Today I received a letter from the court after submitting my full defence stating they haven't even paid the £25 court fee yet - they've been given a further 7 days to do this but if they don't im going to them for costs

Keep going after challenging and submitting my full defence I received a letter from the court stating they haven't paid the £25 court fee and if they don't within another 7 days it is struck out and I can go for them for costs - keep tabs on all the time and expenses your defence takes

Thanks for sound advice as always I'll keep an eye on whether they pay the fee - can I check this with the County Court ?

Hello there - just to update you all and request advice - I have received notice of allocation to small claims track and transferred to my local CC , with a deadline to send all copies of documents CEL have to pay hearing fee of £25 a week before the deadline for all documents . Can anyone let me know the next step - also there is a request for witness statements when i have ticked no witnesses already

Genuine pre estimate of loss, how can they have incurred £130 in damages by a small overstay, Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 (Regulation 5(1) and 5(2) and schedule 2(e), Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 s.4(1), Penalty clauses and relevant case law. Thanks for the above in addition to the case law I've mentioned in my template any additional case law to quote I'm doing my research and will get this on its way early next week - well within 14 days

Absolutely I'm firing on Pre PoFA and unfair contract and disproportionate as in my template .any other grounds ?

Right I'm off indeed . I'll put my bill and defence together relying heavily on the plain fact that this was Feb 2012 pre Schedule 4 of PoFA being enacted . To all : This is well worth having in your toolkit ready for responses http://assets.dft.gov.uk/publications/guidance-unpaid-parking-charges/guidance-unpaid-parking-charges.pdf note date of document : October 2012

Hi there - well speedy quick I have received a Notice of Proposed allocation to the small claims track today . There is guidance posted on how to respond but i have three matters arising : first of all the letter says a copy of my defence is enclosed and it wasn't , second the bottom instruction says - and serve copies on all parties = does this mean i have to correspond with the claimant , i thought the court did this and third in terms of litigant in person expenses as a self employed person can i claim loss of earnings for giving up a day to attend county court on top of the suggested expenses and do i just send a breakdown to CCMCC . ???

Have a look at my thread

Evening folks , another scintillating night spent sorting this out - I have emailed my defence and despite the email receipt from CCMCC, belt and braces i am posting it tracked post , so that's it off well within 14 days . Looking forward to getting my directions questionnaire next .

still no joy on MCOL - I have out together a word doc and can post or email here is revised template for perusal - any additional comments feel free : 1. It is admitted that Defendant was the owner of [motor vehicle] at the date and time stated in the particulars of the claim . 2. The Defendant is unable to admit or deny the precise times the motor vehicle was parked in [carpark] or who the driver of the vehicle was as he has no recollection of this. The Claimant is put to proof of the same. 3. The alleged car parking incident recorded in the particulars of the claim occurred before October 2012 , when the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 was enacted. The Claimant therefore cannot comply with the relevant clauses of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and therefore the Claimant is making a deliberate misrepresentation of particulars of the claim to make a gain. 4. The keeper of the vehicle has not entered into any alleged contract as they were not the driver and therefore the claim has no basis. 5. The claimant is not in any position to make a claim against the driver as they have no locus standi. Alternatively, even if there was a contract, the provision requiring payment of [amount] is an unenforceable penalty clause. Following Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co Ltd v Selfridge & Co Ltd [1915] AC 847, clauses designed to punish a party for breach of contract may only be upheld if they represent a genuine pre-estimate of loss. The provision is a penalty and not a genuine pre-estimate of loss for the following reasons: (a) as the Claimant is not the landowner and suffers no loss whatsoever as a result of a parking overstay; (b) the amount claimed is evidently disproportionate to any loss suffered by the Claimant; © the penalty bears no relation to the circumstances because it remains the same no matter whether a motorist overstays by ten seconds or ten years; and (d) the clause is specifically expressed to be a penalty on the Claimant's signs. 6. Further and alternatively, the provision requiring payment of [amount] is unenforceable as an unfair term contrary to Regulation 5 of The Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999. This is a term which falls within Schedule 1, paragraph (e) of the Regulations being a term " requiring any consumer who fails to fulfil his obligation to pay a disproportionately high sum in compensation". The term was not individually negotiated and causes a significant imbalance in the parties' respective rights and obligations, because the charge is heavily disproportionate in respect of a short overstay and is imposed even where consumers are legitimately using the carpark for its designated purpose. 7. Save as expressly mentioned above, the Particulars of Claim is denied in its entirety. It is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief at all.

Thanks for this - I will amend accordingly I still can't find this Defence pack password urrgggh ?????

No i am having a senior moment on the page with the crown or page 2 light brown pages ?

Ok - I have done some research and here is a skeleton defence example : Feel free to come back to me with suggestions to add based on my Claim form TEMPLATE EXAMPLE 1. It is admitted that Defendant was the owner of [motor vehicle] at the date and time stated in the particulars of the claim . 2. The Defendant is unable to admit or deny the precise times the motor vehicle was parked in [carpark] or who the driver of the vehicle was as he has no recollection of this. The Claimant is put to proof of the same. 3. It is denied that the Claimant has complied with Schedule 4, Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 ???The alleged car parking incident recorded in the particulars of the claim occurred before October 2012 , when the relevant Protection of Freedoms Act were enacted ( any further detail needed here ?) 4. It is denied that the Claimant entered into a contract with the Defendant. As held by the Upper Tax Tribunal in Vehicle Control Services Limited v HMRC [2012] UKUT 129 (TCC), any contract requires offer and acceptance. The Claimant was simply contracted by the landowner to provide car-park management services and is not capable of entering into a contract with the Defendant on its own account, as the carpark is owned by and the terms of entry set by the landowner. Accordingly, it is denied that the Claimant has authority to bring this claim. The proper Claimant is the landowner. 5. Alternatively, even if there was a contract, the provision requiring payment of [amount] is an unenforceable penalty clause. Following Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co Ltd v Selfridge & Co Ltd [1915] AC 847, clauses designed to punish a party for breach of contract may only be upheld if they represent a genuine pre-estimate of loss. The provision is a penalty and not a genuine pre-estimate of loss for the following reasons: (a) as the Claimant is not the landowner and suffers no loss whatsoever as a result of a parking overstay; (b) the amount claimed is evidently disproportionate to any loss suffered by the Claimant; © the penalty bears no relation to the circumstances because it remains the same no matter whether a motorist overstays by ten seconds or ten years; and (d) the clause is specifically expressed to be a penalty on the Claimant's signs. 6. Further and alternatively, the provision requiring payment of [amount] is unenforceable as an unfair term contrary to Regulation 5 of The Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999. This is a term which falls within Schedule 1, paragraph (e) of the Regulations being a term "requiring any consumer who fails to fulfil his obligation to pay a disproportionately high sum in compensation". The term was not individually negotiated and causes a significant imbalance in the parties' respective rights and obligations, because the charge is heavily disproportionate in respect of a short overstay and is imposed even where consumers are legitimately using the carpark for its designated purpose. 7. Save as expressly mentioned above, the Particulars of Claim is denied in its entirety. It is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief at all.

Ok - so i have registered with MCOL to Ack the claim MCOL is asking for claim number and password - I cannot find the password anywhere