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
    • securitymatters
    • By securitymatters 24th May 18, 11:29 PM
    • 17Posts
    • 5Thanks
    securitymatters
    Euro Parking Services PCN
    • #1
    • 24th May 18, 11:29 PM
    Euro Parking Services PCN 24th May 18 at 11:29 PM
    Hi
    I am under pressure to respond to Euro Parking Services Ltd PCN received late December 2017, can't find exact match to my situation in other threads, here goes.

    Have my own installation business in security/electrical have a customer whose retail business premises border the access drive to the Euro controlled car park where I parked to unload, they are employed by a well known freezer foods supermarket outlet in Birmingham.
    I parked in the access road next to my customers building late afternoon as I had a large amount of equipment,heavy ladders and goods to carry into the property. I saw a Euro Parking Services Ltd representative in the main car park and went over to speak to him told him what I was doing and asked if I needed to pay for parking (there was no parking machine), he said no he would ok me parking there and would not ticket me, contractors with legitimate reasons for being there are fine, he said. I saw the chap again and another they assured me it was fine.
    I came out to my van after unloading and speaking with my customer to find a PCN on windsceen with £100 fee in 28 days and £60 if paid in 14 days. The PCN states: Parked on "Double Yellow Lines/Crosshatched bay/Restricted area of the car park".

    I wrote a letter to them and sent a week later stating that this was the case, I had spoken on 3 occaisions to patrol officers, that I had left a large A4 notice in the windscreen saying where I was working and have a signed maintenance report sheet from the company stating I had been working there and I requested it to be wavered as it was unreasonable in the circumstances. I never received a response to this letter until!!!8230;!!!8230;

    I have heard nothing then receive a "Final Reminder letter" dated 4 days after mid April 2018 requesting £100 in 28 days stating date of issue as early February 2018. Now another a "Letter Before Court Action" requesting £160 dated 2 days after mid May, giving 14 days to pay.
    The letter states date of charge as November 2017 with a different Serial No to original which is wrong as it occurred in December 2017 as also original screen ticket says (only one ticket was ever placed on my windscreen and was late December 2017).
    It seems that they have cocked the whole process and dates/serial numbers up, what do you suggest I do please as my time is running out.
    PS: The Final Reminder letter has 2 pictures of my vehicle dated November 2017 but no PCN was ever issued on the vehicle on that date.
    Regards
    securitymatters
    Last edited by securitymatters; 22-11-2018 at 1:27 AM. Reason: Additional information
Page 2
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 22nd Nov 18, 1:36 AM
    • 68,832 Posts
    • 81,205 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    You need to show us your draft defence, for comments & help before you submit it.

    PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT UNLESS IN SCOTLAND OR NI
    TWO Clicks needed Look up, top of the page:
    Main site>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD
    • securitymatters
    • By securitymatters 29th Nov 18, 10:38 PM
    • 17 Posts
    • 5 Thanks
    securitymatters
    Clarification on who I spoke to and constructing a Defence
    I made a mistake the company and employee I spoke with on the day of the incident was Euro Parking Services Ltd and all the other details are exact and correct, I went up and asked if it was ok to park in the access road to unload stock, tools and ladders which were extremely heavy into the immediate building bordering the car park, he said it was fine for tradesmen and I was ok to park there.
    I was gone 20 minutes to half an hour and the van had been ticketed, in the windscreen was the name of the shop I was working in also.

    I know this may be a pain but I have looked at the Newby's threads and haven't a clue how to construct the defence as none of them seem relevant to the this PCN that states "Parked on: Double yellow lines/Crosshatched bay/Restricted area of the car park". The lines referred to are extremely faded and it was pitch black of winter, no signs were visible and there is no lighting in the driveway.
    Do I use the fact that I spoke with the employee who then ticketed me or ignore that can anyone give me some pointers as I get next to no time to put into this but fully believ its a huge scam. These people have also ticketed the owner of the business to whom I was delivering & working for.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 29th Nov 18, 10:48 PM
    • 68,832 Posts
    • 81,205 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    We have concise defence examples for you, in the 2nd post of the NEWBIES thread. Look what a good job one of many posters with a meritless claim made, when pointed to the templates:

    https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5930505

    Not the first version, the one in post #12 there.

    All they did was adapted bargepole's concise template from the NEWBIES thread. You can too!!
    The OP of that thread was like you, then was pointed to the right place in the NEWBIES thread & hey presto, their defence is a good one and almost done.

    Not that this is the only stage...be aware of what happens when (again, it's in the sticky).

    Reading that little thread I just linked is not a shortcut to avoid you actually reading the 2nd post of the NEWBIES thread at each stage of this process. I've given it to you to show how a bad defence becomes good one, very easily.

    You - and any poster with any PPC claim - can easily compile a defence by using bargepole's concise defence example from the NEWBIES thread. Just add your words about the facts, putting it all in the third person: ''The Defendant spoke to ...blah blah and was assured that a trader could unload there...and then the same individual Euro Parking Services employee ticketed the vehicle just minutes later'' etc.

    You can then add something about 'promissory estoppel' (search this forum - easy).

    You will be surprised how easy it becomes when you start with the basic template by bargepole & just have to add 'the facts are' points.
    PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT UNLESS IN SCOTLAND OR NI
    TWO Clicks needed Look up, top of the page:
    Main site>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD
    • securitymatters
    • By securitymatters 3rd Dec 18, 11:28 PM
    • 17 Posts
    • 5 Thanks
    securitymatters
    Hi many thanks for help thus far, having looked at as many threads suggested as possible here is my draft defence I welcome your capable and helpful responses to further strengthen the defence, thank you in advance:

    IN THE COUNTY COURT

    CLAIM No: xxxxxxxxxx

    BETWEEN:

    EURO PARKING SERVICES LTD (Claimant)

    -and-

    xxxxxxxxxxxx (Defendant)

    ________________________________________
    DEFENCE
    ________________________________________

    1. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all and further denies each and every allegation set out in the Particulars of Claim, or implied in Pre-action correspondence. The claimants solicitor Gladstones assert in their “Letter Before Claim” that the defendant has failed to settle the debt it claims is owing, or provide a valid reason for non-payment. This is entire fabrication as the Euro Parking Services Ltd representative deliberately misled the defendant in initiating a false statement as grounds for parking and a written response was given and not acknowledged as we now understand to be part of the routine method of serially ignoring a defendants responses in order to escalate the possibility for the financial gain of the claimant.

    2. The facts are that the vehicle, registration XXXX, of which the Defendant is the registered keeper, was parked on the material date in the access road as it was next to the customers building as the defendant had a large amount of equipment, heavy ladders and goods to transfer into the property. The Defendant saw and spoke with a representative of Euro Parking Services Ltd in the main car park and told him what the defendant was doing and asked if any payment for parking was necessary (there was no parking machine or clear signage), he said no he would ok the defendant parking there and would not issue a ticket, adding contractors with legitimate reasons for using the car park and road are fine, he said. Shortly after this the defendant saw the representative again and on a subsequent occasion upon which they again assured the defendant it was fine to park in the road for unloading.
    In addition to this the defendant left a clear A4 sign in the windscreen stating where he was working ie:the perimeter building bordering the access road, the defendant returned to the vehicle and found the same Euro Parking Services employee had ticketed the vehicle just minutes later.

    Further to this the defendant would site the legal principle of Promissory estoppel in that a promise is enforceable by law, even if made without formal consideration, when a promisor has made a promise to a promisee who then relies on that promise to his subsequent detriment.

    3. The Particulars of Claim state that the Defendant !!!8220;was the registered keeper and/or the driver of the vehicle(s)!!!8221;. These assertions indicate that the Claimant has failed to identify a Cause of Action, and is simply offering a menu of choices. As such, the Claim fails to comply with Civil Procedure Rule 16.4, or with Civil Practice Direction 16, paras. 7.3 to 7.5. Further, the particulars of the claim do not meet the requirements of Practice Direction 16 7.5 as there is nothing which specifies how the terms were breached.

    4. Due to the sparseness of the particulars, it is unclear as to what legal basis the claim is brought, whether for breach of contract, contractual liability, or trespass. However, it is denied that the Defendant, or any driver of the vehicle, entered into any contractual agreement with the Claimant, whether express, implied, or by conduct.

    5. Further and in the alternative, it is denied that the claimant's signage sets out the terms in a sufficiently clear manner which would be capable of binding any reasonable person reading them. They merely state that vehicles must be parked correctly within their allocated parking bay, giving no definition of the term 'correctly parked', nor indicating which bays are allocated to whom.

    6. The terms on the Claimant's signage are also displayed in a font which is too small to be read from a passing vehicle, and is in such a position that anyone attempting to read the tiny font would be unable to do so easily. It is, therefore, denied that the Claimant's signage is capable of creating a legally binding contract.

    7. The Claimant is put to strict proof that it has sufficient proprietary interest in the land, or that it has the necessary authorisation from the landowner to issue parking charge notices, and to pursue payment by means of litigation.

    8. The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4, at Section 4(5) states that the maximum sum that may be recovered from the keeper is the charge stated on the Notice to Keeper, in this case £100. The claim includes an additional £60, for which no calculation or explanation is given, and which appears to be an attempt at double recovery. Further Gladstones Solicitors acting for the claimant have further inflated the claim in regard to what they refer as their costs £50 to a wholly unwarranted attempt to multiply the recovery figure.

    9. In summary, it is the Defendant's position that the claim discloses no cause of action, is without merit, and has no real prospect of success. Accordingly, the Court is invited to strike out the claim of its own initiative, using its case management powers pursuant to CPR 3.4.

    I believe the facts contained in this Defence are true.

    Name
    Signature
    Date
    • securitymatters
    • By securitymatters 4th Dec 18, 12:19 PM
    • 17 Posts
    • 5 Thanks
    securitymatters
    Draft Defence for Critique.
    Hi many thanks for help thus far, having looked at as many threads suggested as possible here is my draft defence I welcome your capable and helpful responses to further strengthen the defence, thank you in advance:

    IN THE COUNTY COURT

    CLAIM No: xxxxxxxxxx

    BETWEEN:

    EURO PARKING SERVICES LTD (Claimant)

    -and-

    xxxxxxxxxxxx (Defendant)

    ________________________________________
    DEFENCE
    ________________________________________

    1. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all and further denies each and every allegation set out in the Particulars of Claim, or implied in Pre-action correspondence. The claimants solicitor Gladstones assert in their “Letter Before Claim” that the defendant has failed to settle the debt it claims is owing, or provide a valid reason for non-payment. This is entire fabrication as the Euro Parking Services Ltd representative deliberately misled the defendant in initiating a false statement as grounds for parking and a written response was given and not acknowledged as we now understand to be part of the routine method of serially ignoring a defendants responses in order to escalate the possibility for the financial gain of the claimant.

    2. The facts are that the vehicle, registration XXXX, of which the Defendant is the registered keeper, was parked on the material date in the access road as it was next to the customers building as the defendant had a large amount of equipment, heavy ladders and goods to transfer into the property. The Defendant saw and spoke with a representative of Euro Parking Services Ltd in the main car park and told him what the defendant was doing and asked if any payment for parking was necessary (there was no parking machine or clear signage), he said no he would ok the defendant parking there and would not issue a ticket, adding contractors with legitimate reasons for using the car park and road are fine, he said. Shortly after this the defendant saw the representative again and on a subsequent occasion upon which they again assured the defendant it was fine to park in the road for unloading.
    In addition to this the defendant left a clear A4 sign in the windscreen stating where he was working ie:the perimeter building bordering the access road, the defendant returned to the vehicle and found the same Euro Parking Services employee had ticketed the vehicle just minutes later.

    Further to this the defendant would site the legal principle of Promissory estoppel in that a promise is enforceable by law, even if made without formal consideration, when a promisor has made a promise to a promisee who then relies on that promise to his subsequent detriment.

    3. The Particulars of Claim state that the Defendant !!!8220;was the registered keeper and/or the driver of the vehicle(s)!!!8221;. These assertions indicate that the Claimant has failed to identify a Cause of Action, and is simply offering a menu of choices. As such, the Claim fails to comply with Civil Procedure Rule 16.4, or with Civil Practice Direction 16, paras. 7.3 to 7.5. Further, the particulars of the claim do not meet the requirements of Practice Direction 16 7.5 as there is nothing which specifies how the terms were breached.

    4. Due to the sparseness of the particulars, it is unclear as to what legal basis the claim is brought, whether for breach of contract, contractual liability, or trespass. However, it is denied that the Defendant, or any driver of the vehicle, entered into any contractual agreement with the Claimant, whether express, implied, or by conduct.

    5. Further and in the alternative, it is denied that the claimant's signage sets out the terms in a sufficiently clear manner which would be capable of binding any reasonable person reading them. They merely state that vehicles must be parked correctly within their allocated parking bay, giving no definition of the term 'correctly parked', nor indicating which bays are allocated to whom.

    6. The terms on the Claimant's signage are also displayed in a font which is too small to be read from a passing vehicle, and is in such a position that anyone attempting to read the tiny font would be unable to do so easily. It is, therefore, denied that the Claimant's signage is capable of creating a legally binding contract.

    7. The Claimant is put to strict proof that it has sufficient proprietary interest in the land, or that it has the necessary authorisation from the landowner to issue parking charge notices, and to pursue payment by means of litigation.

    8. The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4, at Section 4(5) states that the maximum sum that may be recovered from the keeper is the charge stated on the Notice to Keeper, in this case £100. The claim includes an additional £60, for which no calculation or explanation is given, and which appears to be an attempt at double recovery. Further Gladstones Solicitors acting for the claimant have further inflated the claim in regard to what they refer as their costs £50 to a wholly unwarranted attempt to multiply the recovery figure.

    9. In summary, it is the Defendant's position that the claim discloses no cause of action, is without merit, and has no real prospect of success. Accordingly, the Court is invited to strike out the claim of its own initiative, using its case management powers pursuant to CPR 3.4.

    I believe the facts contained in this Defence are true.

    Name
    Signature
    Date
    • securitymatters
    • By securitymatters 4th Dec 18, 10:49 PM
    • 17 Posts
    • 5 Thanks
    securitymatters
    Draft Defence for Critique-Getting absolutely no responses 2 days now..
    Hi many thanks for help thus far, having looked at as many threads suggested as possible here is my draft defence I welcome your capable and helpful responses to further strengthen the defence, thank you in advance:

    IN THE COUNTY COURT

    CLAIM No: xxxxxxxxxx

    BETWEEN:

    EURO PARKING SERVICES LTD (Claimant)

    -and-

    xxxxxxxxxxxx (Defendant)

    ________________________________________
    DEFENCE
    ________________________________________

    1. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all and further denies each and every allegation set out in the Particulars of Claim, or implied in Pre-action correspondence. The claimants solicitor Gladstones assert in their “Letter Before Claim” that the defendant has failed to settle the debt it claims is owing, or provide a valid reason for non-payment. This is entire fabrication as the Euro Parking Services Ltd representative deliberately misled the defendant in initiating a false statement as grounds for parking and a written response was given and not acknowledged as we now understand to be part of the routine method of serially ignoring a defendants responses in order to escalate the possibility for the financial gain of the claimant.

    2. The facts are that the vehicle, registration XXXX, of which the Defendant is the registered keeper, was parked on the material date in the access road as it was next to the customers building as the defendant had a large amount of equipment, heavy ladders and goods to transfer into the property. The Defendant saw and spoke with a representative of Euro Parking Services Ltd in the main car park and told him what the defendant was doing and asked if any payment for parking was necessary (there was no parking machine or clear signage), he said no he would ok the defendant parking there and would not issue a ticket, adding contractors with legitimate reasons for using the car park and road are fine, he said. Shortly after this the defendant saw the representative again and on a subsequent occasion upon which they again assured the defendant it was fine to park in the road for unloading.
    In addition to this the defendant left a clear A4 sign in the windscreen stating where he was working ie:the perimeter building bordering the access road, the defendant returned to the vehicle and found the same Euro Parking Services employee had ticketed the vehicle just minutes later.

    Further to this the defendant would site the legal principle of Promissory estoppel in that a promise is enforceable by law, even if made without formal consideration, when a promisor has made a promise to a promisee who then relies on that promise to his subsequent detriment.

    3. The Particulars of Claim state that the Defendant !!!8220;was the registered keeper and/or the driver of the vehicle(s)!!!8221;. These assertions indicate that the Claimant has failed to identify a Cause of Action, and is simply offering a menu of choices. As such, the Claim fails to comply with Civil Procedure Rule 16.4, or with Civil Practice Direction 16, paras. 7.3 to 7.5. Further, the particulars of the claim do not meet the requirements of Practice Direction 16 7.5 as there is nothing which specifies how the terms were breached.

    4. Due to the sparseness of the particulars, it is unclear as to what legal basis the claim is brought, whether for breach of contract, contractual liability, or trespass. However, it is denied that the Defendant, or any driver of the vehicle, entered into any contractual agreement with the Claimant, whether express, implied, or by conduct.

    5. Further and in the alternative, it is denied that the claimant's signage sets out the terms in a sufficiently clear manner which would be capable of binding any reasonable person reading them. They merely state that vehicles must be parked correctly within their allocated parking bay, giving no definition of the term 'correctly parked', nor indicating which bays are allocated to whom.

    6. The terms on the Claimant's signage are also displayed in a font which is too small to be read from a passing vehicle, and is in such a position that anyone attempting to read the tiny font would be unable to do so easily. It is, therefore, denied that the Claimant's signage is capable of creating a legally binding contract.

    7. The Claimant is put to strict proof that it has sufficient proprietary interest in the land, or that it has the necessary authorisation from the landowner to issue parking charge notices, and to pursue payment by means of litigation.

    8. The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4, at Section 4(5) states that the maximum sum that may be recovered from the keeper is the charge stated on the Notice to Keeper, in this case £100. The claim includes an additional £60, for which no calculation or explanation is given, and which appears to be an attempt at double recovery. Further Gladstones Solicitors acting for the claimant have further inflated the claim in regard to what they refer as their costs £50 to a wholly unwarranted attempt to multiply the recovery figure.

    9. In summary, it is the Defendant's position that the claim discloses no cause of action, is without merit, and has no real prospect of success. Accordingly, the Court is invited to strike out the claim of its own initiative, using its case management powers pursuant to CPR 3.4.

    I believe the facts contained in this Defence are true.

    Name
    Signature
    Date
    • securitymatters
    • By securitymatters 4th Dec 18, 10:52 PM
    • 17 Posts
    • 5 Thanks
    securitymatters
    Draft Defence for Critique.Not getting any responses and time to submit defence running out..
    Hi many thanks for help thus far, having looked at as many threads suggested as possible here is my draft defence I welcome your capable and helpful responses to further strengthen the defence, thank you in advance:

    IN THE COUNTY COURT

    CLAIM No: xxxxxxxxxx

    BETWEEN:

    EURO PARKING SERVICES LTD (Claimant)

    -and-

    xxxxxxxxxxxx (Defendant)

    ________________________________________
    DEFENCE
    ________________________________________

    1. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all and further denies each and every allegation set out in the Particulars of Claim, or implied in Pre-action correspondence. The claimants solicitor Gladstones assert in their “Letter Before Claim” that the defendant has failed to settle the debt it claims is owing, or provide a valid reason for non-payment. This is entire fabrication as the Euro Parking Services Ltd representative deliberately misled the defendant in initiating a false statement as grounds for parking and a written response was given and not acknowledged as we now understand to be part of the routine method of serially ignoring a defendants responses in order to escalate the possibility for the financial gain of the claimant.

    2. The facts are that the vehicle, registration XXXX, of which the Defendant is the registered keeper, was parked on the material date in the access road as it was next to the customers building as the defendant had a large amount of equipment, heavy ladders and goods to transfer into the property. The Defendant saw and spoke with a representative of Euro Parking Services Ltd in the main car park and told him what the defendant was doing and asked if any payment for parking was necessary (there was no parking machine or clear signage), he said no he would ok the defendant parking there and would not issue a ticket, adding contractors with legitimate reasons for using the car park and road are fine, he said. Shortly after this the defendant saw the representative again and on a subsequent occasion upon which they again assured the defendant it was fine to park in the road for unloading.
    In addition to this the defendant left a clear A4 sign in the windscreen stating where he was working ie:the perimeter building bordering the access road, the defendant returned to the vehicle and found the same Euro Parking Services employee had ticketed the vehicle just minutes later.

    Further to this the defendant would site the legal principle of Promissory estoppel in that a promise is enforceable by law, even if made without formal consideration, when a promisor has made a promise to a promisee who then relies on that promise to his subsequent detriment.

    3. The Particulars of Claim state that the Defendant !!!8220;was the registered keeper and/or the driver of the vehicle(s)!!!8221;. These assertions indicate that the Claimant has failed to identify a Cause of Action, and is simply offering a menu of choices. As such, the Claim fails to comply with Civil Procedure Rule 16.4, or with Civil Practice Direction 16, paras. 7.3 to 7.5. Further, the particulars of the claim do not meet the requirements of Practice Direction 16 7.5 as there is nothing which specifies how the terms were breached.

    4. Due to the sparseness of the particulars, it is unclear as to what legal basis the claim is brought, whether for breach of contract, contractual liability, or trespass. However, it is denied that the Defendant, or any driver of the vehicle, entered into any contractual agreement with the Claimant, whether express, implied, or by conduct.

    5. Further and in the alternative, it is denied that the claimant's signage sets out the terms in a sufficiently clear manner which would be capable of binding any reasonable person reading them. They merely state that vehicles must be parked correctly within their allocated parking bay, giving no definition of the term 'correctly parked', nor indicating which bays are allocated to whom.

    6. The terms on the Claimant's signage are also displayed in a font which is too small to be read from a passing vehicle, and is in such a position that anyone attempting to read the tiny font would be unable to do so easily. It is, therefore, denied that the Claimant's signage is capable of creating a legally binding contract.

    7. The Claimant is put to strict proof that it has sufficient proprietary interest in the land, or that it has the necessary authorisation from the landowner to issue parking charge notices, and to pursue payment by means of litigation.

    8. The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4, at Section 4(5) states that the maximum sum that may be recovered from the keeper is the charge stated on the Notice to Keeper, in this case £100. The claim includes an additional £60, for which no calculation or explanation is given, and which appears to be an attempt at double recovery. Further Gladstones Solicitors acting for the claimant have further inflated the claim in regard to what they refer as their costs £50 to a wholly unwarranted attempt to multiply the recovery figure.

    9. In summary, it is the Defendant's position that the claim discloses no cause of action, is without merit, and has no real prospect of success. Accordingly, the Court is invited to strike out the claim of its own initiative, using its case management powers pursuant to CPR 3.4.

    I believe the facts contained in this Defence are true.

    Name
    Signature
    Date
    • securitymatters
    • By securitymatters 7th Dec 18, 1:49 AM
    • 17 Posts
    • 5 Thanks
    securitymatters
    Despite the fact that I was asked to post my Draft Defence on here for critique/help and I understand that this is not paid advise or help and people are busy time has now run out and I will have to post the defence to the County Court and hope it serves the purpose.
    • KeithP
    • By KeithP 7th Dec 18, 9:38 AM
    • 13,738 Posts
    • 15,148 Thanks
    KeithP
    ...time has now run out and I will have to post the defence to the County Court and hope it serves the purpose.
    Originally posted by securitymatters
    Why is that then? You have until next Wednesday.

    Are you really planning on posting it? Re-read post #14.

    Posting the same thing four times won't help.
    .
    • securitymatters
    • By securitymatters 10th Dec 18, 3:19 PM
    • 17 Posts
    • 5 Thanks
    securitymatters
    The point of posting the draft defence I was told by the folks in the know is so that a review by people with (see Thread #21) more legal knowledge could happen but it hasn't its Monday and the draft has been on here over a week, so posting a draft obviously is pointless.
    • Redx
    • By Redx 10th Dec 18, 4:23 PM
    • 21,944 Posts
    • 27,611 Thanks
    Redx
    its not pointless, it just means that of the very few people with legal training on here, none have commented and those of us with no legal backgrounds have refrained from pointlessly posting (until now)

    its also NOT POINTLESS because other members now and in the future may use your draft as a basis for their draft, especially if you win and if your thread is used as an example to others

    this isnt just about you

    plus the fact that this forum is far too busy and there arent enough volunteers, so start helping others like the rest of us do (even if we dont have court claims in progress and/or have never had a court claim) - read this I wrote recently

    https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=75126216&postcount=46

    the me , me , me attitude is far too prevalent on here and in the media (the #metoo option) - its a 2 way street

    for all we know somebody with legal background may post and tell you it was fine, no matter when they do it

    good luck
    Newbies !!
    Private Parking ticket? check the 2 sticky threads by coupon-mad and crabman in the Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking Board forum for the latest advice or maybe try pepipoo or C.A.G. or legal beagles forums if you need legal advice as well because this parking forum is not about debt collectors or legal matters per se
    • securitymatters
    • By securitymatters 13th Jan 19, 7:18 PM
    • 17 Posts
    • 5 Thanks
    securitymatters
    Notice of Proposed Allocation to the Small Claims Track
    Hi the court acknowledged receipt of my defence posted just as you suggested and I received from Gladstones Solicitors "Directions Questionnaire".
    I have now received from CCBC a "Notice of Proposed Allocation to the Small Claims Track", I am required to respond by 28th Jan completing the Small Claims Directions Questionnaire not sure how to respond can I have a little input at this point on responding please.
    • Redx
    • By Redx 13th Jan 19, 7:21 PM
    • 21,944 Posts
    • 27,611 Thanks
    Redx
    yes, please do as you should have done ages ago and READ the NEWBIES FAQ sticky thread , post #2 , which we mentioned in posts #2 , #4 , #5 , #14 and #23 for starters

    pay special attention to the BARGEPOLE walkthrough posts and any other posts by him

    you will be referred back to that thread time and time again, so familiarise yourself with it (use a laptop as well)


    it gets very tedious for respondents when they have to keep repeating stuff you have already been told
    Last edited by Redx; 13-01-2019 at 7:35 PM.
    Newbies !!
    Private Parking ticket? check the 2 sticky threads by coupon-mad and crabman in the Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking Board forum for the latest advice or maybe try pepipoo or C.A.G. or legal beagles forums if you need legal advice as well because this parking forum is not about debt collectors or legal matters per se
    • KeithP
    • By KeithP 13th Jan 19, 7:27 PM
    • 13,738 Posts
    • 15,148 Thanks
    KeithP
    Hi the court acknowledged receipt of my defence posted just as you suggested and I received from Gladstones Solicitors "Directions Questionnaire".
    I have now received from CCBC a "Notice of Proposed Allocation to the Small Claims Track", I am required to respond by 28th Jan completing the Small Claims Directions Questionnaire not sure how to respond can I have a little input at this point on responding please.
    Originally posted by securitymatters
    I have already supplied you with more than a 'little input'.

    Please re-read post #14 above where your question is answered by points #7 and #8 in the list therein - with a link to pertinent information.
    Last edited by KeithP; 13-01-2019 at 7:29 PM.
    .
    • securitymatters
    • By securitymatters 13th Jan 19, 11:52 PM
    • 17 Posts
    • 5 Thanks
    securitymatters
    Yes after posting I reread #14 and found the link in the newbys thread #2.
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

3,639Posts Today

8,113Users online

Martin's Twitter