Jooshy, You’ve probably spotted from elsewhere in these forums that Roxburghe’s payment demand is not a “fine” or anything like it; it’s just a request for payment, with no more legal status than a begging letter. However, current CAB advice is not to ignore it but instead write explaining that you will not pay the amount demanded as it is disproportionate, and, if appropriate, offer a “reasonable” amount as damages for breach of contract (i.e overstaying the paid period). In law the amount claimed is meant to represent “liquidated and ascertained damages”, which should be a genuine pre-estimate of the likely costs incurred arising directly from a potential breach of contract. The pre-estimate should be sufficient to restore the car park owner to the same financial position as though the breach had not occurred. For overstaying, this would be the amount you should have paid for the excess period. If the amount claimed exceeds a reasonable pre-estimate of loss it is regarded as a penalty, which is unenforceable. For instance, assuming the parking area had sufficiently legible & visible signage specifying the normal parking charge, and the charge was £2 per hour, then if you overstayed (say) 20 mins, then a reasonable offer would be £2.00 x 20/60 = 67p. If they disagree with your offer you can ask for full details - including bills & receipts - of all additional costs actually incurred by the land owner resulting directly from your car remaining beyond the paid time. Gladstones’ (almost illegible) letter in post #11 seems to include a list of charges. These are all spurious. A “charge” or “fee” or “allowance” is not a cost. Such charges etc are usually unprovable and wildly disproportionate to any possible actual cost that could be incurred, so are regarded in common law as penalties and therefore unenforceable (Hadley v Baxendale, 1854 et seq); see also Judge Harris’s reasoning in “A Retailer v Ms B and Ms K”, Oxford County Court, 9 May 2012, relating to “apportioned charges” (that case dealt with a shop’s alleged “costs” demanded from shoplifters, but the principles are identical - the claimant must prove his loss). They will probably ignore your offer, but you will have a good defence if the matter ever gets to court - which is most unlikely. Don’t get drawn into a correspondence war; if they do issue a county court claim just repeat the offer. “Nil illegitimi carborundum”. Good luck - tell us how you got on.

Hi Giz, What was the outcome? We're in an almost identical position, and it would be very useful to know how effective your argument was and how it turned out. Cheers!

I agree with most of that, DD, but put somewhat differently and more concisely. Parsing a bit: Not exactly, I think agreed, if one exists; but who with, and what are its terms? quite so maybe; but how much, and to whom, and (again) on what terms? that reasoning can be developed later in the hearing yes, but not necessarily on the claimant's terms; remember, HAK's context is "the Claimant has no CA or with no prescribed terms" a rather formal response to the judge's colloquial question; anyway, what if the claimant is not the original creditor - where's the proof that you owe the claimant anything at all, or that he truly is the "creditor" per s.189 CCA 74 (i.e. that the [phantom] agreement's rights & duties were properly assigned to him)? again, rather formal, and this can be developed later I don't think a simple straightforward answer to a simple straightforward question is fairly characterised as "smart arse". On the contrary, it reminds the judge that the claimant must prove the claim.

Back to first principles on this topic: If the claim includes default or other fees/charges, which of course could not be part of the amount of credit, how about - "No. I have not spent the amount claimed, and the claimant has not shown that I owe anything to him or anyone else." Seemple.

Thanks fg - I knew someone here would have Redetermination info! Also, point taken about writing to pay by instalments - that'll save you a few quid wycombe, although if you have a lowish income you shouldn't have to pay any court fees at all (or very little) - see post #22. Best of luck with the op. You'll have plenty of food for thought while recuperating.

Absolutely right fg - truly appalling news, wycombe. Yet another illustration of the old adage "If you seek justice, don't go to law". I agree with fg that in your circumstances, unless you can agree an instalment plan with MBNA one recourse is to ask the court for an order to pay by instalments, for which you use Form N244, enclosing an income & expenditure statement showing what you can afford. Resist any attempt by MBNA to put a charging order on your house - though the outcome of that would again depend on the judge's whim. I thought Redetermination normally applies where the judgement was made without a hearing - more experienced CAGgers can probably clarify that. You can apply for a Debt Relief Order if your total debts are less than £15k and your disposable income is less than £50/month. All those debts would be wiped off after a year, but they and the DRO would remain on your CRA files for 6 years making future credit difficult and/or expensive. A sad day for British justice.

Take a look at this, but see also #353 & 355 in that thread about the Durkin case.

A couple of tips for the N260: in the "description of fee earners" box, just put your own name; "Litigant in Person"; £9.25. use a spreadsheet to calculate total time to put in each category on the N260, with a "Notes" column saying what you spent the time on. everything except your time goes under "Other expenses" - put "see attached", and list them all chronologically on your spreadsheet - don't forget ancillaries like postage, copying, travelling (40p/mile) etc - anything that you wouldn't have spent if Cabots hadn't claimed. include a separate list of court fees on the spreadsheet, showing date, amount, court paid to and very brief description of what each fee was for. Well, just post the N252 & N260 (rec.deliv) before you go, have a great time, and look forward to banking a big fat cheque when you get back. PS Remember when completing the forms, although you're now asking Cabots to pay up, THEY are still the "claimant" in the case, and YOU are the "defendant". Could be v.confusing otherwise!

Yup, and Morgans [should] know it. Don't worry too much - you include all such fees in your costs. I guess this is the judge's subtle way of telling Cabot/Morgans that it'll cost them if they still ignore the rules and abuse the court procedures. The highly emphasised text in the Order shows he is well p!ssed off with these bottom feeders making up claims with no hope of success.

OK, so now you need to ask Cabot to comply with the Order. Start with the costs schedule you sent to the court (I guess you used N260 as suggested earlier; if not, do so now, but cross out "Summary Assessment"). Edit & refine it as needed, then send it to Morgans with a copy of the Order and N252, which Cabot must pay within 21 days. If they don't pay on time and/or you're unable to agree an amount and/or payment date, you must then apply to the court for Detailed Assessment. To do that, you send N258 to the court with a copy of the N252 & N260 that you previously sent to Morgans, with court fees added on. Read the forms etc carefully - they're all pretty straightforward - above all, DON'T PANIC!

Feel free... We're all here to help each other. If you're uncertain about what any of it means, just ask. For newbies: - just remember no two cases are identical, and different things will have happened to yours before reaching this stage. That's why you must always tailor such templates to your own circumstances, else they will be misleading and confusing to the other party and probably lead to embarrassing misunderstandings.

Well, as Morgans have decided to invoke the Pre-Action Conduct Protocol, you could start by tinkering around with this: You'll need to adapt it to your own circumstances. Firstly review what's happened so far on this particular issue, then edit the the text accordingly, chopping or modifying any bits that don't apply in your case.

Hey now, hadit - I hope you don't mean me...?

... and another thing: But CCA 74 expressly requires a valid assignment to comprise "rights and duties" ("both burden and benefit" in Lord Brown-Wilkinson's words). Therefore I don't think his Lordship's remarks apply here.

What "Judgement"? This implies that Barclaycard, having obtained judgement of a regulated agreement, assigned the benefit of the judgement debt to Cabot, who in turn is claiming the judgement amount as a straightforward lump sum debt. Questions spring to mind: When was Barclaycard's CCA 74 case? What were the arguments? Where's the judgement? Is it the same amount as now claimed by Cabots? Does it order payment by instalments? If there isn't a judgement, then what are Cabot talking about? Take a look at this. The bit from "Here's how" about half-way down has remarkable similarities. In particular, the last two paragraphs could be your escape route if well argued. [rams thinking cap more firmly on ...]