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
    • iffy_jiffy
    • By iffy_jiffy 4th Jun 18, 10:41 AM
    • 108Posts
    • 31Thanks
    iffy_jiffy
    Need My Witness Statement Checking Over
    • #1
    • 4th Jun 18, 10:41 AM
    Need My Witness Statement Checking Over 4th Jun 18 at 10:41 AM
    Hi All,

    Going to court soon and would like help with my witness statement please. 2 tickets were issued and these are going to defended. The times of both tickets received in the post are 1 hour out! 1 ticket was received 14 days after so against POFA 2012.

    I've removed any sensitive information such as dates etc so dont get identified. Thanks all!



    **********************
    The claim is denied in its entirety except where explicitly admitted here. I assert that I am not liable to the Claimant for the sum claimed, or any amount at all, for the following reasons, any one of which is fatal to the Claimant's case.

    i. The Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations 1999 applies
    ii. The signage does not offer a contract with the motorist
    iii. The signage does not correspond to being visible and clear
    iv. The Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations 2013 applies
    v. The Claimant has no standing to bring a case
    vi. The charge is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss and is therefore an unenforceable penalty
    vii. Time of the alleged offence


    The claimant has not provided enough details in the particulars of claim to file a full defence. In particular, the full details of the contract which it is alleged was broken have never been provided. As the claimant has not provided this information, signage details have been inferred from stock photographs and the details may not be correct. Minor variants in text may occur. All references to signage therefore, are subject to change once the full particulars of claim have been provided.



    i The Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations 1999 applies
    1. It is asserted that the Claimant!!!8217;s charges are unlawful, as they are in breach of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations 1999, specifically regulation 8(1) of the Regulations and article 6(1) of the Unfair Terms Directive (in providing that an unfair term is not to be binding on the consumer), which is to redress the imbalance between the contracting parties!!!8217; bargaining power, and to re-establish equality between them, so that the contract terms which bind the parties are such as the parties would have agreed if they had negotiated the contract on equal terms.

    2. The European Court of Justice case of Aziz v Caixa d!!!8217;Estalvis de Catalunya, Tarragona I Manresa [2013] 3 CMLR 5 provides authority for this, and it is submitted that European Court of Justice decisions must be taken judicial notice of by lower courts in England and Wales. The test for unfairness and imbalance in that case is as follows (para 77);

    Article 3(1) of Directive 93/13 must be interpreted as meaning that:

    !!!8211; the concept of !!!8216;significant imbalance!!!8217; to the detriment of the consumer must be assessed in the light of an analysis of the rules of national law applicable in the absence of any agreement between the parties, in order to determine whether, and if so to what extent, the contract places the consumer in a less favourable legal situation than that provided for by the national law in force. To that end, an assessment of the legal situation of that consumer having regard to the means at his disposal, under national law, to prevent continued use of unfair terms, should also be carried out!!!894;

    !!!8211; in order to assess whether the imbalance arises !!!8216;contrary to the requirement of good faith!!!8217;, it must be determined whether the seller or supplier, dealing fairly and equitably with the consumer, could reasonably assume that the consumer would have agreed to the term concerned in individual contract negotiations.

    3. It is asserted that no reasonable person, of whatever means, would willingly agree to pay a charge of 100 as a consequence of parking for a !!!8220;max stay 2 hours, no return within 90 minutes!!!8221;, if they had the opportunity to negotiate the contract on equal terms with the other contracting party.

    4. It is asserted that any competent solicitor would have negotiated the charge to be equal to a genuine pre-estimate of loss, being the normal legal situation provided for by the national law in force. ES Parking Enforcement!!!8217;s charges in the original hearing were asserted to be an average of around 18 per ticket issued.

    5. The Claimant relies on the Court of Appeal judgment in the case of ParkingEye v Beavis. However, in that case the court applied the wrong test for imbalance (para 34 and also para 37, 38)

    The judge [!!!8230;] held that the term did not cause a significant imbalance in the parties' rights and obligations because the charge was no greater than that which a motorist could expect to pay for overstaying in a municipal car park.

    6. It is submitted that the European Court of Justice definition of imbalance must take precedence.

    7. However, in any case the instant case is not saved from being unfair by Beavis. In this particular location council charges for overstay are 50 discounted to 25, not 100 discounted to 60. As the charge is 100% greater than that which a motorist could expect to pay for overstaying in a municipal car park there is a clear imbalance.

    8. Regulation 7 of UTCCR 1999 may also apply depending on the words of the signage.

    9. Contract provided by the Claimant in their Witness Statement shows a !!!8220;contract!!!8221; with !!!8220;Fraser Capitol Man Ltd!!!8221;. Please see Exhibit K. This clearly shows the non-business rates is paid by Lidl and not !!!8220;Fraser Capitol Man Ltd!!!8221;. No contract with Lidl exists as this has not been provided by ES Parking Enforcement Limited. This shows contempt of Court. Furthermore, this is a failure of ES Parking Enforcement Limited to promote proof of the Lidl Contract/agreement.


    ii The signage does not offer a contract with the motorist

    10. The claim is for breach of contract. However, it is denied any contract existed.

    11. The Claimant states, in their Particulars of Claim, that the signage is !!!8216;clearly displayed!!!8217; but this is not agreed. Thus, the necessary elements of offer and acceptance to form a contract were not present. Although the Claimant has not provided a signage map in many of their car parks signs are positioned in such a way as to create !!!8216;entrapment zones!!!8217; where signage is not clearly visible. The Claimant is put strictly to proof that this is not the case on this site.

    12. The elements of offer, acceptance and consideration both ways have therefore not been satisfied and so no contract can exist.


    iii The signage is unclear, unreadable, not visible and too high

    13. The Claimant has provided different signage!!!8217;s when provided for evidence. See Exhibit!!!8217;s A and B.

    14. There was no signage at a low height with terms and conditions at time of the alleged offence. See Exhibit C.

    15. The signage was not clear and visible to individuals of average height. The signage starts at 7ft high from ground with text/characters that are of small print and unreadable.

    16. The signage was not clear due to the weather being dull and it raining. The signage therefore being even more difficult to read to ones made in the last point.


    iii The Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations 2013 applies

    17. Any alleged contract would be a distance contract for services as defined in The Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations 2013.

    18. The regulations define three types of contracts; distance contracts, on premises contract and off-premises contracts.

    19. The definitions concern themselves with how a contract is concluded (and in particular if face to face contact occurs during this process) and not where the contract is eventually performed. Thus, if a consumer books a hair styling appointment over the web, that is a distance contract even though they go to the salon for the actual styling. If they re-book at the salon, that will be an on-premises contract. If they meet their stylist in Tesco, arrange for an appointment and immediately phone the salon to confirm, that will be an off-premises contract. All these contracts are performed on-premises, but concluded in different ways.

    20. The regulations define an on-premises contract as:
    !!!8220;on-premises contract!!!8221; means a contract between a trader and a consumer which is neither a distance contract nor an off-premises contract;

    21. Thus a contract cannot be on-premises if it is a distance contract. The regulations define a distance contract as:
    !!!8220;distance contract!!!8221; means a contract concluded between a trader and a consumer under an organised distance sales or service-provision scheme without the simultaneous physical presence of the trader and the consumer, with the exclusive use of one or more means of distance communication up to and including the time at which the contract is concluded;

    22. This is clearly an organised service-provision scheme (for parking).
    The contract is clearly concluded without the simultaneous physical presence of the trader and the consumer.
    There is clearly the exclusive use of one means of distance communication (signage) up to and including the time at which the contract is concluded.

    23. This is therefore a distance contract.

    24. None of the exemptions in regulation (6) apply. No vending machine or automated premises was used to conclude the contract. Any contract would be concluded by parking and walking away.

    25. Regulation 13 lists information to be provided before making a distance contract. The contract fails to provide the required information listed in Schedule 2 or a means to have a copy of the contract on a durable medium. Accordingly, 13.1 states the contract is not binding on the consumer.


    iv The Claimant has no standing to bring a case

    26. The claim form states that the land is !!!8216;managed by ES Parking Enforcement Limited!!!8217;. They are therefore acting as agents of the landowner.

    27. The Claimant!!!8217;s has not provided copies of the alleged contract in the letter before claim or particulars of claim. However it is believe the signage contains further clauses which show that the Claimant is acting as an agent of the landowner, not the principal, which are identical or similar to the following; !!!8216;ES Parking Enforcement Limited is authorised by the landowner to manage/operate this private car park for an on its behalf!!!8217; and !!!8216;Parking is at the absolute discretion of the Landowner!!!8217;.

    28. Any consideration to the motorist of a grant of parking space flows from the landowner; the signage is believed to have a clause identical to or similar to, !!!8216;Parking is at the absolute discretion of the Landowner!!!8217;. There is no consideration from the motorist as there is no charge for parking.

    29. Although each case turns on its own facts, in all cases where ES Parking Enforcement!!!8217;s contract with the landowner has been fully disclosed, the charge for breach of contract is collected by ES Parking Enforcement Limited on behalf of the landowner. This is usually disclosed in the Claimant!!!8217;s Witness Statement under !!!8220;The Contract!!!8221; heading on Page 2, and on Pages 5 and Pages 6. This further confirms ES Parking Enforcement Limited act as agent for the landowner.

    30. If ES Parking Enforcement Limited deny acting as an agent then they are put to strict proof by disclosing the appropriate parts of their contact (usually on Pages 5 and Pages 6 of the Witness Statement) with the landowner.

    31. Fairlie v Fenton establishes the situation regarding agency.

    a. If the agent is acting on behalf of an undisclosed principal, they can sue and be sued
    b. If the agent is acting on behalf of a named principal, they cannot sue
    c. If the agent is acting on behalf of a principal whose name is not disclosed, then they can only sue if they assume the risk; in other words, if they can be sued if they fail to uphold their part of the bargain.

    32. This case is clearly (c). The signage states ES Parking Enforcement Limited are acting on behalf of the landowner, but does not state who the landowner is. The small print in the signage has a clause similar to !!!8216;we are not liable for any loss or damage howsoever caused to any person or property whilst on this site.!!!8217;

    33. ES Parking Enforcement Limited therefore have no standing to bring this case. Only the landowner has the right to do this.

    v The charge is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss and is therefore an unenforceable penalty

    34. The claim is for breach of contract. In such cases, it is trite law that any charge is intended to put the recipient back in the position they were had the breach not occurred. If the charge is larger, as in this case, then it is a penalty and the whole charge is unenforceable.

    35. As previously explained, the parking charge amount is due to the landowner, not the claimant. The Claimant collects it on the landowner!!!8217;s behalf. The Claimant has suffered no actual, or genuine pre-estimate of, loss as a result of any alleged overstay. There is no initial loss to the Claimant, and they have no standing to bring any case.

    36. In any case, all costs are due to the cost of enforcement, which was established in ParkingEye v Beavis to be an average of around 18 per ticket issued. I have no reason to believe otherwise that ES Parking Enforcement Limited!!!8217;s cost of enforcement will be more than this amount. These can therefore be mitigated by taking no action. The charge of 100 is primarily intended as a deterrent. It is, therefore, an unenforceable penalty.

    37. The charge for breach of contract is collected on behalf of the landowner, according to the Claimant!!!8217;s Witness Statement under !!!8220;The Contract!!!8221; heading on Page 2, and on Pages 5 and Pages 6 of the landowner contract. However, all costs for issuing tickets are borne by ES Parking Enforcement Limited. The landowner therefore suffers no loss at all. This bizarre business arrangement means that there is no cause of action.

    38. The Claimant may rely on the ruling of ParkingEye v Beavis, held in the court of appeal in February 2015. This case has since been heard in the Supreme Court. Consideration should therefore be given to staying this case until the judgment is handed down.

    39. Each case must turn on its own fact and the facts of that case are different to this.

    40. The Court of Appeal ruled that is a charge was not a genuine pre-estimate of loss it could nevertheless be saved as a penalty if (i) there was social justification, and (ii) the charge was no more than needed to deter, which was established by comparison with council charges at that site.

    41. The social justification was because the car park might be abused by drivers who stayed all day. Additionally it was alleged that retailers would suffer if motorists stayed longer than allowed, and other motorists would not be able to find a space when they wanted to shop. ES Parking Enforcement Limited have not established any social justification in this particular case.

    42. In this case equivalent council fines are 25 rising to 50 after 14 days. In comparison to this the sum demanded is clearly far more than that needed to deter, far more than genuine losses, and is therefore disproportionate.

    43. Additionally the sum is roughly equivalent to a week!!!8217;s state pension or a day and a half take home pay at average earnings. It is therefore a huge sum, completely disproportionate to the costs involved in any overstay.


    v Time of the alleged offence

    44. During the time of the alleged offence, the defendant or the car was not present at the time stated by the Claimant. Please see Exhibit!!!8217;s D (Defendant), E (Defendant!!!8217;s Partner), F (Defendant!!!8217; son), G (Defendant!!!8217;s daughter in law), H (Defendant!!!8217;s daughter), I (other child!!!8217;s father in the picture !!!8211; with black coat on). The claim should be struck off on this point due to the evidence presented.


    Solicitor Costs

    45. The claimant!!!8217;s charges (for claim xxxxxx) outline a number of due balances:

    a. date xxxxxx (ES Parking) - 60 rising to 100 if not paid within 14 days
    b. date xxxxxx (ES Parking) !!!8211; 125 with no reason for the increase
    c. date xxxxxx (ZZPS) !!!8211; 185 with debt collection charges
    d. date xxxxxx (Gladstone) !!!8211; 160 with 60 being recovery charges

    Balance discrepancies (c. and d.) make the Claimant!!!8217;s standing confusing and ambiguous.


    46. 60, described as !!!8216;recovery charge!!!8217;. The Claimant is known to be a serial litigant, issuing up to 1,000 similar claims on a weekly basis, using the bulk processing service, generating up to 000!!!8217;s of income. Given a standard working week, the claimant!!!8217;s connecting and unscrupulous chain companies i.e. ZZPS and Gladstones Solicitors, can spend no more than a few minutes per claim, hardly justifying the 60. Since these are fully automated, no intervention is required by a solicitor, and the Claimant is put to strict proof to show how this cost has been incurred. The Claimant maintains case notes for each person who has accessed the case, and it is suggested this would be sufficient. The Claimant cannot rely on Nossen!!!8217;s Letter Patent (1969) to justify the charge, as this is part of their everyday routine, and no !!!8216;expert services!!!8217; are involved. The 60 is not valid because it is not incurred by the claimant, generating over 000!!!8217;s a year in profit.

    47. Additionally, as this is already included as part of the costs of the claimant, factored into the 100 parking charge, this is essentially nearly double charging.

    48. To put this into context, if the work was done by an outside solicitor who charged ES Parking Enforcement Limited 10 (which is believed to be the going rate for this type of work) then ES Parking Enforcement Limited would only be able to claim 10, and not 50.

    49. The defendant therefore puts the claimant strictly to proof, by way of timesheets or otherwise, that work was done by the litigant!!!8217;s expert staff to the value of 60.

    50. The 50 !!!8220;recovery!!!8221; cost was disputed in the test case of ParkingEye v Beavis and Wardley. HHJ Moloney refused to award the 50. His award was; !!!8220;JUDGEMENT FOR CLAIMANT FOR 85 PLUS ISSUE COSTS!!!8221;. These were presumably the 25 filing fee and 25 hearing fee.

    51. The 50 was also struck out by DJ Sparrow on 19 August 2015 in ParkingEye v Mrs S, claim number B9FC508F.


    Additionally

    52. ES Parking Enforcement Limited are known to attempt to discredit defences by claiming they come from online forums. There is nothing wrong with using online forums, as most legal professionals use the internet for research too.

    53. In any case, ES Parking Enforcement Limited cases all explore the same few areas of law and it is therefore not surprising that as ES Parking Enforcement Limited file an estimated 000!!!8217;s claims a year that many defences will be similar in nature.

    54. ES Parking Enforcement Limited are known to preface any !!!8216;reply to defence!!!8217; with a generic 19 page template which is largely irrelevant to any specific case and in any event is full of misleading information. I also contend this is an abuse of the small claims process, which aims to keep costs down. The size of the document is also not in proportion to the size of the claim. Any generic document should have either been served along with the letter before claim, or listed as a document they will rely on in court.

    55. In the case of VCS v Ibbotson:

    a. In relation to the unfair reflection of the pre-agreed damages claimed by ES Parking Enforcement Limited, this is 60, it is a penalty and in relation to contact law this is unenforceable. Judge McIlwaine disagreed that this was a !!!8220;pre-agreed amount of loss!!!8221;. The Defendant claims this is a penalty and a no loss or damage occurred (Page 5).

    b. ES Parking Enforcement Limited have no basis and right to issue an action to sue individuals for a breach of Contract or trespass upon the premises belonging to a customer in the name ES Parking Enforcement Limited. There is nothing in the contract that gives authorisation to issue proceedings on behalf of the customer. Judge Mcilwaine struck out the case as British Parking Association Code of Practice states on page 6, clause 6:

    "Under the Code you must have written authorisation of a land owner or his appointed agent before you can carry out parking control and enforcement of the land in question. The authorisation must say that the land owner requires you to keep to the Code of Practice."

    As in this case too, ES Parking Enforcement Limited have no written authorisation from the customer to issue proceedings.

    c. The employee of ES Parking Enforcement Limited was present of the alleged office and could have approached the Defendant to advise that he is present to enforce parking as you are in breach. I quote Judge McIlwaine:

    !!!8220;whilst it may not be his (ParkingEye!!!8217;s attendant) responsibility to stop him walking away, as he is a lawful authorised member of the company at the time he is there and there is a duty to mitigate the loss, can you explain to me why he did not say to Mr Ibbotson, "You can walk off, not a problem, 80 quid"?

    ES Parking Enforcement Limited could have mitigated their losses by approaching the Defendant. They did not.
    56. Claim xxxxxxx was claimed via letter dated xxxxxx by the Claimant which is over the 14 days of the alleged offence set out by POFA (Protection of Freedom Act 2012) points 4 and 5 (legislation.gov.uk). This therefore makes the claim irrelevant and void.

    57. No reply to the Defendant!!!8217;s letters and specific request on points. See Exhibit!!!8217;s M.
    **********************


    What do you think? Any help will be very much appreciated!
    Last edited by iffy_jiffy; 04-06-2018 at 10:42 AM. Reason: *
Page 10
    • iffy_jiffy
    • By iffy_jiffy 5th Jul 18, 3:00 PM
    • 108 Posts
    • 31 Thanks
    iffy_jiffy
    yes that's the one
    Originally posted by Loadsofchildren123
    Thank you for confirming.
    • iffy_jiffy
    • By iffy_jiffy 5th Jul 18, 3:02 PM
    • 108 Posts
    • 31 Thanks
    iffy_jiffy
    keeper needs to be with you, assume you know that!
    Originally posted by Loadsofchildren123
    Yes - attending tomorrow with myself.
    • Loadsofchildren123
    • By Loadsofchildren123 5th Jul 18, 4:23 PM
    • 2,216 Posts
    • 3,715 Thanks
    Loadsofchildren123
    email that to them tonight, should be served the day before (24 hours)
    Although a practising Solicitor, my posts here are NOT legal advice, but are personal opinion based on limited facts provided anonymously by forum users. I accept no liability for the accuracy of any such posts and users are advised that, if they wish to obtain formal legal advice specific to their case, they must seek instruct and pay a solicitor.
    • iffy_jiffy
    • By iffy_jiffy 5th Jul 18, 4:29 PM
    • 108 Posts
    • 31 Thanks
    iffy_jiffy
    email that to them tonight, should be served the day before (24 hours)
    Originally posted by Loadsofchildren123
    Is this the SA, POFA/IPC breaches and schedule costs etc? or just the SA? Didnt know that!
    • iffy_jiffy
    • By iffy_jiffy 5th Jul 18, 4:37 PM
    • 108 Posts
    • 31 Thanks
    iffy_jiffy
    Do i have to email the court too?
    • KeithP
    • By KeithP 5th Jul 18, 4:38 PM
    • 8,026 Posts
    • 7,882 Thanks
    KeithP
    Do i have to email the court too?
    Originally posted by iffy_jiffy
    Yes you do.
    .
    • iffy_jiffy
    • By iffy_jiffy 5th Jul 18, 4:38 PM
    • 108 Posts
    • 31 Thanks
    iffy_jiffy
    Do i have to email the court too?
    Originally posted by iffy_jiffy
    Thanks - will do so now!!
    • iffy_jiffy
    • By iffy_jiffy 5th Jul 18, 4:44 PM
    • 108 Posts
    • 31 Thanks
    iffy_jiffy
    Thanks - will do so now!!
    Originally posted by iffy_jiffy
    Thanks - court emailed. Emailing Gladstones now.
    • iffy_jiffy
    • By iffy_jiffy 5th Jul 18, 4:48 PM
    • 108 Posts
    • 31 Thanks
    iffy_jiffy
    Thanks - court emailed. Emailing Gladstones now.
    Originally posted by iffy_jiffy
    Done. Thanks all.
    • iffy_jiffy
    • By iffy_jiffy 6th Jul 18, 11:31 AM
    • 108 Posts
    • 31 Thanks
    iffy_jiffy
    ALL - CASE DISMISSED BUT THE JUDGE STRAIGHT AWAY AS IN BREACH OF CPR 16.4. STRUCK THE CLAIM OUT IN 5MINS.

    ALL - a BIG THANKS for all your help. Wouldn't have been able to get anywhere on my own, all this was down to yourselves (AND BMPA at the outset). And an APOLOGY for anything ive said/done wrong - i know i have unintentionally.

    Thanks all!
    • claxtome
    • By claxtome 6th Jul 18, 11:33 AM
    • 597 Posts
    • 706 Thanks
    claxtome
    Great news

    Time to

    Did you manage to get any costs?

    Which Court and which judge for the records?
    • iffy_jiffy
    • By iffy_jiffy 6th Jul 18, 12:06 PM
    • 108 Posts
    • 31 Thanks
    iffy_jiffy
    Great news

    Time to

    Did you manage to get any costs?

    Which Court and which judge for the records?
    Originally posted by claxtome
    Sorry for late reply - just picked up kids from school as half day today.

    DJ Wilson at Preston Combined Court.

    Agree 100%. Costs was raised by myself but because the judge stated it was "unreasonable conduct" by the claimant so i could not raise costs.- only the usual loss earnings for the defendant and travel. The loss off earnings for the defendant was 0 ie retired, travel costs was only 1 mile each way so not worth it.

    Also, the signs were called into question for using the wording "customers" and there being no offer/acceptance and this model was breached due to the wording "customers" on the signage. The claimant representative tried to advise shes under the instruction of whatever evidence and their clients WS but at each point she raised (from ELMS Legal) DJ Wilson he said it cant stand as the law was breached ie.CPR 16.4. He also said at the inception that he's come across ES many a times and they have been instructed by him a number times of this.

    Over in 10 mins. Just asked who the defendant was, myself and then ive read the claimants argument andnit doesnt stand. Boom...over straight away.

    Have to stay, i am relieved, which is an understatement. Phew.
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 6th Jul 18, 12:13 PM
    • 18,352 Posts
    • 29,040 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    Despite our earlier 'spat', well done on your win. Glad it came out positive for you. Glass or two tonight I suspect?
    We cannot provide you with a silver bullet to get you out of this. You have to be in for the long run, and need to involve yourself in research and work for you to get rid of this. It is not simple. We will help, but can't do it for you.

    Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day; show him how to catch fish, and you feed him for a lifetime.
    • iffy_jiffy
    • By iffy_jiffy 6th Jul 18, 12:17 PM
    • 108 Posts
    • 31 Thanks
    iffy_jiffy
    C-M...i gave the usher the lay representative legal doc...he said give it to the judge...to which i did and his reply was "I KNOW THE LAW"... I replied "apologies". OOOOPPPSSS. Was dreading at that point. But then he spoke and killed the Claimants case.

    The Claimants rep spoke to us privately before the hearing and said..do you understand thr procedure, i said "yes", she said on the evidence we have we could come a to a 50/50 agreement. I replied that "if you adhered to POFA, IPC, Practice Direction and Pre-Action Protocols then we could discuss but you havent so no". End of that then.

    To be fair she was quite pleasant as she said (with a smile) at the end when we walked out "youll be glad to know that's the end of it and you wont be heating from us again"
    • iffy_jiffy
    • By iffy_jiffy 6th Jul 18, 12:19 PM
    • 108 Posts
    • 31 Thanks
    iffy_jiffy
    Despite our earlier 'spat', well done on your win. Glad it came out positive for you. Glass or two tonight I suspect?
    Originally posted by Umkomaas
    So glad you've replied Umkomaas. Hope you've forgiven me!

    Thanks and for all the advice. It'll have to be non-alcoholic as I don't drink lol....but i am going turkey tomorrow!!! That'll more than make up for it. I did hope I'd win before going as it would make the victory sweeter.
    Last edited by iffy_jiffy; 06-07-2018 at 3:52 PM.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 6th Jul 18, 11:53 PM
    • 59,444 Posts
    • 72,604 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    DJ Wilson at Preston Combined Court.
    Yay - very well done to you and that Judge, another one bites the dust!

    https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules/part16

    Contents of the particulars of claim
    16.4
    Ludicrous that a firm of solicitors can't manage that...

    Celebrate your win and tell your family and friends, they must be proud of your stance!

    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.

    • Johnersh
    • By Johnersh 7th Jul 18, 1:29 AM
    • 1,102 Posts
    • 2,119 Thanks
    Johnersh
    Nicely done. Nothing like the rules being properly applied - it's not too much to ask.

    Enjoy a cheeky Shloer now it's over!
    "The best advice I ever got was that knowledge is power and to keep reading."
    DISCLAIMER: I post thoughts as & when they occur. I don't advise. You are your own person and decision-maker. I'm unlikely to respond to DMs seeking personal advice. It's ill-advised & you lose the benefit of a group "take" on events.
    • iffy_jiffy
    • By iffy_jiffy 7th Jul 18, 7:04 AM
    • 108 Posts
    • 31 Thanks
    iffy_jiffy
    Yes, all proud ... But have said don't get anymore parking tickets.

    Originally, 4 were given in 1 week (mon-thu) - yes 4! Replied back to all 4 and 1 was successfully appealed (even though they were clearly not appeals!). This case related to 2 PCNs so 1 other PCN is dormant. See if that crops up.

    Schler or a mojito...in turkey...here i come... :-)
    • claxtome
    • By claxtome 7th Jul 18, 7:13 AM
    • 597 Posts
    • 706 Thanks
    claxtome
    This case related to 2 PCNs so 1 other PCN is dormant. See if that crops up.
    Let's hope it remains dormant.
    You know where to come if it doesn't
    • iffy_jiffy
    • By iffy_jiffy 7th Jul 18, 7:34 AM
    • 108 Posts
    • 31 Thanks
    iffy_jiffy
    Let's hope it remains dormant.
    You know where to come if it doesn't
    Originally posted by claxtome
    Hopefully! Thanks.

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

813Posts Today

7,655Users online

Martin's Twitter
  • Donald Trump has apologised and admits he said would when he meant "wouldn't" when siding with Putin over US inte? https://t.co/z1CRJSkEO1

  • About to watch #AckleyBridge on C4+1. I do enjoy it, even though I always feel somewhat stressed and depressed after watching.

  • RT @stevenowottny: 19/30 UK airports now charge you for spending 10 mins dropping someone off at the terminal - good investigation from @je?

  • Follow Martin