowner??


    I think you'll find they drop they drop the case pretty sharp once that hits the electronic door mat!!
    Welcome to the world of 'Protect the brand at the cost of free speech'
    • KeithP
    • By KeithP 17th May 18, 7:01 PM
    • 9,197 Posts
    • 9,371 Thanks
    KeithP
    Ask them if the money they obtain goes to the court [as it should do] or do they keep it for themselves/the landowner??


    I think you'll find they drop they drop the case pretty sharp once that hits the electronic door mat!!
    Originally posted by Computersaysno
    What have I missed?

    What money should go to the court?
    .
    • Computersaysno
    • By Computersaysno 18th May 18, 11:03 AM
    • 1,012 Posts
    • 787 Thanks
    Computersaysno
    My mistake...I thought this was airport tickets...
    Welcome to the world of 'Protect the brand at the cost of free speech'
    • Elmo111
    • By Elmo111 21st May 18, 11:38 PM
    • 51 Posts
    • 37 Thanks
    Elmo111
    Attached is the 2nd draft of the defence, if I'm honest, I'm struggling to find additional legal arguments to add to my defence, with my particular claim being so unique.

    Thanks to Coupon-Mad for some direction so far. I've added a preliminary and cleaned up some of the ordering.

    **********

    IN THE COUNTY COURT
    Claim No.: XXXXXXXX

    Between

    UK PARKING PATROL OFFICE LTD
    (Claimant)

    -and-


    XXXXX
    (Defendant)

    __________________________________________________ _________________________

    DEFENCE
    __________________________________________________ _________________________

    Preliminary

    1. The Defendant denies receiving correspondence from the Claimant regarding any of the alleged parking contraventions. In pre-action communication, UKPPO Ltd states that 24 letters were sent to the Defendants address acquired from the DVLA for strictly limited purpose of 'enquiring who was driving'.

    2. It is with distress that I note that the Claimants amount of letters sent, is approximately twice as many demands than the unwarranted demands which bombarded the consumer victim in the case of Ferguson v British Gas Trading Ltd [2009] EWCA Civ 46, where the company's course of conduct amounted to unlawful harassment contrary to the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 and they were liable to pay the defendant over 10,000 in compensation.

    Background

    3. It is admitted that on the material dates, the Defendant's vehicle was parked at the location stated.

    4. It is admitted that at all material times the Defendant is the registered keeper of the vehicle which is the subject of these proceedings.

    5. The Claimant failed to issue a Notice to Keeper (NTK) for the alleged infringement. This is not in accordance with the requirements of The Protection of Freedom Act 2012 (POFA). Under schedule 4, paragraph 4 of the POFA, an operator can only establish the right to recover any unpaid parking charges from the keeper of a vehicle if certain conditions are met as stated in paragraphs 5, 6, 11 & 12. UK Parking Patrol have failed to fulfil the conditions which state that the keeper must be served with a compliant NTK in accordance with paragraph 9, which stipulates a mandatory timeline and wording:-
    The notice must be given by; (a) handing it to the keeper, or leaving it at a current address for service for the keeper, within the relevant period; or (b) Sending it by post to a current address for service for the keeper so that it is delivered to that address within the relevant period.

    Paragraph 5.2 of the October 2017 pre-action protocol, states that in our pre-action communications:-
    If the debtor requests a document or information, the creditor must:- (a) provide the document or information; or (b) explain why the document or information is unavailable, within 30 days of receipt of the request.

    UK Parking Patrol Office Ltd could not supply (a) the defendant with a copy of a compliant NTK and (b) did not explain why the requested NTK is unavailable. Instead, UK Parking Patrol Ltd decided to continually evade providing the defendant with a copy of the required documents, vital to their case.

    6. The claimant failed to include a copy of their written contract with any correspondence as per Practice Direction 16 7.3(1) and Practice Direction 7C 1.4(3A). No indication is given as to the Claimants contractual authority to operate there as required by the Claimants Trade Association's Code of Practice B1.1 which says;
    If you operate parking management activities on land which is not owned by you, you must supply us with written authority from the land owner sufficient to establish you as the !!!8216;Creditor!!!8217;; within the meaning of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (where applicable) and in any event to establish you as a person who is able to recover parking charges. There is no prescribed form for such agreement and it need not necessarily be as part of a contract but it must include the express ability for an operator to recover parking charges on the landowner!!!8217;s behalf or provide sufficient right to occupy the land in question so that charges can be recovered by the operator directly. This applies whether or not you intend to use the keeper liability provisions;

    The claimant provided an example !!!8216;contractual notice!!!8217;, that was not a picture directly from the event of each parking offence, but instead an out-of-date PDF, titled !!!8216;Parking Patrol july2013!!!8217;, which states at the bottom of the document, !!!8220;Non-payment will result in additional charges which will be added to the value of the charge and for which the driver will be liable on an indemnity basis.!!!8221;


    7. The particulars of claim do not meet the requirements of Practice Direction 16 7.5 as there is nothing which specifies how the terms were breached. Indeed the particulars of claim are not clear and concise as is required by CPR 16.4 1(a).

    8. The claimant has not provided enough details in the particulars of claim to file a full defence;
    8.1. The Claimant has stated that 4 !!!8216;parking charges!!!8217; were incurred.
    8.2. The Claimant has given no indication of the nature of the alleged charge in the Particulars of Claim. The Claimant has therefore disclosed no cause of action.
    8.3. The Particulars of Claim contains no details and fails to establish a cause of action which would enable the Defendant to prepare a specific defence. It simply states !!!8216;parking charges!!!8217;; which does not give any indication of on what basis the claim is brought.

    It was only during pre-action communication that information regarding why the charge arose, what the initial charge was, what the alleged contract was and anything which could be considered a fair exchange of information. The Particulars of Claim are incompetent in disclosing no cause of action.

    9. It is not known that the Defendant was the driver of the vehicle. The Claimant is put to strict proof.

    9.1. 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 keeper in these proceedings under the provisions set out by statute in the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 ("POFA")
    9.2. Before seeking to rely on the keeper liability provisions of Schedule 4 POFA the Claimant must demonstrate that:
    9.2.1. There was a !!!8216;relevant obligation!!!8217;; either by way of a breach of contract, trespass or other tort; and
    9.2.2. 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.

    9.3. 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.

    10. For the Claimant to utilise The Interpretations Act of 1978, proof of postings must be given to the Defendant. UKPPO Ltd were unable to supply proof of postings for the NTK(s).

    11. It is denied that the Claimant has any entitlement to the sums sought and it is denied that interest is applicable on the total sums claimed by the Claimant, which bear no relation to the maximum sum potentially able to be recovered from a registered keeper, as set out in the POFA, namely the sum stated in the Notice to Keeper.

    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.

    UK Parking Patrol Office Ltd have failed to adhere to POFA 2012 and should chase the appropriate party.

    The Court is invited to dismiss the Claim, and to allow such Defendant!!!8217;s costs as are permissible under Civil Procedure Rule 27.14.

    I believe the facts stated in this Defence Statement are true.

    (Defendant) (Date)

    **********

    Any feedback would be massively appreciated, the final day for submission of defence is the 28th of this month.

    Also just referring to post #79, is this a valid NTK that Karen had attached on a previous e-mail? https://drive.google.com/file/d/1XQu2BjmIdzdSsoL4xlCQuAM8BIXqM5kQ/view

    Thanks everyone and I look forward to your thoughts and ideas.
    Last edited by Elmo111; 21-05-2018 at 11:59 PM. Reason: addition of detail
    • KeithP
    • By KeithP 21st May 18, 11:47 PM
    • 9,197 Posts
    • 9,371 Thanks
    KeithP
    'acquiring who was driving' should be 'enquiring who was driving'.

    'the October 2012 pre-action protocol...' - what is that?
    Could it be the October 2017 Pre-action Protocol for Debt Claims?
    Whatever it is, perhaps you should write it in full.

    '...which UK Parking Patrol Office Ltd suggested the defendant use' - are you taking legal advice from the Claimant?
    Last edited by KeithP; 21-05-2018 at 11:55 PM.
    .
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 21st May 18, 11:57 PM
    • 61,458 Posts
    • 74,340 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    You need to number all your paragraphs, some are 'floating' with no number.
    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.

    • Elmo111
    • By Elmo111 22nd May 18, 12:04 AM
    • 51 Posts
    • 37 Thanks
    Elmo111
    'acquiring who was driving' should be 'enquiring who was driving'.

    'the October 2012 pre-action protocol...' - what is that?
    Could it be the October 2017 Pre-action Protocol for Debt Claims?
    Whatever it is, perhaps you should write it in full.

    '...which UK Parking Patrol Office Ltd suggested the defendant use' - are you taking legal advice from the Claimant?
    Originally posted by KeithP
    Thanks KeithP, I've corrected the above.

    Yes, I meant October 2017 PAP... legal advice from cowboys?! I think not...also fixed.

    @Coupon-Mad, I'm currently using Google Docs to create the document and the formatting doesn't quite copy over - all paragraphs need to be renumbered, gotcha!

    Anything else you think I should add?
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 22nd May 18, 12:19 AM
    • 61,458 Posts
    • 74,340 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    10. For the Claimant to utilise The Interpretations Act of 1978, proof of postings must be given to the Defendant. UKPPO Ltd were unable to supply proof of postings for the NTK(s) nor even true copies showing the address utilised.
    Could add the above.

    Is the allegation in each case, ''no permit'' or what?
    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.

    • Elmo111
    • By Elmo111 22nd May 18, 12:24 AM
    • 51 Posts
    • 37 Thanks
    Elmo111
    Could add the above.

    Is the allegation in each case, ''no permit'' or what?
    Originally posted by Coupon-mad
    That's correct, no permit for all 4 of the charges.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 22nd May 18, 1:28 AM
    • 61,458 Posts
    • 74,340 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    This could be added to #8:
    The particulars of claim do not even give the 4 dates, let alone the reason for each PCN, the breach(es) alleged, or even whether the car was on the roadway and/or the car park.


    I see your defence says no NTK was issued, but above that I would have a point stating that no driver of your car reported finding any windscreen PCN, and so this suggests that ''ghost ticketing'' might have been occurring at this site. One missing PCN could be a prank by a third party, but for four alleged windscreen PCNs to have never been seen, suggests something different. As such, photos are not enough because they form part of a typical ''ghost ticketing'' rogue operation and the Defendant would expect the employee who ticketed the vehicle, to provide witness statement evidence and to be questioned at the hearing.*



    *he/she won't - but it tells the Judge that might be an issue...
    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

1,619Posts Today

8,403Users online

Martin's Twitter
  • RT @Dora_Haf: @MartinSLewis So many people on here saying they're great until you get your PROPER job. What if Your proper job Is ON zero?

  • RT @hslt88: @MartinSLewis I?m a trustee for a youth charity. We only have a limited pool of funds for flexible youth workers for holiday sc?

  • RT @Dan_i_elle_88: @MartinSLewis Loved working zero hour agency care work. Never out of work and I loved having the flexibility! Only left?

  • Follow Martin