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
    • Mystic-lady
    • By Mystic-lady 7th Aug 18, 1:01 AM
    • 22Posts
    • 10Thanks
    Mystic-lady
    Urgent Help Required: Being threatened with bailiffs for a PCN when ticket states Not a PCN!!
    • #1
    • 7th Aug 18, 1:01 AM
    Urgent Help Required: Being threatened with bailiffs for a PCN when ticket states Not a PCN!! 7th Aug 18 at 1:01 AM
    I took my mother to the theatre, parked the car in a disabled bay displaying my mother’s blue badge together with the pay & display fee ticket on the top. I placed them both at an angle for ease of any warden on the front dashboard as required. As I was placing them my mother started to get out of the car and as it was a blustery night I quickly slammed my door rushing round to help prevent an accident and proceeded to the theatre.

    Post performance, a theatre usher kindly helped my mother back to the car. On approach we noticed a ticket had been placed on my windscreen. The ticket, red card with a black chevron border showed both date/time directly under which it said !ATTENTION! DOCUMENT ENCLOSED (there was nothing enclosed) with “THIS IS NOT A PARKING CHARGE NOTICE” also in bold underneath that.

    As stated, there was nothing other than this card which on the reverse has the company name MyParkingCharge.co.uk together with a serial number and again, the date!

    No address stated on the ticket just web address. No Company registration number. No name of the person or ID of the individual who’d written this so-called ticket.

    I subsequently visited website to see various photos of my husbands car at various angles plus the disabled bay plus a section underneath saying I owed £60! Their website also quotes a Companies House registration which is solely relevant to Excel Parking. In addition to which, their small print says “it works in the style of Excel” not “for and on behalf of Excel” which I would expect. Plus, In a different area of this MCP website they quote a different Companies House registration number, which after research I found belongs to VCS.

    At this stage I phoned DVL who informed my MCP (MyParkingCharge) has no authorisation to obtain drivers details. That said, some days later my husband received a sheet of A4 in the post saying Parking Charge Notice demanding the sum of £100 stating “Parked in a disabled bay without clearly displaying a valid disabled persons badge” This paperwork however clearly shows a picture of their PCN (Parking Charge Notice) which I’ve since been informed by the police is correct, of a yellow notice with a black chevron border clearly stating PCN!

    It sadly appears that as I slammed my door in a rush to help my mother, the fee paid receipt blew over part of her blue badge registration number ie “act of God!”

    As such, I wrote a lengthy email (plus sending a recorded letter version) to MCP showing all relevant documentation pointing out that the notice placed on the windscreen by the warden, for and on their behalf quite clearly states in bold that it isn’t a Parking Charge Notice and as such there is no monies due! They have also chosen to ignore the vast majority of the letter asking about out of pocket expenses, landlords contract etc, etc.

    Last week I received a response email saying my appeal had been rejected. If I wanted to appeal I have no option other than go through IAS (Independent Appeals Service) which again having done further research allegedly appears (according to many reviewers) to be an extension of the same company! MCP will not entertain any other appeal service. Plus have threatened court, bailiffs etc!!!

    I have appealed through this required method but they are totally ignoring, failing take on board or comprehend the ticket placed on my windscreen clearly states the direct opposite to a charge notice. Within that appeal I’ve also clarified that I am more than willing to stand before a civil court to present all the relevant facts/paperwork and let them decide.

    They are totally ignoring the fact whilst the wind blew the ticket, my mother is a valid blue badge holder they have also made an error and inadvertently put a wrong notice on my windscreen!

    I’m in despair, can anyone help me please???

Page 2
    • beamerguy
    • By beamerguy 12th Aug 18, 10:17 PM
    • 8,793 Posts
    • 11,674 Thanks
    beamerguy
    Mystic-lady ... your comments about the IPC/IAS and VCS
    is 100% correct.

    The IPC/IAS was set up by Gladstones Solicitors as a money
    making scam. VCS joined the scam as an easy way to make
    money.

    Simon Renshaw-Smith who owns VCS and Excel is an
    ex clamper and has made his money by scamming people

    A very sad man

    IPC/IAS is not in the interests of the general public and
    should be outlawed by the government
    Gladstones should be sanctioned by the SRA, not only for
    their totally rubbish claims but the sheer waste of the
    court system. IT WILL HAPPEN

    You still have a voice, Sir Greg Knight who started the
    new members bill is the man to write to

    https://www.parliament.uk/biographies/commons/sir-greg-knight/1200
    RBS - MNBA - CAPITAL ONE - LLOYDS

    DISGUSTING BEHAVIOUR
    • waamo
    • By waamo 12th Aug 18, 10:27 PM
    • 4,423 Posts
    • 5,812 Thanks
    waamo
    If you read your letter very carefully I will wager its full of weasel words and phrases. I bet it is full of phrases that say you "may" have a judgement made against you.

    It's deliberately worded vaguely so as to make you think it's an easy matter for them to send the heavies round. It isn't. They have to jump through a few legal hoops before they can even begin proceedings.

    A genuine warning will contain little in the way of weasel words.
    This space for hire.
    • gardner1
    • By gardner1 13th Aug 18, 7:20 PM
    • 2,685 Posts
    • 3,974 Thanks
    gardner1
    If you read your letter very carefully I will wager its full of weasel words and phrases. I bet it is full of phrases that say you "may" have a judgement made against you.

    It's deliberately worded vaguely so as to make you think it's an easy matter for them to send the heavies round. It isn't. They have to jump through a few legal hoops before they can even begin proceedings.

    A genuine warning will contain little in the way of weasel words.
    Originally posted by waamo
    And they love to quote "Beavis vs Butthead" or whatever it was called
    • dbh1973
    • By dbh1973 20th Aug 18, 1:18 PM
    • 7 Posts
    • 1 Thanks
    dbh1973
    Hi i have the same issue, im going down the route of none compliance to the freedom of information act 2012 for recovery of car parking tickets.

    "When a parking contravention is detected, a landholder may place a ticket on a vehicle or give it to the driver at the time of the contravention. In these circumstances the landholder must wait 28 days after which, if there is no response, he/she may submit a request to the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA) for details of the vehicle's registered keeper. He/she may then write to the registered keeper to seek details of the driver or payment of the parking charge "
    • nosferatu1001
    • By nosferatu1001 20th Aug 18, 1:31 PM
    • 3,662 Posts
    • 4,496 Thanks
    nosferatu1001
    And, as pointed out in your other thread
    1) you got the name of the Act wrong
    2) youve managed to miss an entire para of the Act you didnt name correctly.
    • Mystic-lady
    • By Mystic-lady 3rd Sep 18, 8:22 PM
    • 22 Posts
    • 10 Thanks
    Mystic-lady
    Having no already appealed prior to getting to this point.....do I still ignore or begrudgingly pay?

    Dear Teena,

    The Independent Appeals Service (IAS) has received a decision from the Independent Adjudicator regarding your recent appeal for the below PCN.

    Parking Charge Number Withheld
    Vehicle Registration: B]Withheld[/B]
    Date Issued: 21/06/2018

    Appeal Outcome: Dismissed

    The Adjudicators comments are as follows:

    "It is important that the Appellant understands that the adjudicator is not in a position to give his legal advice. The adjudicator's role is to look at whether the parking charge has a basis in law and was properly issued in the circumstances of each particular case. The adjudicator's decision is not legally binding on the Appellant (it is intended to be a guide) and they are free to obtain independent legal advice if they so wish. However, the adjudicator is legally qualified (a barrister or solicitor) and decides the appeal according to their understanding of the law and legal principles.

    The terms of this appeal are that I am only allowed to consider the charge being appealed and not the circumstances of other drivers or other parking events. The guidance to this appeal also makes it clear that I am bound by the law of contract and can only consider legal challenges not mistakes or extenuating circumstances. The Operator’s signage, which was on display at the site and visible from the position of parking, makes it clear that the terms and conditions of parking are in force at all times and that a PCN will be issued to drivers who fail to comply with the terms and conditions of parking, regardless of a driver’s reasons for being on site or any mitigating factors. I note that the Appellant obtained a pay & display ticket suggesting that they were made reasonably aware of the contractual signage. It is clear from the evidence provided to this appeal that the Appellant did indeed park otherwise than in accordance with the displayed terms as a Blue Badge was not properly displayed when the vehicle was parked in a disabled bay. The contractual signage states that 'A valid blue badge must be displayed in the front windscreen of the vehicle with the details clearly visible at all times' - the contravention images show that a pay & display ticket was placed on the Blue Badge obscuring details on it and meaning that the details were not clearly visible. I note the Appellant's comments with regards to service however the Operator's code of conduct states that 'Where notification of a parking charge is not affixed to the vehicle or given to the driver at the time of the parking event then you may provide postal notification of the charge to the registered keeper.' On the evidence provided I am satisfied that the charge has been served correctly using the postal system.

    The Appellant also raises the issue of the level of the charge. In my view the parking charge is not excessive for two reasons. First, because the amount being sought by the operator was clearly communicated to the appellant by way of the signage on the site. If the Appellant considered the charge to be excessive, the Appellant had the choice to reject it by either not parking or parking in accordance with the terms. Second, the amount being claimed by the Operator is in my view justified given the operator's running costs. It is also in line with industry standards. For further guidance on this point the Appellant may wish to consider the judgment in PARKINGEYE LIMITED and BARRY BEAVIS [2015] EWCA Civ 402

    I am satisfied that the Operator has proven their prima facie case. Whilst having some sympathy with the Appellant’s circumstances, once liability has been established, only the Operator has the discretion to vary or cancel the parking charge based on mitigating circumstances. Accordingly this appeal is dismissed.
    "

    As your appeal has been dismissed, the Independent Adjudicator has found, upon the evidence provided, that the parking charge was lawfully incurred.

    As this appeal has not been resolved in your favour, the IAS is unable to intervene further in this matter.

    You should contact the operator within 14 days to make payment of the charge.

    Should you continue to contest the charge then you should consider obtaining independent legal advice.

    Yours Sincerely,
    The Independent Appeals Service


    Independent Appeals Service
    The IPC, PO Box 662, Macclesfield, SK10 9NR

    The Independent Appeals Service is approved by Government under the Alternative Dispute Resolution for Consumer Disputes (Competent Authorities and Information) Regulations 2015

    The content of this email transmission and any documents attached to it are confidential and are intended for the named recipient only and may contain information that is subject to legal privilege. If you have received this email in error or are not the named recipient you are expressly forbidden from copying, storing or further distributing the contents of this transmission by any means. Disclosure of the content of this email transmission or its content may amount to contempt of court or a criminal offence. If you have received this e mail transmission in error you are requested to notify the sender and delete the email and its content forthwith. We do not accept service of documents by email.

    The Independent Appeals Service is a trading style of United Trade and Industry Ltd, Registered in England and Wales (08248531), 41 Greek Street, Stockport, Cheshire, England, SK3 8AX


    :e
    • waamo
    • By waamo 3rd Sep 18, 8:36 PM
    • 4,423 Posts
    • 5,812 Thanks
    waamo
    In case you haven't have a look at the directors of United Trade and Industry Ltd.

    Then look who Gladstones solicitors are. You will be getting letters from Gladstones soon.
    This space for hire.
    • beamerguy
    • By beamerguy 3rd Sep 18, 8:54 PM
    • 8,793 Posts
    • 11,674 Thanks
    beamerguy
    Dear Teena,

    The Independent Appeals Service (IAS) has received a decision from the Independent Adjudicator regarding your recent appeal for the below PCN.
    Originally posted by Mystic-lady

    This is TOTAL CR*P


    "(IAS) has received a decision from the Independent Adjudicator"

    They are supposed to be the adjudicator and boast some
    out of work judge/solicitor is that person ????

    Government made a huge error employing the IPC/IAS
    as an ATA ..... the whole charade was set up by Gladstones
    solicitors to make money ..... IPC/IAS is a SCAM

    Treat the IPC/IAS as a SCAM and this will be confirmed to
    you if you receive a letter from Gladstones Solicitors

    As there is a new parking bill going through, suggest you
    send a copy of the reply to Sir Greg Knight and show him
    this scam and ask how many people suffer from the
    Gladstones setup scam

    https://www.parliament.uk/biographies/commons/sir-greg-knight/1200

    No harm telling Sir Greg that this is a scam, he probably
    knows this already

    https://www.parliament.uk/biographies/commons/sir-greg-knight/1200

    IPC/IAS IS A COMPLETE SCAM

    SETUP BY GLADSTONES SOLICITORS
    Last edited by beamerguy; 03-09-2018 at 8:59 PM.
    RBS - MNBA - CAPITAL ONE - LLOYDS

    DISGUSTING BEHAVIOUR
    • Mystic-lady
    • By Mystic-lady 3rd Sep 18, 8:57 PM
    • 22 Posts
    • 10 Thanks
    Mystic-lady
    Having no already appealed prior to getting to this point.....do I still ignore or begrudgingly pay?

    Dear Teena,

    The Independent Appeals Service (IAS) has received a decision from the Independent Adjudicator regarding your recent appeal for the below PCN.

    Parking Charge Number Withheld
    Vehicle Registration: B]Withheld[/B]
    Date Issued: 21/06/2018

    Appeal Outcome: Dismissed

    The Adjudicators comments are as follows:

    "It is important that the Appellant understands that the adjudicator is not in a position to give his legal advice. The adjudicator's role is to look at whether the parking charge has a basis in law and was properly issued in the circumstances of each particular case. The adjudicator's decision is not legally binding on the Appellant (it is intended to be a guide) and they are free to obtain independent legal advice if they so wish. However, the adjudicator is legally qualified (a barrister or solicitor) and decides the appeal according to their understanding of the law and legal principles.

    The terms of this appeal are that I am only allowed to consider the charge being appealed and not the circumstances of other drivers or other parking events. The guidance to this appeal also makes it clear that I am bound by the law of contract and can only consider legal challenges not mistakes or extenuating circumstances. The Operator’s signage, which was on display at the site and visible from the position of parking, makes it clear that the terms and conditions of parking are in force at all times and that a PCN will be issued to drivers who fail to comply with the terms and conditions of parking, regardless of a driver’s reasons for being on site or any mitigating factors. I note that the Appellant obtained a pay & display ticket suggesting that they were made reasonably aware of the contractual signage. It is clear from the evidence provided to this appeal that the Appellant did indeed park otherwise than in accordance with the displayed terms as a Blue Badge was not properly displayed when the vehicle was parked in a disabled bay. The contractual signage states that 'A valid blue badge must be displayed in the front windscreen of the vehicle with the details clearly visible at all times' - the contravention images show that a pay & display ticket was placed on the Blue Badge obscuring details on it and meaning that the details were not clearly visible. I note the Appellant's comments with regards to service however the Operator's code of conduct states that 'Where notification of a parking charge is not affixed to the vehicle or given to the driver at the time of the parking event then you may provide postal notification of the charge to the registered keeper.' On the evidence provided I am satisfied that the charge has been served correctly using the postal system.

    The Appellant also raises the issue of the level of the charge. In my view the parking charge is not excessive for two reasons. First, because the amount being sought by the operator was clearly communicated to the appellant by way of the signage on the site. If the Appellant considered the charge to be excessive, the Appellant had the choice to reject it by either not parking or parking in accordance with the terms. Second, the amount being claimed by the Operator is in my view justified given the operator's running costs. It is also in line with industry standards. For further guidance on this point the Appellant may wish to consider the judgment in PARKINGEYE LIMITED and BARRY BEAVIS [2015] EWCA Civ 402

    I am satisfied that the Operator has proven their prima facie case. Whilst having some sympathy with the Appellant’s circumstances, once liability has been established, only the Operator has the discretion to vary or cancel the parking charge based on mitigating circumstances. Accordingly this appeal is dismissed.
    "

    As your appeal has been dismissed, the Independent Adjudicator has found, upon the evidence provided, that the parking charge was lawfully incurred.

    As this appeal has not been resolved in your favour, the IAS is unable to intervene further in this matter.

    You should contact the operator within 14 days to make payment of the charge.

    Should you continue to contest the charge then you should consider obtaining independent legal advice.

    Yours Sincerely,
    The Independent Appeals Service


    Independent Appeals Service
    The IPC, PO Box 662, Macclesfield, SK10 9NR

    The Independent Appeals Service is approved by Government under the Alternative Dispute Resolution for Consumer Disputes (Competent Authorities and Information) Regulations 2015

    The content of this email transmission and any documents attached to it are confidential and are intended for the named recipient only and may contain information that is subject to legal privilege. If you have received this email in error or are not the named recipient you are expressly forbidden from copying, storing or further distributing the contents of this transmission by any means. Disclosure of the content of this email transmission or its content may amount to contempt of court or a criminal offence. If you have received this e mail transmission in error you are requested to notify the sender and delete the email and its content forthwith. We do not accept service of documents by email.

    The Independent Appeals Service is a trading style of United Trade and Industry Ltd, Registered in England and Wales (08248531), 41 Greek Street, Stockport, Cheshire, England, SK3 8AX


    :e
    • KeithP
    • By KeithP 3rd Sep 18, 9:07 PM
    • 9,743 Posts
    • 10,110 Thanks
    KeithP
    Why have you posted that a second time?
    .
    • beamerguy
    • By beamerguy 3rd Sep 18, 9:10 PM
    • 8,793 Posts
    • 11,674 Thanks
    beamerguy
    Having no already appealed prior to getting to this point.....do I still ignore or begrudgingly pay?
    Originally posted by Mystic-lady
    LISTEN, you have been told that this is a scam

    YOU DO NOT PAY ANYTHING

    THE IPC/IAS ARE ONLY SCAMMING YOU

    THE IPC/IAS HAS NO CREDIBILITY

    So, you ignore this scam outfit

    No doubt you will receive stupid letters from even
    more stupid debt collectors WHICH YOU IGNORE


    https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5859454&highlight=debt+collectors +drp

    If you then receive letters from Gladstones, the scam
    is complete ... come back here then

    AND, if it is a Gladstones letter, you report their scam
    to Sir Greg Knight
    RBS - MNBA - CAPITAL ONE - LLOYDS

    DISGUSTING BEHAVIOUR
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 3rd Sep 18, 9:30 PM
    • 62,736 Posts
    • 75,657 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Why the heck did you try IAS, and why do you think the inevitable rejection from that 'kangaroo court' means you pay?

    This is not something that any Judge would agree means you contractually agreed to pay a penalty:
    the contravention images show that a pay & display ticket was placed on the Blue Badge obscuring details on it and meaning that the details were not clearly visible
    Calm down, this was always going to be rejected and the way the IAS operate against the interests of consumers should be illegal, IMHO.
    • Snakes Belly
    • By Snakes Belly 3rd Sep 18, 9:52 PM
    • 237 Posts
    • 221 Thanks
    Snakes Belly
    I am not an experienced poster on this site. I am fighting a case and I read many of the cases that are won and your scenario does not look like a lost cause. Fluttering tickets of which yours is a similar scenario seem to win.

    You will probably receive letters from DRP Collections and Zenith Collections. These are collection agents that are used by Excel. The letters may seem quite foreboding but they are useless bits of paper. These companies have no powers, Just file them as evidence of harassment.

    Excel will then send a letter before claim which you will need to reply with a strong rebuttal letter. Excel do pursue claims via the courts.

    My claim on my MCOL is £185.00. When and if it gets to court the £60.00 could be knocked off even if I lose as its not appropriate as the debt collectors did not collect. So worse case scenario is likely to be £125.00 plus a small amount of interest. I don't intend to lose though. I want to chew them up and spit them out.

    For the moment I would try not to worry and stress yourself out about it. Read some of the cases and book mark them particularly in relation to disabled badges and fluttering tickets.

    Incidentally I had a similar situation some years ago. I was with a disabled passenger who took her badge out of her handbag and placed it on the dashboard. I did not check it and it had been placed back to front. Fortunately it was a council car park and was cancelled. Excel are totally ruthless though.

    Nolite te bast--des carborundorum.
    • beamerguy
    • By beamerguy 3rd Sep 18, 10:00 PM
    • 8,793 Posts
    • 11,674 Thanks
    beamerguy
    Debt Collectors (DRP & ZZPS) What they don't want you to know

    https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?p=74439905#post74439905
    RBS - MNBA - CAPITAL ONE - LLOYDS

    DISGUSTING BEHAVIOUR
    • Mystic-lady
    • By Mystic-lady 3rd Sep 18, 10:22 PM
    • 22 Posts
    • 10 Thanks
    Mystic-lady
    Having no already appealed prior to getting to this point.....do I still ignore or begrudgingly pay?

    Dear Teena,

    The Independent Appeals Service (IAS) has received a decision from the Independent Adjudicator regarding your recent appeal for the below PCN.

    Parking Charge Number Withheld
    Vehicle Registration: B]Withheld[/B]
    Date Issued: 21/06/2018

    Appeal Outcome: Dismissed

    The Adjudicators comments are as follows:

    "It is important that the Appellant understands that the adjudicator is not in a position to give his legal advice. The adjudicator's role is to look at whether the parking charge has a basis in law and was properly issued in the circumstances of each particular case. The adjudicator's decision is not legally binding on the Appellant (it is intended to be a guide) and they are free to obtain independent legal advice if they so wish. However, the adjudicator is legally qualified (a barrister or solicitor) and decides the appeal according to their understanding of the law and legal principles.

    The terms of this appeal are that I am only allowed to consider the charge being appealed and not the circumstances of other drivers or other parking events. The guidance to this appeal also makes it clear that I am bound by the law of contract and can only consider legal challenges not mistakes or extenuating circumstances. The Operator’s signage, which was on display at the site and visible from the position of parking, makes it clear that the terms and conditions of parking are in force at all times and that a PCN will be issued to drivers who fail to comply with the terms and conditions of parking, regardless of a driver’s reasons for being on site or any mitigating factors. I note that the Appellant obtained a pay & display ticket suggesting that they were made reasonably aware of the contractual signage. It is clear from the evidence provided to this appeal that the Appellant did indeed park otherwise than in accordance with the displayed terms as a Blue Badge was not properly displayed when the vehicle was parked in a disabled bay. The contractual signage states that 'A valid blue badge must be displayed in the front windscreen of the vehicle with the details clearly visible at all times' - the contravention images show that a pay & display ticket was placed on the Blue Badge obscuring details on it and meaning that the details were not clearly visible. I note the Appellant's comments with regards to service however the Operator's code of conduct states that 'Where notification of a parking charge is not affixed to the vehicle or given to the driver at the time of the parking event then you may provide postal notification of the charge to the registered keeper.' On the evidence provided I am satisfied that the charge has been served correctly using the postal system.

    The Appellant also raises the issue of the level of the charge. In my view the parking charge is not excessive for two reasons. First, because the amount being sought by the operator was clearly communicated to the appellant by way of the signage on the site. If the Appellant considered the charge to be excessive, the Appellant had the choice to reject it by either not parking or parking in accordance with the terms. Second, the amount being claimed by the Operator is in my view justified given the operator's running costs. It is also in line with industry standards. For further guidance on this point the Appellant may wish to consider the judgment in PARKINGEYE LIMITED and BARRY BEAVIS [2015] EWCA Civ 402

    I am satisfied that the Operator has proven their prima facie case. Whilst having some sympathy with the Appellant’s circumstances, once liability has been established, only the Operator has the discretion to vary or cancel the parking charge based on mitigating circumstances. Accordingly this appeal is dismissed.
    "

    As your appeal has been dismissed, the Independent Adjudicator has found, upon the evidence provided, that the parking charge was lawfully incurred.

    As this appeal has not been resolved in your favour, the IAS is unable to intervene further in this matter.

    You should contact the operator within 14 days to make payment of the charge.

    Should you continue to contest the charge then you should consider obtaining independent legal advice.

    Yours Sincerely,
    The Independent Appeals Service


    Independent Appeals Service
    The IPC, PO Box 662, Macclesfield, SK10 9NR

    w: www.theias.org

    The Independent Appeals Service is approved by Government under the Alternative Dispute Resolution for Consumer Disputes (Competent Authorities and Information) Regulations 2015

    The content of this email transmission and any documents attached to it are confidential and are intended for the named recipient only and may contain information that is subject to legal privilege. If you have received this email in error or are not the named recipient you are expressly forbidden from copying, storing or further distributing the contents of this transmission by any means. Disclosure of the content of this email transmission or its content may amount to contempt of court or a criminal offence. If you have received this e mail transmission in error you are requested to notify the sender and delete the email and its content forthwith. We do not accept service of documents by email.

    The Independent Appeals Service is a trading style of United Trade and Industry Ltd, Registered in England and Wales (08248531), 41 Greek Street, Stockport, Cheshire, England, SK3 8AX


    :e
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 3rd Sep 18, 10:22 PM
    • 62,736 Posts
    • 75,657 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Why do you keep repeating your post?
    • waamo
    • By waamo 4th Sep 18, 7:35 AM
    • 4,423 Posts
    • 5,812 Thanks
    waamo
    That's the third time you've posted that and for the third time you are being told it's a scam.

    Do you pay scammers regularly? If not why do you need to keep asking if you should start now?

    Absent of a court order saying you should pay then do not pay. I can't put it much simpler but if you don't understand that can you say what bit of don't pay you are struggling with.

    If you get a court claim come back for advice on defending it.
    This space for hire.
    • Mystic-lady
    • By Mystic-lady 5th Sep 18, 5:18 PM
    • 22 Posts
    • 10 Thanks
    Mystic-lady
    Hi guys, so sorry for posting the same post three times! Am currently on hols with internet access via a cafe. I’m not a prolific user, quite inept it obviously appears! Lol!

    The post wouldn’t send so pressed & pressed what appears to be three times in order to post one letter!!! So many giveaways that forums are a new venture for me!!! That said, Thank you all for taking your valuable time to help me in this matter..It is so very much appreciated. Even the odd sarcastic response - well if it makes you feel better by the sarcasm, so be it...but would still like to thank you too for your help. Sadly, not everyone is a seasoned user, many of us turning for help via this method in sheer desperation....

    Thank you...for all your help guidance etc.... will await the next step/letter
    • Mystic-lady
    • By Mystic-lady 6th Oct 18, 3:56 PM
    • 22 Posts
    • 10 Thanks
    Mystic-lady
    Further help please!
    Have just received a final demand letter for £160 before court proceedings.....kind helpers, experts out there, what is your advice on what to do next?

    Grateful thanks!
    • waamo
    • By waamo 6th Oct 18, 3:59 PM
    • 4,423 Posts
    • 5,812 Thanks
    waamo
    That isn't a formal Letter before Claim so ignore it.
    This space for hire.
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

2,664Posts Today

8,809Users online

Martin's Twitter