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
    • elsmore95
    • By elsmore95 15th Jun 18, 7:17 PM
    • 27Posts
    • 9Thanks
    elsmore95
    County court Letter And help with defense
    • #1
    • 15th Jun 18, 7:17 PM
    County court Letter And help with defense 15th Jun 18 at 7:17 PM
    I am looking for help firstly i have read the newbie forum and accepted the county court letter. My reasons for this forum is to explain my situation and seek advice on a defense.
    The situation is behind my house is a car park that nobody parks in. I parked there from months without any problems until my neighbour couple of doors up decided she wants all the spaces for her partner as he has 3 vehicles. So she put a sign up from CPM I originally thought was fake she then started to take photos of my car i thought nothing of it until I received a parking fine through the post. I then did some research and found that you can download a CPM take pictures and ticket people! So i keep receiving fine after fine and ignore them all from Gladstone solicitors and DPM. Because its not her land it technically belongs to three houses on the street behind mine as their is an old sign half broken which you can see says belongs to them houses however they don't bother parking there. Fast forward a year after many letters i finally get a county court letter which i then read the newbie forum and acknowledge it. The frustrating thing is i feel my case is very unique and i cant seem to find a defense draft online that would help me. Even more annoying is that its not her i will be seeing in court it will be some private parking company trying to take over £800 from me this situation has put a massive stress on me and would appreciate if anyone can help with a defense that will be strong enough. Thank you in advance to anyone who takes the time to read and reply.
Page 3
    • Loadsofchildren123
    • By Loadsofchildren123 20th Jun 18, 1:25 PM
    • 2,219 Posts
    • 3,719 Thanks
    Loadsofchildren123
    When you are looking at the title document from land registry, look at the Proprietorship Register, don't worry about the Charges register.
    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.
    • elsmore95
    • By elsmore95 20th Jun 18, 3:44 PM
    • 27 Posts
    • 9 Thanks
    elsmore95
    Thanks for the reply @loadsofchildren. Ok so to update everyone i have had it confirmed from the LR that the land is shared ownership between house number 1,3 and 5 each one of them having a parking bay which they do not use and have never used since I have lived at this address.
    So where does that leave me in terms of my other neighbour which we have no proven does not own the land?
    To answer the question about if i want to park there for a small fee the answer is no. I moved my car because i couldn't be bothered with the hassle that my neghbour was causing being abusive etc so i am more than happy to park elsewhere.
    However clearly by her parking her two/three cars there and claiming to me she owns it putting up UKCPM signs etc is still wrong and if the claimant was to take me to court they would still have to prove she has been given written permission from number 1,3 and 5 to do so am i correct?
    And what would everyone recommend i do now in terms of my defence draft i posted earlier today? Thanks in advance.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 20th Jun 18, 3:58 PM
    • 59,444 Posts
    • 72,611 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    International Parking Community (they changed their name ages ago), not:
    7.1.2. The signage did not comply with the requirements of the Code of Practice of the Independent Parking Committee's ("IPC") Accredited Operators Scheme, an organisation to which the Claimant was a signatory; and
    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.

    • elsmore95
    • By elsmore95 20th Jun 18, 4:45 PM
    • 27 Posts
    • 9 Thanks
    elsmore95
    Well noticed @coupon-mad will change that Part of the defence
    • Redx
    • By Redx 20th Jun 18, 5:56 PM
    • 18,474 Posts
    • 23,387 Thanks
    Redx
    Thanks for the reply @loadsofchildren. Ok so to update everyone i have had it confirmed from the LR that the land is shared ownership between house number 1,3 and 5 each one of them having a parking bay which they do not use and have never used since I have lived at this address.
    So where does that leave me in terms of my other neighbour which we have no proven does not own the land?
    To answer the question about if i want to park there for a small fee the answer is no. I moved my car because i couldn't be bothered with the hassle that my neghbour was causing being abusive etc so i am more than happy to park elsewhere.
    However clearly by her parking her two/three cars there and claiming to me she owns it putting up UKCPM signs etc is still wrong and if the claimant was to take me to court they would still have to prove she has been given written permission from number 1,3 and 5 to do so am i correct?
    And what would everyone recommend i do now in terms of my defence draft i posted earlier today? Thanks in advance.
    Originally posted by elsmore95

    I would say that is correct, so maybe you should talk to all 3 of them and see if they have a contract with this neighbour, or not


    if not, get them to write and sign a witness statement as landowner to that effect ( ie:- no written contract between any of them and this neighbour that put the signs up)


    if they all had a contract with the neighbour , then that would mean that the neighbour could engage a parking company and do what has been done


    in any case, your defence (not defence statement as you have written) should put the claimant to strict proof of contracts flowing from the 3 kandowners to themselves via this neighbour they are acting for
    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
    • elsmore95
    • By elsmore95 21st Jun 18, 3:01 PM
    • 27 Posts
    • 9 Thanks
    elsmore95
    @redx I spoke to number 1 and 3 months ago and asked if the neighbour has a contract they said no. Number 3 said if I wanted to rent a space she could speak to her landlord and ask about a price etc but at the time I had enough of arguing and decided to just park my car elsewhere so I never got back to her about purchasing a space. And number 5 I know she is friends with the neighbour in question so don!!!8217;t want to go round and ask if they have a contract as she will just go straight to the neighbour and discuss what!!!8217;s been said. Because for all I know it could just be a verbal agreement up to now and if I was to go and ask then they could go and get it out in writing as evidence.
    So where I stand at the moment it 2 questions:
    What can I write into the defence in order for the claimant to prove a written contract between all three neighbours ?
    And what do people think are the chances of the UKCPM soliciter digging deep enough for all this evidence about who owns the land, who has written contract are these solicitors clued up on each case or do they just get a case given to them and try and win it seen as though they dish out thousands of parking fines it seems ? Thanks
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 21st Jun 18, 3:11 PM
    • 59,444 Posts
    • 72,611 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Did you phone the Land Registry yet, if there's still doubt about land ownership? Costs about £3.50 for the info you want.

    What can I write into the defence in order for the claimant to prove a written contract between all three neighbours ?
    Just say that you put them to 'strict proof' that the landowner of that piece of land/space has authorised UKCPM.

    And what do people think are the chances of the UKCPM soliciter digging deep enough for all this evidence about who owns the land, who has written contract
    No chance of them digging deep at all.

    do they just get a case given to them and try and win it seen as though they dish out thousands of parking fines it seems ?
    Yep, it's a robo-claim with no checks made.
    PRIVATE PCN? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT TWO Clicks needed for advice:
    Top of the page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    Advice to ignore is WRONG, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • elsmore95
    • By elsmore95 21st Jun 18, 3:53 PM
    • 27 Posts
    • 9 Thanks
    elsmore95
    Thanks @coupon-mad that’s out me at ease. And to answer you’re question yes the LR confirmed it belongs to 1,3 and 5 not the neighbour putting the signs up. I also purchased that neighbours LR which shows she has no right to a parking space so can use that as evidence too.
    They would have to dig deep to find out if the neighbour had an agreement with number 5 (if any even exists at all) to park in a space because she 100% doesn’t have one with number 1 and 3
    • Loadsofchildren123
    • By Loadsofchildren123 25th Jun 18, 11:41 AM
    • 2,219 Posts
    • 3,719 Thanks
    Loadsofchildren123
    so in your defence you say:


    The Defendant denies that the Claimant has any locus standi to bring this claim because it does not have a contract with the owner of the relevant land to operate there, and the Defendant puts the Claimant to strict proof thereof




    Then you deal with what the LR have given you about the ownership of the parking land, and the ownership of nasty neighbour, and what the owners of numbers 1 and 3 told you in your WS, exhibiting the LR documents.


    To set yourself up for a costs claim, I'd also write to the Claimant's solicitors now to bring this evidence to their intention and to invite them to withdraw the claim.


    Dear Sirs,


    [reference the claim]


    I have made enquiries with Land Registry and with the registered owners of the land where the car was parked.


    Based on those enquiries, I do not believe that the registered owners of the land have entered into any contract with your client permitting it to operate on the land. I believe that, in fact, a third party with no proprietorial interest in the land has contracted with your client, wrongly holding out to your client that they are the registered owner of the land.


    This is obviously a matter between your client and that person, and is nothing to do with me. What is to do with me is the fact that your client's claim is baseless and has no prospect of success.


    To evidence the above, I enclose the Land Registry title registers for the following properties:
    [title numbers and addresses of 1, 3, 5 and nasty neighbour]


    The title register entries for the first three properties show that the land on which you have been operating is included in the title to those properties.


    The title register entries for the fourth property is the person I believe has engaged your client to operate on the land. However, this person has no proprietorial interest in the land. I believe his/her motivation is that [s]he wishes to park there, because the owners of 1, 3 and 5 do not use the land. This obviously does not give them any interest in the land, they are just trespassing there.


    I have spoken to the owners of the first three titles and they confirm that there is no agreement with the owner of the fourth property - therefore they cannot have any proprietorial interest in the land, or any authority to engage your client to operate there.


    Your client is therefore trespassing on the land and has no authority to be there.


    This means that your client had no relevant landowner authority at the relevant time to issue a PCN to the vehicle of which I am registered keeper. Therefore, your client's claim can have no merit whatsoever. Please confirm that your client will withdraw the Claim.


    If you will not withdraw it, please explain why. If you continue to assert that you have landowner authority, please provide evidence of such authority.


    If your client will not withdraw the Claim then, because it is clearly baseless and I have drawn this to your attention, when I succeed in my Defence I will seek full costs under CPR 27.14(2)(g). The court has the discretion to order costs where a party has behaved unreasonably: it is hard to see what is more unreasonable than a party pursuing a Claim when it knows it is baseless.


    Yours faithfully etc.
    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.
    • IamEmanresu
    • By IamEmanresu 25th Jun 18, 12:54 PM
    • 2,737 Posts
    • 4,736 Thanks
    IamEmanresu
    To set yourself up for a costs claim, I'd also write to the Claimant's solicitors now to bring this evidence to their intention and to invite them to withdraw the claim.
    What about adding in the Buckingham Palace wheeze** from VCS v HMRC to get a court to rule on it.

    ** This is the claim they can sell Buck Pal even though they do not own it, so they can offer parking even though they have no standing. The fail to mention the issue of consideration / damages should they not provide consideration.
    About me: Capricorn. Likes: Tight defences, the tighter the better. Lucidity. Dislikes: Loquaciousness and magic words. WLTM: Someone with the facts, a private income and their own copy of the White Book.
    • elsmore95
    • By elsmore95 5th Jul 18, 12:56 PM
    • 27 Posts
    • 9 Thanks
    elsmore95
    Thankyou @loadsofchildren123 I have posted that letter you kindly suggested to Gladstones solicitors today so will see what the comeback from that is. Here is my final defence if i could ask people to have a look over before I send it off. Can i ask what Is the email address In which i have to send the defence to? Many thanks to everyone who replies once again.

    IN THE COUNTY COURT

    CLAIM No: CXXXXXX

    BETWEEN:

    UK CAR PARK MANAGEMENT LIMITED (Claimant)

    -and-

    MYSELF (Defendant)

    ________________________________________
    DEFENCE STATEMENT
    Preliminary
    1. The claimant failed to include a copy of their written contract 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 ‘Creditor’ 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’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 Defendant denies that the Claimant has any locus standi to bring this claim because it does not have a contract with the owner of the relevant land to operate there, and the Defendant puts the Claimant to strict proof.

    2. 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 Claimants are known to be serial issuers of generic claims similar to this one. HM Courts Service has identified over 1000 similar sparse claims. I believe the term for such behaviour is ‘roboclaims’ and as such is against the public interest. Practice Direction 3A which references Civil Procedure Rule 3.4 illustrates this point;

    “ 1.4 The following are examples of cases where the court may conclude that particulars of claim (whether contained in a claim form or filed separately) fall within rule 3.4(2)(a):
    1. those which set out no facts indicating what the claim is about, for example ‘Money owed £5000’,
    2. those which are incoherent and make no sense,
    3. those which contain a coherent set of facts but those facts, even if true, do not disclose any legally recognisable claim against the defendant ”

    3. The claimant has not provided enough details in the particulars of claim to file a full defence;
    3.1. The Claimant has disclosed no cause of action to give rise to any debt.
    3.2. The Claimant has stated that a ‘parking charge’ was incurred.
    3.3. 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.
    3.4. 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 just states “parking charges” which does not give any indication of on what basis the claim is brought.
    There is no information regarding why the charge arose, what the original charge was, what the alleged contract was, nor anything which could be considered a fair exchange of information.
    The Particulars of Claim are incompetent in disclosing no cause of action.

    3.4.1 On the 20th September 2016 another relevant poorly pleaded private parking
    charge claim by Gladstones was struck out by District Judge Cross of St Albans County Court without a hearing due to their ‘roboclaim’ particulars being incoherent, failing to comply with CPR. 16.4 and ‘providing no facts that could give rise to any apparent claim in law.’

    3.4.2. On the 27thJuly 2016 DJ Anson sitting at Preston County Court ruled that the very similar parking charge particulars of claim were deficient and failing to meet CPR 16.4 and PD 16 paragraphs 7.3 – 7.6. He ordered the Claimant in that case to file new particulars which they failed to do and so the court confirmed that the claim be struck out.

    Background
    4. It is likely to be a matter of common ground that this claim arises as the result of an alleged infraction brought about by the parking of a <insert colour> <insert make> <insert model> motor vehicle registration number AB12 CDE on <insert date> at <insert location> that in turn resulted in the issue of a parking charge notice by the Claimant.

    5. UK Car Park Management Ltd is not the lawful occupier of the land. I have the reasonable belief that they do not have the authority to issue charges on this land in their own name and that they have no rights to bring action regarding this claim.
    5.1. The Claimant is not the landowner and is merely an agent acting on behalf of the landowner and has failed to demonstrate their legal standing to form a contract.
    5.2. The claimant is not the landowner and suffers no loss whatsoever as a result of a vehicle parking at the location in question
    5.3 The Claimant is put to proof that it has sufficient interest in the land or that there are specific terms in its contract to bring an action on its own behalf. As a third party agent, the Claimant may not pursue any charge.

    6. The Claimant has at no time provided an explanation how the ‘parking charge’ has been calculated, the conduct that gave rise to it or how the amount has escalated from £100 to £160. This appears to be an added cost with apparently no qualification and an attempt at double recovery, which the POFA Schedule 4 specifically disallows.
    6.1. The Protection of Freedom Act Para 4(5) states that the maximum sum that may be recovered from the keeper is the charge stated on the Notice to Keeper.
    6.2. The driver did not enter into any 'agreement on the charge', no consideration flowed between the parties and no contract was established.
    6.2.1. The Defendant denies that the driver would have agreed to pay the original demand of £100 to agree to the alleged contract had the terms and conditions of the contract been properly displayed and accessible.

    Failure to set out clear parking terms
    7. The Defendant relies upon ParkingEye Ltd v Barry Beavis (2015) UKSC 67 insofar as the Court were willing to impose a penalty in the context of a site of commercial value and where the signage regarding the penalties imposed for any breach of parking terms were clear - both upon entry to the site and throughout.
    7.1. The Defendant avers that the parking signage in this matter was, without prejudice to his/her primary defence above, woefully inadequate.
    7.1.1. At the time of the material events the signage was deficient in number, distribution, wording and lighting to reasonably convey a contractual obligation;
    7.1.2. The signage did not comply with the requirements of the Code of Practice of the International Parking Community ("IPC") Accredited Operators Scheme, an organisation to which the Claimant was a signatory; and
    7.1.3. The signage contained particularly onerous terms not sufficiently drawn to the attention of the visitor as set out in the leading judgment of Denning MR in J Spurling v Bradshaw [1956] EWCA Civ 3
    7.2. There is signage within the same car park which mentions ‘wheel clamping in operation’ which The Protection of Freedoms Act makes it an offence to clamp on private land.
    7.3. UK Car Park Management Ltd had only recently placed their signage on the wall creating new terms and conditions for motorists. The IPC Code of Practice states that;

    “Where there is any change to any pre-existing terms and conditions that would not be immediately apparent to a person visiting the site and which materially affects the motorist you should place additional (temporary) signage at the entrance making it clear that new terms and conditions/charges apply, such that regular visitors who may be familiar with the old terms do not inadvertently incur parking charges. This signage should be in addition to the signage ordinarily required and left in place for an appropriate period.”

    There are no signs at the entrance at all and no additional signs or notices to alert drivers.

    8. The Claimant has sent threatening and misleading demands which stated that further debt recovery action would be taken to recover what is owed by passing the debt to a recovery agent (which suggested to the Defendant they would be calling round like bailiffs) adding further unexplained charges with no evidence of how these extra charges have been calculated.
    No figure for additional charges was 'agreed' nor could it have formed part of the alleged 'contract' because no such indemnity costs were quantified on the signs. Terms cannot be bolted on later with figures plucked out of thin air, as if they were incorporated into the small print when they were not.
    8.1. The Defendant also disputes that the Claimant has incurred £50 solicitor costs.
    8.2. The Defendant has the reasonable belief that the Claimant has not incurred £50 costs to pursue an alleged £100 debt.
    8.3. Not withstanding the Defendant's belief, the costs are in any case not recoverable.
    8.4. The Claimant described the charge of £50.00 "legal representative’s costs" not "contractual costs". CPR 27.14 does not permit these to be recovered in the Small Claims Court.

    Wholly unreasonable and vexatious claim
    9. It is submitted that the conduct of the Claimant in pursuing this claim is wholly unreasonable and vexatious. As such, the Defendant is keeping careful note of all wasted time/costs in dealing with this matter and should the case continue to trial (or in the event of the Claimant filing a Notice of Discontinuance) the Defendant will seek further costs, pursuant to Civil Procedure Rule 27.14(2)(g).

    10. The Defendant respectfully suggests that parking companies using the small claims track as a form of aggressive, automated monetary demands against motorists, alleging 'debts' for parking on free customer parking areas is not something the Courts should be seen to support.

    11. The Court is invited to take Judicial Notice of the fact that the Claimant's solicitors, Gladstones, is engaged in a course of conduct which involves issuing tens of thousands of totally meritless Claims, which are routinely dismissed by District Judges sitting in this Court, and other County Court hearing centres in all parts of England & Wales. The Court is therefore invited to refer the matter to the Designated Civil Judge, for consideration of the issuing an Extended Civil Restraint Order against the Claimant, pursuant to CPR Practice Direction 3.1(3).

    12. The Defendant denies the claim in its entirety, voiding any liability to the Claimant for all amounts due to the aforementioned reasons. The Defendant asks that the court gives consideration to exercise its discretion to order the case to be struck out under CPR Rule 3.4, for want of a detailed cause of action and/or for the claim having no realistic prospects of success.

    13. If the court is not minded to make such an order, then when Directions are given, the Defendant asks that there is an order for sequential service of witness evidence (rather than exchange) because it is expected that the Claimant will use its witness statement to provide the sort of detail which should have been disclosed much earlier, and the Defendant should have the opportunity to consider it, prior to serving evidence and witness statements in support of this defence.

    I confirm that the above facts and statements are true to the best of my knowledge and recollection.

    Name - Signed - Date
    • IamEmanresu
    • By IamEmanresu 5th Jul 18, 1:27 PM
    • 2,737 Posts
    • 4,736 Thanks
    IamEmanresu
    Do you want to include the sections that LoC123 suggested in #49. You say in 5 you have a "reasonable belief" but it is stronger than that. Include the elements you know and can prove.

    I'd also suggest you take out references to other DJ's (3.4.1 and 3.4.2) Judges are masters in their own court and AFAIK there are no transcripts for these cases for the judge to see later.

    The Particulars of Claim are incompetent in disclosing no cause of action.
    You may need to rephrase that.

    The Claimants are known to be serial issuers of generic claims similar to this one. HM Courts Service has identified over 1000 similar sparse claims. I believe the term for such behaviour is !!!8216;roboclaims!!!8217; and as such is against the public interest.
    Not sure you can prove that either so take out anything you can't support later (and as was mentioned before PUT IN items you can prove now like ownership of the land)

    Personal preference not to include references to Codes of Practice but rather the underlying legal concepts that underpin the code. Not your fault, but the template is looking very tired now.
    About me: Capricorn. Likes: Tight defences, the tighter the better. Lucidity. Dislikes: Loquaciousness and magic words. WLTM: Someone with the facts, a private income and their own copy of the White Book.
    • elsmore95
    • By elsmore95 5th Jul 18, 1:57 PM
    • 27 Posts
    • 9 Thanks
    elsmore95
    Thanks @IamEmanresu I have added what @LoC123 said in #49 to the Preliminary: The Defendant denies that the Claimant has any locus standi to bring this claim because it does not have a contract with the owner of the relevant land to operate there, and the Defendant puts the Claimant to strict proof.

    In 5 i have changed 'reasonable belief' to: UK Car Park Management Ltd is not the lawful occupier of the land. I have strong evidence from the Land Registry supporting that they do not have the authority to issue charges on this land in their own name and that they have no rights to bring action regarding this claim.

    I have removed 3.4.1 and 3.4.2 along with: 'The Particulars of Claim are incompetent in disclosing no cause of action.'

    And: ' The Claimants are known to be serial issuers of generic claims similar to this one. HM Courts Service has identified over 1000 similar sparse claims. I believe the term for such behavior is !!!8216;roboclaims!!!8217; and as such is against the public interest.'

    I am confident with the defence and am looking to submit it today does anyone have the email address i send it to ? Thanks in advance.
    • KeithP
    • By KeithP 5th Jul 18, 2:04 PM
    • 8,038 Posts
    • 7,900 Thanks
    KeithP
    I post this most days:
    When you are happy with the content, your Defence should be filed via email as described here:

    1) print your Defence
    2) sign it
    3) scan the signed document back in and save it as a pdf.
    4) send that pdf as an email attachment to CCBCAQ@Justice.gov.uk
    5) just put the claim number and the word Defence in the email title, and in the body of the email something like 'Please find my Defence attached'.
    .
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 5th Jul 18, 4:32 PM
    • 59,444 Posts
    • 72,611 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    It a DEFENCE (not 'statement').
    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

3,435Posts Today

8,540Users online

Martin's Twitter