That is a cracking snotty letter! However, I think they are allowed to send their rubbish by post so I would change one of the paragraphs slightly to a cryptic hint about the consideration period instead - Dear Will and John, Re: PCN no.XXXXX Thank you ever so much for your laughable Letter Before Claim. I must say, it provided me with an extraordinary amount of amusement to think that you genuinely believed I would take such tripe seriously and part with my money. As is your custom, you’ve clearly been far too bone idle to conduct even the most basic due diligence before spewing out your nonsense. Had you done so, you would have read page 17 of your client's trade association's code of practice and realised that I was issued a PCN that is risible. You know, I know, and now you know that I know precisely why your client isn't entitled to a single penny in this ridiculous matter. Your client has two options: they can either abandon this laughable charade or face an inevitable defeat in court, where I will pursue an unreasonable costs order under CPR 27.14(2)(g). I will, of course, spend the proceeds on a lavish foreign holiday, all while delighting in the fact that it's at your client's expense. I look forward to your deafening silence. COPIED TO PARKING CONTROL MANAGEMENT (UK) LTD

Well if it is an invoice then it is not an "administrative fine" or connected to "illegal parking or speeding" as stated in their T&Cs and so they have no right to this £35. If they are demanding the money don't pay them, and if they have charged your credit card then you can use chargeback with your bank to get the money refunded. We've seen this a few times with car hire companies recently, mixing up penalties from statutory authorities with invoices from a private company, either through ignorance or through hoping to make some easy cash. Of course it would help if you could get your hands on what PWE sent out.

Today Gladstones sent a LoC to a Cagger. They have actually bothered to clean up their act and have stopped the lies about the inflated solicitors' costs. I'm guessing that is down to westridge's complaint. Good to know that hassle was caused for Will & John and they've had to cut out one of their dodgy practices. BTW westridge - still deafening silence from CPM/Gladstones?

HB is spot on. If you do a search for the exact words "Dear Will and John" (the two directors of Gladstones) lots of examples will pop up that you can then tweak.

To advise properly we really need to see what PWE are sending out. The car hire company will have sent them your details and once they receive that information they will send you a revised demand for money. Please upload that as soon as it arrives. Regarding this £35 'administration fee'. Is the car hire company demanding it or have they automatically charged your credit card?

If you read through this short thread you'll see all the stages of the legal process https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/406892-highview-parking-anpr-pcn-claimform-urban-exchange-manchester-claim-dismissed/#comments

Any progress with the Witness Statement? Your deadline is 15 August.

HB is spot on. You flesh out the basic arguments much later, at Witness Statement stage.

Good - well as long as you didn't pay it!

Thank you. BTW, who paid Arval's administration fee? Arval - who seem to be total idiots - refer to what was received as a "parking fine" or "penalty charge notice" when it is neither, it is an invoice from a private company.

The latter.

From point 23.8 of the BPA Code of Practice. Use it in the BREACH OF CODE OF PRACTICE section - You must have a process for considering appeals received outside of the normal 28-day period allowed for lodging an appeal where the appellant provides evidence of exceptional circumstances for the appeal not being lodged within the normal timeframes – where the addressee only discovers and can show that a parking charge notice has been issued in their name after the 28- day period the period must restart and any enforcement, excluding court action, must be paused Yes, please!

Your WS is superb. Well done. I'm afraid hyperlinks are no use in a WS. You need to remove them and include the actual quoted reference (which you have done, e.g. 2.6, 2.7, Appendix D). I've looked at the court order. I haven''t a clue what this bundle is. If in doubt send your WS a second time.

1. We normally say to e-mail the court and to send the PPC theirs by 2nd class post, which is all they're worth. When you e-mail the court make sure you put the claim number, the names of the parties, and "Witness Statement" in the subject field and click on return receipt. For the leeches' copy get a free Certificate of Posting from the post office. 2. Not sure. These are strange, atypical directions. Can you please upload the court order. 3. Good. You can add a paragraph to yours that you are respecting the court deadlines, while the Claimant is not, and you respectfully ask the court to disallow any late WS from them. 4. Spot on. Let me scoff a late-night sarnie and then I'll read through your WS.

Yep, after these indications I found it! So essentially you stopped a couple of meters before an entrance and a barrier where you would have had to stop anyway. This could be argued as de minimis. Plus there was a sign there which encouraged you to stop.

That sounds very much like a parking bay to me, presuming the parking bays are marked as such.

Thanks for filling in the second sticky. It's a pity you outed yourself as the driver as you would have been home & dry had you not done so. Still, live & learn and all that. All of us on the forum have made legal mistakes, especially if we've found ourselves in a situation for the first time. It was also a bad idea not to reply to the Letter of Claim. The PPCs are on the look out for people who ignore the LoC as they think they may ignore a claim form too so the PPC gets an easy default win. Can you show us on Google Earth exactly where you stopped? I've had a look but can't find it. You say you had to stop anyway as there was a barrier so this could be a useful avenue to go down.

OK, so firstly this throwing away of paperwork has to stop. You now have to play catch-up, trying to get your hands on the correspondence and with the other side trying to put barriers in your way. You have to defend yourself without properly knowing what you're being accused of. For example, we don't know if they respected the Protection of Freedoms Act when they sent the PCN. So two things. 1. When they replied to your SAR, did they really just send photos and the appeals in a big block of text? No PCN? No reminder letters? No Letter of Claim? 2. If so, you can sue them for a couple of hundred quid for distress for not respecting their statutory duty. Are you willing to do this? Have a little think about it and let us know.

Yes, I know, you said straight away. You also said you were with a group of people and they all received PCNs too. So did any of them keep the payment slip? Because if even one of them can prove they paid and the machine was broken, clearly that would mean the machine was broken in your case too. You will have to give the PCN number. As LFI says, refer to the driver in the third person. As Nick says, tomorrow get a two-line letter sent to PE saying you have moved from A to B, invest in a 2nd class stamp and get a free Certificate of Posting from the post office. That will protect you from getting a backdoor CCJ.

DOUBLE RECOVERY 33. 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. 29. Since 2019, many County Courts have considered claims in excess of £100 to be an abuse of process leading to them being struck out ab initio. An example, in the Caernarfon Court in VCS v Davies, case No. FTQZ4W28 on 4th September 2019, District Judge Jones-Evans stated “Upon it being recorded that District Judge Jones- Evans has over a very significant period of time warned advocates (...) in many cases of this nature before this court that their claim for £60 is unenforceable in law and is an abuse of process and is nothing more than a poor attempt to go behind the decision of the Supreme Court V Beavis which inter alia decided that a figure of £160 as a global sum claimed in this case would be a penalty and not a genuine pre-estimate of loss and therefore unenforceable in law and if the practise continued, he would treat all cases as a claim for £160 and therefore a penalty and unenforceable in law it is hereby declared (...) the claim is struck out and declared to be wholly without merit and an abuse of process.” 34. In Claim Nos. F0DP806M and F0DP201T, District Judge Taylor echoed earlier General Judgment or Orders of District Judge Grand, stating ''It is ordered that the claim is struck out as an abuse of process. The claim contains a substantial charge additional to the parking charge which it is alleged the Defendant contracted to pay. This additional charge is not recoverable under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4 nor with reference to the judgment in Parking Eye v Beavis. It is an abuse of process from the Claimant to issue a knowingly inflated claim for an additional sum which it is not entitled to recover. This order has been made by the court of its own initiative without a hearing pursuant to CPR Rule 3.3(4) of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998...'' 35. The addition of costs not previously specified on signage are also in breach of the Consumer Rights Act 2015, Schedule 2, specifically paras 6, 10 and 14. 36. It is the Defendant’s position that the Claimant in this case has knowingly submitted inflated costs and thus the entire claim should be similarly struck out in accordance with Civil Procedure Rule 3.3(4)

Alarm bells are ringing. We have over 100 cases on the private parking forum - loads more over the whole site - of people who moved, did not inform their legal adversaries or the DVLA of the move, and who ended up with a backdoor CCJ as the court papers went to the old address. You need to sort this out sharpish. You can also be fined a grand if you don't update the vehicle log book with the DVLA.

And?

I've read through your thread from the start and there was advice to use chargeback and to be wary about suing a company whose address is a mail box. Anyway, as Andy says wait for the Notice of Judgment from the court.

So the sections of your WS need to be - SEQUENCE OF EVENTS - a brief description of how you got the invoice. NO KEEPER LABILITY - LFI's magic from post 16. There is now a persuasive judgement you can quote https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/465769-premier-park-euro-car-parts-gatwick-80-crawley-rh10-9pl-no-parking-period-quoted-so-pofa-not-respected/#comment-5250822 BREACH OF CODE OF PRACTICE - the stuff about them denying you the right of appeal. NO LOCUS STANDI - you asked to see a copy of their contract with the landowner which authorises them to bring claims in their own name by CPR, they didn't send it, you don't believe they possess locus standi. ILLEGAL SIGNAGE - your CPR request also requested to see proof of planning permission for their signs, they didn't send it, you believe they do not possess PP which is a criminal offence and no contract can be formed where criminality is concerned. DOUBLE RECOVERY - the Unicorn Food Tax they make up. This is the same for every case so I'll post the section below. A couple of things. Did you ever get you hands on what you wrote in your attempted appeal and their reply? I'm concerned you might have outed yourself as the driver. Have you checked yourself on the council portal if they have planning permission?