Any update here? I ask as we have four other claim form threads for this site. In one MET sadly won as the motorist didn't file a defence. In one the judge threw the case in the bin at allocation stage because the Particulars of Claim were rubbish. In the other two MET wet themselves and discontinued, the latest being today. It's not going well for MET

This thread is a huge shame. We have three other claim form threads for this site. In one case the judge just threw out their rubbish at allocation stage because the Particulars of Claim were nonsense. In the other two cases MET gave in and discontinued (the latest case being today). All that was needed was to file a defence.

Well done on your victory!

Gladdys mistake has no bearing on whether you owe the money or not and could never help you in court. The two suggested moves won't directly help you in any way either, but (a) it will show Will & John you're not to be messed with and so they will be more likely to steer clear or you, and (b) it will be good fun

I'm just thinking about writing but with a redacted proof of appointment, say with just the first letter of the person's first name showing. There is no need for ECP to know the name of the patient, just that the person was a genuine patient.

We need the questions the regulars have asked answering, otherwise you will end up with a court claim.

You'll be OK. If you don't respect the DQ deadline, the court give you a second bite of the cherry making it quite clear that if you mess up a second time the defence will be struck out. We've seen it happen loads & loads of times. However, get on with it today.

Well, the obvious question is why reception don't get off their backsides themselves and cancel it, they were the ones who called ECP in. No, there is no problem in contacting ECP as long as you don't tell them who the driver was. Before going any further and potentially ending up in a mess, an important question. Was the person who had the appointment the same person who is the registered keeper of the car?

OK. Obviously when I wrote "Re: PCN no. XXXXX" in the heading I mean the one that hasn't been paid and towards the end "claim form no.XXXXX, PCN no. XXXXX " the one that sadly you had to pay. Send it to the e-mail addresses that have worked before. There is a chance they might pretend that they haven't received it as on their site they only give a snail-mail address for complaints. If necessary the letter can be sent by snail-mail in a week's time say, but cross that bridge ...

Open.

Did the Retail Park cooperate?

I was thinking yesterday that you could complain to the BPA. I had a look at their site and, surprise surprise, you have to complain to the operator first. PE have a complaints procedure. Their site goes on & on & on about making it clear you are not appealing but complaining. I think we can guess what PE's decision would be when investigating themselves. However, this might be worth doing, not because PE or indeed their bezzies will agree with you, but to have a paper trail to show to any potential judge that they have been continually told to write to the correct address in Scotland rather than a fictitious address in England. How about something like - Dear Parking Eye, COMPLAINT - NOT APPEAL Re: PCN no. XXXXX I refer to my e-mail of 14 February where it was made quite clear that you should communicate with me at the address where I actually live and which the DVLA supplied you with, in Scotland, rather than a completely fictitious address where I have never lived, in England. Despite my mail, a letter has been sent to the fictitious address by those stupid paper tigers you use, DCBL, after instruction by yourselves. Judges take a very dim view of companies deliberately starting court proceedings against a defendant when the company knows full well the defendant's address is wrong. Please treat this as an official complaint - certainly not an appeal - about your behaviour. Should you not accept my complaint, I will escalate to the BPA. An acceptable result of my complaint would be (a) an admittance that you are imbeciles, (b) an apology and (c) an assurance that you will write in future to an address where I live, not a property you've been told multiple times I don't live in. Now you know, and I know, and now you know that I know that any complaints procedure involving you and your bezzies is a sham where no doubt you & your mates will investigate yourselves and find that you've done nothing wrong. That's not the point. All these mails are going in to a file all ready for any judge. You've already pulled your backdoor CCJ scam once - claim form no.XXXXX, PCN no. XXXXX - if you try again I will make sure I claim so much dosh in costs after an unreasonable costs order that your firm will end up in liquidation. Get off your backsides and sort out the address question - now. Yours, XXXXX However, there ìs no rush, see what the other regulars have to say over the weekend.

Any update here? I ask as we have someone new being taken to court by HXCPM.

Any update here? I ask as we have someone new being taken to court by HXCPM.

So what happened in court? I ask as we have a new court case with HXCPM.

Interesting. I doubt very much that Miss XXXXX paid the CCJ as she didn't even know it existed. CEL will have had to tell the court it was paid and put up with losing the money - what a shame. NOT! Surreally it's likely that Miss XXXXX was taken to court, lost the case by default, had judgement entered against her and had the judgement satisfied - while being blissfully unaware of the whole thing.

A letter from a third party that has no power is laughable, and in itself nothing to worry about. The point is through that PE are still writing to (or getting their mates to wrote to) the address in England.

Ho! Ho! Ho! So in your WS you can state that they are adamant that there is a discount period during which the motorist can pay £35, yet they broke this contract by not including it in their PCN. They will have to send it in their WS.

Your points. 4. Yes, CEL are. But CEL are not the people running the car park. They haven't a hope in court. 5. True - ABC Facilities Management Limited. 7. The contract is with ABC Facilities Management Limited. 9. Superb. So they have lied in their WS. This will seriously annoy the judge when you point it out. BTW, ABC Parking Solutions Limited are a former name of ABC Facilities Management Limited.

What on earth is this "Confirmation of Authority"? It looks like a primary school child has produced it. EDIT: see Nick beat me to it. I prefer his description!

OK, after reading from the start, your sections need to be. SEQUENCE OF EVENTS - a brief description of your stay in the car park, your visit to both Starbucks and McDonald's, your attempt to respect the T&Cs, your being a genuine customer, your getting the PCN, etc. NO KEEPER LIABILITY - MET haven't even tried to follow the times stipulated in the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4. The judge should throw the case out on this point alone. Add that POFA deals with "relevant land", which South Gate Park is not as it is covered by airport bye-laws, and you put the Claimant to strict proof that it is a non bye-law area. Add Nick's point three posts above. INSUFFICIENT SIGNAGE - their rubbish signage as you pointed out in post 28. BREACH OF CODE OF PRACTICE - the BPA CoP (para 9.5) prohibits predatory behaviour, yet this is what MET are doing. There is only one entrance and one exit to the whole Starbucks-McDonald's-whatever else is there area. A motorist presumes it is one car park. They do not notice the invisible line dividing South Gate Park car park from McDonald's car park because it is invisible. MET's behaviour has been shown up as a scam in the national press and on national TV. They have done nothing to make it clear to motorists that here are two car parks despite having years to do so because the whole point of their operation is predatory behaviour, to entrap motorists. You go into the ins and outs here in post 28. NO LOCUS STANDI - any holes you can find in their contract. LFI has started in post 32. ILLEGAL SIGNAGE - they don't have planning permission which is a criminal offence. You can ridicule CST Law's excuses. ABUSE OF PROCESS - the Unicorn Food Tax the PPCs add in every case. This section is standard in all WSs.

Well done on wanting to get a WS draft done so early. I will indeed pop in with suggestions when I knock off work.

Maybe I'm thick but what exactly are residents supposed to do now? Get a permit, park for one hour and then move their car off the estate before they can come back after more than one hour, rinse & repeat?

If the person does come here we would certainly advise that.