Thanks for coming back to us. There are no guarantees - but remember that so far MET have not had the guts to put even a single case before a judge. Not once. Yours is one of seven court cases. Three ongoing like yours. In two MET bottled it as Witness Statement stage approached. In one the allocating judge decided their Particulars of Claim were rubbish and threw the case in the bin. Just the one victory by MET by default when the motorist stupidly didn't file a defence. So there is every chance that MET will throw in the towel in your case too if you stand firm. Please keep us informed of what is happening. Regarding being abroad, that is no reason for things going wrong, you can request an on-line hearing and we've had several cases where the PPC gave up when the motorist moved abroad. But please keep us in the loop.

No, I think you're fine with the exhibits you've prepared. Exhibit 1 - photos Exhibit 2 - para 107 of Beavis Exhibit 3 - CPR request Exhibit 4 - Excel v Wilkinson

Finally, finally, finally found it! It's this para that talks about the legitimate interest and a two-hour parking limit. 57_extracted_WS Combined excl Ex2 .pdf

That is a superb WS. However, I have a few tweaks to suggest. In (2) "indicating" not "indication". I think to be consistent with your numbering, in (6) the Beavis case should be EXHIBIT 2. Do you really need to include over 100 pages of Beavis? I think that would be likely to annoy the judge. Just try and find the bit where they decide it was not a penalty due to having an interest in limiting the time that vehicles can stay. I'll have a look myself for this bit later as it's highly likely to be in WSs from PPCs who think that that paragraph means all their charges are valid always on every occasion. After your current (7) add this. It's always useful to refer to a judgment when making a legal point - 8. In the case PCM vs Bull, Claim No. B4GF26K6, where the Defendant was issued parking tickets for parking on private roads with signage stating “No parking at any time”, District Judge Glen in his final statement mentioned that: “the notice was prohibitive and didn’t communicate any offer of parking and that landowners may have claim in trespass, but that was not under consideration”. In (14) if my maths are right the CPR request should be "EXHIBIT 3". it is missing from your list of exhibits. In (16) the two figures should be £100 and £170. They are entitled to increase fro,m £60 to £100, they are not entitled to increase to £170. To make it clear for the judge I would write - 16. The Claimant has artificially inflated their claim for a £100 invoice to £170. This is simply a poor attempt to circumvent the legal costs cap at small claims. 17. The Claimant has also invented a second fictitious charge, for legal representative's costs, when they have no legal representative. You also need ot number your exhibits. The rest is excellent - well done.

It's probably a good idea to come back here when the next letter from them turns up. It remains to be seen if they will act on your employer's communication or will just continue with the cycle of their daft "threatening" letters.

We have 133 cases for this scam site. In just seven did MET start court proceedings, but that was more a fishing exercise to see if there was anyone terrified of court who would immediately give in and pay, as when the Caggers defended MET threw in the towel. So far they have not dared put a case in front of a judge. Not once. However, a cautionary tale. One of the above seven received a Letter of Claim, the last stage before court, and ignored it - bad move. MET thought the motorist might then ignore a claim form and give them an easy default win. And MET were right, because this person idiotically ignored the claim form, didn't defend, and lost the case by default. That is the only win MET have out of 133. So even thought MET's case is absolutely rubbish it's important you keep on top of the paperwork and come back to the forum if you ever get a Letter of Claim.

Thank you. Superb news. MET don't know who the driver was. Under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 they can sue the keeper - but only if the paperwork gets to the keeper within 14 days. The daft gets didn't even post it till 46 days You're in the clear. They will destroy half the Amazon with their threats over the coming months, but ultimately they won't dare do court.

And?

That looks fine - apart from being too polite Invest in a 2nd class stamp and make sure you get a free Certificate of Posting from the post office.

Yes.

I've looked through all our old NPE threads, and as far as we know they have never had the bottle to do court. There are no guarantees of course, but when it comes to put or shut up they definitely tend towards shut up. How about something like - Dear Jonathan and Julie, Re: PCN no.XXXXX cheers for your Letter Before Claim. I rolled around on the floor in laughter at the idea that you actually expected me to take this tripe seriously and cough up. I'll write to you, not some uninterested third party, thanks all the same, because I am supposed to have this "debt" with you. Not the manager of the pub you last went to, or your next-door neighbour, or the exes you had before you got together or anyone else. That's just a basic point of contract law which you obviously don't get.. Go and look up Jopson v Homeguard Services Ltd, saddos. Oh, while you're at it, go and look up your Subject Access Request obligations - we all know how you ballsed that up way back in January to March. Dear, dear, dear - you couldn't resist adding your £70 Unicorn Food Tax, you greedy gets. Judges don't like these made-up charges, do they? You can either drop this foolishness now or get a hell of a hammering in court. Both are fine with me. Summer is coming up and I would love a holiday at your expense after claiming an unreasonable costs order under CPR 27.14(2)(g). I look forward to your deafening silence. That should show them you're not afraid of them and draw their attention to their having legal problems of their own with the SAR. If they have any sense they'll crawl back under their stone and leave you in peace. Over the next couple of days invest in a 2nd class stamp (all they are worth) and get a free Certificate of Posting from the post office.

What an absolutely rubbish LoC asking you to pay someone else! As you've corresponded with them before let us have a read through your thread from the start, then we'll suggest something.

Point taken that we should inform new Caggers that the £20 option is there in wrong registration cases. Well, supposedly there, who knows what the PPCs would do in practice. Anyway, the option is allegedly there with both the BPA as you say, but also the IPC (I've just checked). However, there's a danger here of baby, bathwater. The two easiest types of cases to win are (a) residential - due to Supremacy of Contract and (b) wrong registration - due to "de minimis". Indeed until recently we has been boasting that no Caggers, over two years, who had sent a PPC the wrong registration snotty letter, had even been taken to court, let alone lost a court hearing. We simply can do nothing about a terrible judge. The judge seems - I say seems because we haven't had all the details - to have ignored "de minimis",. got fixated on a sign and awarded unreasonable behaviour costs. A totally bizarre judgement.

Yes, await the Directions Questionnaire from the court. No, the Directions Questionnaire is just a short form and leads to the case being transferred from MCOL/CCBC to your local court. If you Google "Form N180" you can see a blank copy on government web pages.

Open.