I issued a claim through the newer moneyclaims.service.gov.uk and have received a full defence. I now log in and it states that I can ''request a County Court Judgement as there has been no response by the deadline'' even though I have received an email from them stating the defendant has filed their defence and it is attached to the email, albeit on the last day I believe of the allocated time allowed. Is this a glitch in the website? Secondly, can someone please help as to the next step as I am not sure if I have to offer anything in response to the defence. I have attached the defence below - as you can see, my claim is against someone who hit my car and then denied doing so. I have a witness who saw the individual damage my vehicle and reported it to me. I went through the process of trying to claim on their insurance, but all liability was denied, as per below also. I am doing this in person, where as they have a solicitor provided for them via the insurance company. My questions are these - please help, I need your help if possible! 1 - Do I have to reply to the counter-schedule (or any reply as such) as suggested within 14 days with photos/documents etc, or can I just complete the required n180 by the required date? 2 - Is it best to reply to the defence below, and if so, what do I reply with? Does anyone have a sample draft that I could use that would help? Is it best not to reply to it? 3 - What is the best course of action from here on? Many thanks in advance.

I had been given a PCN by Park Watch / Defence Systems in June for wheels over the line in a parking bay - £50 going to £100 if appeal fails. I appealed to POPLA, it was rejected so £100 charge stood. I paid £100 in october but they referred my case to Debt Recovery plus because they said the payment was late. The charge is now £160!! Even though I've paid £100...don't understand. I've emailed them and spoken to them and they're just bullying me and threatenign court action. I can't sleep with worry but I've paid £100 after being threatened and now they want more!! Surely this is not right in the eyes of the law??? I've seen some other threads about court summons and wondered the outcomes.

Defence Secretary extends housing offer to veterans READ MORE HERE: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/defence-secretary-extends-housing-offer-to-veterans

Hello everyone Firstly, a huge thank you to all the incredible volunteers that are helping us to beat these disgraceful companies, that are causing misery to so many innocent and decent human beings ;-) I thought I could do this myself but now I realise I need help! I will put as much relevant info below that will help any volunteer that is willing and able to help me win this. As the registered keeper of the vehicle in question, I too received a county court claim from Civil Enforcement Ltd (CEL) for an alleged parking violation. Following advice from other threads, I have completed the following...on the MCOL website, it has been acknowledged and box ticked wishing to defend in full (defence box left blank!). Now preparing to submit keeper defence. Details as follows: CCBC ISSUE DATE: 17 Oct 2018 Particulars of Claim state the following (exact) words: Claim for monies relating to a Parking Charge for parking in a private car park managed by the Claimant in breach of the terms + conditions (T+Cs). Drivers are allowed to park in accordance with T+Cs of use. ANPR cameras and/or manual patrols are used to monitor vehicles entering + exiting the site. Debt + damages claimed the sum of 236.00 Violation date: 01/12/2017 Time in: 13:44 Time out 14:59 PCN ref: XXXXXXXXXXXXX Car Park: XXXXXXXXX Total due: 236.00 The Claimant claims the sum of 252.50 for monies relating to a parking charge per above including 16.50 interest pursuant to S.69 of the County Courts Act 1984 Rate 8.00% pa from dates above to 16/10/18 Same rate to Judgment or (sooner) payment Daily rate to Judgment – 0.05 Total debt and interest due 252.50 Amount claimed 252.50 Court Fee 25.00 Legal representatives costs 50 Total amount 327.50 I have digital copies of all correspondence available (with personal info removed), if required. Regarding the alleged parking violation, details as follows: Incident Date: 01/12/2017 PCN Issue Date: 21/02/2018 Maximum 60mins free parking (Burger King Car Park) Alleged parking violation: Overstay 14mins and 20 secs The defendant does not recall who was driving the vehicle during the alleged incident, as there is more than one person authorised and insured to drive the vehicle (e.g. spouse). The driver may have spent time looking for a space/queuing to exit car park, and/or may have visited the car park twice. The ANPR has only recorded the vehicle entering and exiting, it is not an indicator of the length of time parked. The charge is obviously predatory and not based on any legitimate interest or commercial justification. The alleged violation occurred in Dec 2017. Upon receipt of the claim, the defendant has visited the car park to personally inspect the site and gather supporting evidence (photos available). Upon entry into the car park, there is a sign that says "Maximum Parking Terms Apply - see car park signs for T & Cs". This sign is placed at 90 degrees to the LEFT of a driver that enters the car park. There is no information on this sign that says there is a £100 charge for breaching any terms. When you enter the car park, there are signs placed high on the surrounding walls that state "60 MINS MAXIMUM STAY" and immediately underneath this sentence, in tiny font on a white background "If you breach any of these terms you will be charged £100". Drivers can only read this sign once they have entered the car park, exited their vehicle and stood directly in front of the sign". From the photographic evidence that the defendant has obtained, there is indication that a previous sign had been in place in the actual car park, as there are adhesive marks left on the brick wall where a sign has since been removed. The defendant also believes the signs that are currently in place may not have been the same ones at the time of the alleged incident. Indeed a quick Google Maps check shows that the entry sign now has an additional 'Data Protection Info' sign that was previously not there a few months ago. In February 2018 when the defendant originally received the PCN (the alleged incident occurred 01 Dec 2017), the defendant assumed that they should ignore what appeared to be a speculative invoice from a private firm, and dismissed them as fraudulent claims. Having re-read the correspondence upon receiving the court claim, the defendant has noted the absence to any reference of keeper liability, 'Notice to Keeper, POFA2012, but assumes that the claimant should adhere to POFA if they are claiming against the registered keeper? PLEASE can someone with experience of this review my draft defence before I submit it, so I can get move on with my LIFE! Also, please can you advise if I should include any other information (e.g. digital copies of photos, letters, etc). Many thanks to you all! Draft (keeper) defence as follows: DEFENCE ________________________________________ [removed - dx] ============= Note: I have not received any response to my SAR or CPR request. I did however receive a reply back from the DVLA. ============== Is my defence too long? Too short? Missing any other important information? Eternally grateful for any constructive criticism.... For anyone else reading this post in a similar situation, I have been given the following helpful advice from another forum user: [removed - dx] Good luck to everyone out there that is also fighting these cowards!

Defence Secretary announces massive £2.5bn investment in UK nuclear submarines READ MORE HERE: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/defence-secretary-announces-massive-25bn-investment-in-uk-nuclear-submarines

Just after a bit of advice. I have successfully defended a claim brought against me and at the end of the hearing I asked the Judge if I could submit financials for consideration. I was told I could claim £45 for a half day hearing attendance but no more. The case has actually cost me £1200 to defend (time off work, mileage, parking etc) which is of course a tad annoying. Seems unfair that I can be dragged through the civil legal system, win the case and be out of pocket. Is this normal?

Potential phishing impersonating Ministry of Defence READ MORE HERE: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/potential-phishing-[problem]-impersonating-ministry-of-defence Shortened URL to the same article: https://tinyurl.com/y9fw49nf

Horizon Parking issued a claim - my initial defence was that I had insufficient information from them to confirm or deny the claim and that I had sent them a Subject Access Request. Got a reminder from the court about a more detailed defence, so using the SAR, I completed and filed the following defence: DEFENCE OF CLAIM BY ORDER OF DISTRICT JUDGE xxx DATED 20 JUNE 2018 1. I have received a copy of the Subject Access Request from Horizon Parking Limited and the paperwork includes parking charge notices and reminders from Horizon Parking Limited. 2. I have not received any evidence of a contract between Horizon Parking Limited and the landowner that assigns the right to enter into contracts with the public and make claims in their own name. In the absence of such proof, I would contend that Horizon Parking Limited have no authority to issue parking charge notices. 3. I have not received any proof of planning permission granted for signage, etc under the Town and Country Planning Act 2007, which puts into question any authority Horizon Parking Limited may have to issue or attempt to enforce parking charge notices. 4. I have not received details of any damages and indemnity costs added to the claim, specifically, the date they were levied, the amount of the charges, a detailed financial breakdown of how the charges were calculated, and what the charges cover. This means that even if the Claimant could demonstrate their authority to issue a parking charge notice, the overall amounts being claimed would be in dispute. 5. The signage in the car park is vague – it states: “Parking limited to 2.5 hours” but there is no mention of any penalties for exceeding this time limit. 6. The signage states in small print at the bottom: “If the driver of the vehicle fails to adhere to the terms and conditions of parking, a parking charge notice will be issued.” There are no terms and conditions readily available despite my request from the Claimant. 7. I contend that until such time as the Claimant discloses material which unequivocally justifies an entitlement to the sum of money claimed, it is impossible for the Claimant to show and for the Court to determine that money is owed to the Claimant. I believe that the facts stated in this defence are true. I thought this would be sufficient, but have just received a general order of judgement saying my defence has been struck out because it doesn't adhere to CPR 16.5 I phoned the court and they couldn't advise, so I would like to know what options may be open to me: 1. Can I appeal? 2. Can I submit a revised defence 3. Can I negotiate a payment plan with Horizon to prevent judgement being entered? 4. Anything else?

Followed previous advice for others in the same boat. Aos submitted on 30th. I presume ONLY 9 days left to send in defence. 1 Date of the infringement 08/10/17 2 Date on the NTK [this must have been received within 14 days from the 'offence' date] 22/11/17 3 Date received Not received as was out of country. Have passport stamp as proof. 4 Does the NTK mention schedule 4 of The Protections of Freedoms Act 2012? [y/n?] No 5 Is there any photographic evidence of the event? yes 6 Have you appealed? {y/n?] post up your appeal] no Have you had a response? [Y/N?] post it up No 7 Who is the parking company? VCS 8. Where exactly [carpark name and town] St Marys Gate retails park. Sheffield For either option, does it say which appeals body they operate under. IPC If you have received any other correspondence, please mention it here DRP,LBC,CC My mother was issued the second PCN on 21st Dec 17 due to non response to the first but received first week of january 18 probably due to holidays. Unfortunately she came across the letter on last date of appeal. Both my parents are elderly and classified as disabled due to their various ailments. The letter stated that she had no right of appeal but can give mitigating circumstances but before the last date. After that received a couple of debt collectors letter, LBC in July and now CC claim as mentioned above. To begin with they had idea where the location of the infraction was. As it is with some elderly people in their 80s some memory loss is inevitable. Im half their age and feel what they do. we finally figured out the area with help of this forum. They don't take the blue badge liberties for granted but in their understanding this parking area was towards a side where there was no signage. My mother requires constant attention as she is prone to falling and my father missed any signage. As per their understanding blue badge holders are given some margin. They also had their grandchildren with them at the time who are a handfull. Unfortunately my mother did suffer a nasty fall and as was incapacitated for quite a while. My father took her back home in taxi instead as the area was closed to other cars. The only witness that can attest to this is my father and probably the GP. As she has had knee and shoulder replacement done she's kept under check. My father retrieved the car according to the ANPR after a stay of 150 mins whereas the time limit was 60 mins. I came across a similar post where I understood that the PCN didn't comply with being served in time. I hope that is the case. As they themselves have stated the exact dates on the PCN. The second PCN seemed as if they wanted it to reach the very last date so that out of fear one should pay up. I now request all the gurus to guide me in drawing up a suitable defence. I hope I don't let my mother down as i took responsibility to sort it out as to be honest its just not something they could have dealt with given the situation and due to this forum I feel she has a chance. Its also ridiculously expensive for a pensioner. Thank you and hoping for a favourable reply.

Hi If a case has been issued using part 8, but a court rules part 8 is not suitable and that it should go onto part 7. The party has paid a fee on Part 8 that is substantially lower then it would be on a part 7 claim (4.5% of the amount claimed as its a large amount) Should the court be asked that the claimant pay the correct fee. ( An order has been produced which makes no mention of the fee) Is it worth bringing it to the courts attention, ? Any suggestions welcome

Defence Minister outlines expanded mental health provision for Armed Forces and veterans READ MORE HERE: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/defence-minister-outlines-expanded-mental-health-provision-for-armed-forces-and-veterans

Defence Secretary reviews tax on Armed Forces in Scotland READ MORE HERE: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/defence-secretary-reviews-tax-on-armed-forces-in-scotland

Evening, I am seeking some thoughts from more learned individuals. I received a Claim Form end of Dec 2017 for an old WF debt and subsequently entered my defence on MCOL. This was on the 5 January. Since then I have received nothing further to my formal requests for additional information surrounding claim aside from two chaser letters from Cabot's solicitors detailing their 'client wish to settle out of court' and then '14 days to negotiate settlement otherwise instructions from Cabot to lift stay'. Called the court today and was advised that Cabot / their solicitors had attempted to amend the particulars of the claims on the 11 February but this was denied as they did not pay the fee. Their last letter to me dated 5 March is as above on the 14 days. I'm tempted to actually have the claim struck out as the claim remains stayed open ended. Has this happened to anyone before ? Thanks

£800 million agreed for defence READ MORE HERE: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/800-million-agreed-for-defence

General Sir Nick Carter appointed new Chief of the Defence Staff READ MORE HERE: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/general-sir-nick-carter-appointed-new-chief-of-the-defence-staff

How to make a complaint to Defence Business Services READ MORE HERE: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/how-to-make-a-complaint-to-defence-business-services

Defence Secretary announces Armed Forces Covenant and Veterans Board READ MORE HERE: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/defence-secretary-announces-armed-forces-covenant-and-veterans-board Mmm which Veterans Board are they on about? (or is this the Board that deals with veterans appeals)

F-35 jet cleared for Carrier take-off, Defence Minister tells Select Committee READ MORE HERE: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/f-35-jet-and-new-batch-of-uk-pilots-cleared-for-carrier-take-off-defence-minister-tells-select-committee

Hi, I spent a few days in Manchester last months and parked at SIP Gunn Street. Unfortunately I parked slightly over the line of the bay (there was a pillar on the other side, I am only slightly over the line looking at the pictures -from what I recal I was only on the line but their photos show otherwise). I received a PCN on the windscreen and appealed it on their website (from reading posts on the forum I now understand that I should have ignored it) My appeal and their response is below - is there anything else I can defend? Not sure if it means anything but I did notice from their photo the the ticket I got from the machine has the wrong number plate on (I must have mistyped) and so does not match the number plate on the PCN I thought maybe there could be some technicality there? I really don't want to have to give them £100 right now :/ ironically the ticket was issued on my birthday too! they say I have 7 days to respond You completed the appeal on 10/06/2017 14:52:14. I am appealing this charge notice on the basis that the claimed amount is disproportionate to any potential loss of earnings for SIP, that the rationality for the implementation of the charge is unfair and that the signage could be considered to be ambiguous. On a personal note I feel that SIP have applied this charge in a cynical ploy to extort funds from me over and above that of the value of my the "purchase" from them. 1) the cost of my stay was £8.20 - I did not overstay in the carpark, I did not prevent anyone else from using other spaces in the car park. In issuing this notice of £100 (with various discount incentives to pay them immediately) SIP are suggesting that £100 is fair retribution. To reiterate the manor in which I parked did not prevent any other potential customer from using surrounding spaces, if this was the case I still feel that £100 is disproportionate but could in some respect understand the reasoning behind it. From my point of view the charge has been issued without a valid reason. 2)SIP issued this charge on the basis that I was "Not in Marked Bay". To clarify I parked in a space which had a large concrete pillar to the left of the space. Naturally I parked slightly to the right in order to minimise the risk of impacting the pillar with the left side of the vehicle and to allow my partner to exit the vehicle more easily. My vehicle was not parked extremely to the right and did not intrude into the next parking bar, my right wheel did rest slightly upon the surface of the line but at no point exceeded the outer confines of the bay. 3) the signage states (in very small writing considering that it can be reasonably assumed that the sign would be viewed from within the vehicle possibly whilst in transit) "if the car park or road has marked parking bays then you must park fully within the confines of the marked bay". To return to my previous point at no point did my vehicle exceed the outer confines of the bay. 4) To clarify I feel that the manor in which the notice was issued was dishonest and cynical. I have caused no loss of earnings yet SIP are attempting to effectively increase the cost of my stay tenfold. This is not treating customers fairly and goes beyond the presumed contract of purchase. I'd also note that when I returned to my vehicle I was greeted by people sleeping in the stairwell and the stairwell itself had been used as a bathroom (and I do not mean a urinal). Although this could be considered incidental I'd stress that SIP are attempting to extract an unfair amount based on incidental circumstances. I could argue that SIP did not provide secure (and indeed sanitary) storage for my vehicle. I also do not feel that they gave due attention to my appeal - they offered no explanation other than restating that my vehicle was "not in Marked bay". I do not feel that they addressed any of my concerns or arguments. I also asked that they provide evidence (copies of their photographs) for my review, I have not received this (I was hoping to submit with my appeal but was informed by SIP that I only have 15 days to challenge their assessment of the situation. Again I feel that this is an unfair, cynical ploy. ============================== The operator made their Prima Facie Case on 12/06/2017 12:07:33. The Operator Reported That... The appellant was the driver. A manual ticket was placed on the vehicle. The ticket was issued on 16/05/2017. The charge is based in Contract. The Operator Made The Following Comments... The terms on the signage are explicitly clear that a vehicle in addition to having a valid parking session must also "park fully within the confines of a marked bay" by failing to adhere to the above terms the driver agrees to pay a parking charge of £100.00. As can be seen from the photographs the vehicle was not parked in the confines of a bay thus the PCN was issued in line with the contractual signage. I will address the other points raised by the appellant; 1) The amount is a contractual amount ergo loss is irrelevant 2) The vehicle is clearly not in a marked bay, and as can be seen there is sufficient room for the vehicle in question to have parked correctly and still been not even close to the pillar; 3) The signs are designed to be easily noticed (bright yellow) to then advise a person once they have parked and exited their vehicle that they can read the content of the contractual terms. It is not expected nor advised to do so while the driver is in the vehicle especially whilst moving. 4) The appellants belief on the fairness is irrelevant as the information was provided and agreed to upon the driver leaving the vehicle, further no dishonesty was involved in this matter everything has been very transparent.

Synopsis Public Sector temporary employee suffered loss of income due to Sector restructure. Background Lloyds loan taken out November 2008 for £7.5k for 7 years. Failed to make repayments from January 2011. Default August 2011. The debt has been round the usual houses: SCM -> MHA -> Moorcroft-> Iqor-> Robinson Way->Horwich Farrelly->MacKenzie Hall->Arrow Global Ltd->Debt Managers-> Rockwell-> Moorcroft-> Westcot->Arrow Global Ltd/Restons. No communication entered into with any. Claim On 8th May 2017 Arrow Global Ltd issued N1 against me through Northampton. Particulars The Claimant claims payment of the ovedue balance due from the Defendant(s) under a contract between the Defendant(s) and Lloyds TSB dated on or about Nov xx 2008 and assigned to the Claimant on Nov xx 2013 Particulars a/c no – xxxxxxxxxxxx Date Item Value xx/03/2017 Default Balance xxxx.xx Post Refrl Cr NIL TOTAL xxxx.xx • 10th May 2017 AOS submitted • 12th May 2017 unsigned request pursuant to s.77 of CCA 1974 sent by recorded delivery including £1.00 postal order sent to Arrow Global Limited. • 24th May 2017 reply received (letter dated 22nd May 2017)…acknowledged request for documentation “We do not accept we are the creditor as envisaged by the above statute” (CCA1974). “However, we are willing to assist in obtaining that which has been requested. We will now process your request for documentation from the creditor and will revert in due course. We confirm that all collection activity will be suspended pending provision of the documents. Please find enclosed your £1.00 fee. Yours sincerely Arrow Global.” Am seeking most pertinent verbiage to defend above. Many thanks for all of your help R

Hello all at CAG, I've received a second claim from Hoist/ cohens for a credit card. Name of the Claimant ? Hoist Portfolio Holding 2 Ltd Date of issue – 03 Feb 2017 Date to submit defence = - by 4pm Friday 03/03/2017 ? What is the claim for – Particulars of claim: (As Written) The claim is for the sum of £11079.33 in respect of monies owing under an agreement with the account no. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx pursuant to the The Consumer Credit Act 1974 (CCA) The debt was legally assigned by MKDP LLP (Ex Barclaycard) to the claimant and notice has been served. The defendant has failed to make contractual payments under the terms of the agreement. A default notice has been served upon the defenadant pursuant to Section 87(1) CCA. The Claimant Claims: 1. The sum of £11079.33 2. Interest pursuant to s69 of the county court Act 1984 at a rate of 8.00 percent from the 27/09/11 to the date hereof 1947 days is the sum of £4727.90 3. Future interest accruing at the daily rate of £2.43 4. Costs What is the value of the claim? £15807.23 (plus court fee £711.33 & Legal Reps Costs £100) Total £16618.56 Is the claim for a current account (Overdraft) or credit/loan account or mobile phone account? Credit card When did you enter into the original agreement before or after 2007? Approx 2000/ 2001 Has the claim been issued by the original creditor or was the account assigned and it is the Debt purchaser who has issued the claim. Debt Purchaser (hoist) Were you aware the account had been assigned – did you receive a Notice of Assignment? No Did you receive a Default Notice from the original creditor? Can't be sure Have you been receiving statutory notices headed “Notice of Default sums” – at least once a year ? No Why did you cease payments? Business ceased trading and couldn't afford rent let alone DMP payments What was the date of your last payment? January 20th 2011 Was there a dispute with the original creditor that remains unresolved? No Did you communicate any financial problems to the original creditor and make any attempt to enter into a debt managementicon plan? Yes, Payplan DMP set up in Feb 2010 I wondered if I could use the statute barred defence or should I use the no paperwork? I have done the AOS on MCOL, should I send the CPR and CCA requests regardless of defence? Your help is much appreciated.

Hello, A number of PCNs from Smart Parking were delivered to my address in the last few weeks, for an alleged breach of the terms of parking at Matalan in Sutton, Surrey. This was subsequently followed by a Notice of Intended Court Action letter from Debt Recovery Plus (DRP), stating the reason for the PCN being issued as: "Overstayed Paid Time". Earlier this week, another letter was received from SCS Law who claim to act on behalf of Smart Parking Ltd who have allegedly instructed this law firm to recover the PCN charges. The letter then goes on to state that Smart Parking are entitled to the outstanding sum under contract law, adding: "When your vehicle parked at the above mentioned site(s), the driver of the vehicle agreed to be bound by the terms and conditions of parking which was displayed on signage throughout the site(s). The driver of the vehicle breached the terms and conditions of parking on each of the above stated occasions for the reason stated. For each contravention, a parking charge notice was issued, for which the sums owed remain outstanding. We refer you to the Supreme Court decision in ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67. In this case, the Supreme Court found that parking charge notices do not contravene the penalty rule or Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations 1999 provided they protect a legitimate interest. Unless payment is made within the next 14 days, we are instructed to issue court proceedings to recover the same and any of our client's legal costs, without further recourse to you". I visited the Matalan store last weekend and discussed my issue with a member of staff, with the hope Matalan would intervene and request for the PCN to be cancelled, being a regular customer of the store. The member of staff was not very helpful but did advise me to contact Smart Parking directly for any resolution and also pointed out that Smart Parking were no longer the contracted to manage the car park. I would now appreciate the kind assistance of our very valued forum members to advice on how to fight this PCN successfully and have provided some relevant pictures from the car park, if this helps construct a solid defence. Thank you.

Having read this forum and had a pretty good solicitor in a recent case, I have cobbled together what I perceive quite a nice defence, if anyone is interested. Obviously people would need to tailor to their own needs. Just really mentioning this to give something back to an excelllent forum and Dx100 help. shall I post it up? It does not include which I have read here recently.: 1) Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 The Office of Fair Trading v Abbeyicon National PLC and others (2009) 2) Show how they have complied with sections III & IV of Practice Direction - Pre-action Conduct. The only issue I have is that I have used a few times and I dont want a judge to think I just copied a template off the internet. I would be happier to give it to MODS for them to give it to trusted / known posters? Am happy to PM someone if they wanted to "disguise" it.

A guide to Ministry of Defence Medal Office READ MORE HERE: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/a-guide-to-ministry-of-defence-medal-office

I'm hoping you guys can help as you have done in the past. I received a parking ticket after falling asleep in a motorway services station from ParkingEye. I followed general advice and ignored the ticket (the car is actually registered in my wife's name). They are now pursuing me (my wife) via the courts and I'd like to ask a few questions. I had initially intended to file a defence as many threads suggested that these cases are often thrown out with a robust defence. I received the service on March 28. The letter said that the date of service was deemed to be 5 days after the 28th. On April 10 I filed an acknowledgement of service. can someone check my maths? I have 28 days from April 2nd to file my defence - which would be May 1?? Is that right and if so, how does the bank holiday affect it? I've now decided that as much as I would love to file a defence - because these guys are the spawn of satin - I don't have the time or the energy to file anything near as robust as it would appear I need to. I'm thinking it would be better to just write off the £175 and chalk it up to a bad experience. But when I click on the Admission instructions using MCOL it says: If you are admitting all of the claim and wish to pay it now you should take or send the money, including any interest and costs, to the claimant. You should act quickly to ensure that the claimant receives the money within 14 days of the date you received the claim (the date of service). If payment does not reach the claimant within this time they may ask for judgment to be entered against you and this may affect your future ability to get credit. This implies that because it is now past 14 days, if I DON"T file a defence and instead make the payment in full, a judgement could still be made against my wife?? Being so close to the deadline, and beyond the 14 days, am I better off filing a weak defence? Any prompt help would be greatly appreciated