Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • This is the other sign  parking sign 1a.pdf
    • 4 means that they need to name and then tell the people who will be affected that there has been an application made, what the application relates to (specificially "whether it relates to the exercise of the court’s jurisdiction in relation to P’s property and affairs, or P’s personal welfare, or to both) and what this application contains (i.e what order they want made as a result of it) 5 just means that teh court think it is important that the relevant people are notified 7 means that the court need more information to make the application, hence they have then made the order of paragraph 1 which requires the applicant to do more - this means the court can't make a decision with the current information, and need more, hence paragraph one of the order is for the applicant to do more. paragraph 3 of the order gives you the ability to have it set aside, although if it was made in january you are very late. Were you notiifed of the application or not?    
    • These are the photos of the signs. At the entrance there is a 7h free sign. On some bays there is a permit sign.  Also their official website is misleading as it implies all parking is free.  I can't be certain of the exact parking bay I was in that day, and there was no PCN ticket on my car and no other evidence was provided.  parking sign 2.pdf
    • Hi, In my last post I mentioned I had received an email from SS who were asking me to hand over the keys to my mother’s flat so they could pass them to the Law firm who have been appointed court of protection to access, secure and insure my mother’s property.  Feeling this, all quickly getting out of my hands I emailed ss requesting proof of this. I HAVEN’T HEARD BACK FROM SS.  Yesterday, I received an email (with attached court of protection order) from the Law Firm confirming this was correct (please see below a copy of this).  After reading the court of protection order I do have some concerns about it:   (a)   I only found out yesterday, the Law firm had been appointed by the court back in January.  Up until now, I have not received any notification regarding this.  (b)   Section 2   - States I am estranged from my mother.  This is NOT CORRECT    The only reason I stepped back from my mother was to protect myself from the guy (groomer) who had befriended her & was very aggressive towards me & because of my mother’s dementia she had become aggressive also.  I constantly tried to warned SS about this guy's manipulative behaviour towards my mother and his increasing aggressiveness towards me (as mentioned in previous posts).  Each time I was ignored.  Instead, SS encouraged his involvement with my mother – including him in her care plans and mental health assessments.   I was literally pushed out because I feared him and my mother’s increasing aggression towards me. Up until I stepped back, I had always looked after my mother and since her admission to the care home, I visit regularly.   .(c)    Sections -  4, 5 and 7  I am struggling to understand these as I don’t have a legal background.  I was wondering if there is anyone who might be able to explain what they mean.  It’s been a horrendous situation where I had to walk away from my mother at her most vulnerable because of; ss (not helping), scammer and groomer. I have no legal background, nor experience in highly manipulative people or an understanding of how the SS system operates, finding myself isolated, scared and powerless to the point I haven’t collected my personal belongings and items for my mother’s room in the care home.  Sadly, the court has only had heard one version of this story SS’s, and based their decision on that. My mother’s situation and the experience I have gone through could happen to anyone who has a vulnerable parent.    If anyone any thoughts on this much appreciated.  Thank you. ______________________________________________________  (Below is the Court of Protection Order)  COURT OF PROTECTION                                                                                                                                                                                   No xxx  MENTAL CAPACITY ACT 2005 In the matter of Name xxx ORDER Made by  Depty District Judge At xxx Made on xxx Issued on 18 January 2024  WHEREAS  1.     xxx Solicitors, Address xxx  ("Applicant”) has applied for an order under the Mental Capacity Act 2005.  2.     The Court notes (my mother) is said to be estranged from all her three children and only one, (me) has been notified.  3.     (Me) was previously appointed as Atorney for Property and Affairs for (my mother).  The Exhibity NAJ at (date) refers to (me) and all replacement Attorneys are now officially standing down.  4.     Pursuant to Rule 9.10 of the Court of Protection Rules 2017 and Practice Direction 9B the Applicant 2must seek to identify at least three persons who are likely to have an interest in being notified that an application has been issues.”  The children of (my mother), and any other appointed attorneys are likely to have an interest in the application, because of the nature of relationship to (my mother).  5.     The Court considers that the notification requirements are an important safeguard for the person in respect of whom an order is sought.  6.     The Court notes that it is said that the local authority no longer has access to (my mother’s) Property.  7.     Further information is required for the Court to determine the application.  IT IS ORDERED THAT  Within 28 days of the issue date this order, the Applicant shall file a form COP24 witness statement confirming that the other children of (my mother) and any replacement attorneys have been notified of the application and shall confirm their name, address, and date upon which those persons were notified.  If the Applicant wishes the Court to dispense with any further notification, they should file a COP9 and COP24 explaining, what steps (if any) have been taken to attempt notification and why notification should be dispensed with.   Pending the determination of the application to appoint a deputy for (my mother), the Applicant is authorised to take such steps as are proportionate and necessary to access, secure and insure the house and property of (my mother).   This order was made without a hearing and without notice.  Any person affected by this order may apply within 21 days of the date on which the order was served to have the order set aside or varied pursuant to Rule 13.4 of the Court of Protection Rules 2017 (“the Rules”).  Such application must be made on Form COP9 and in accordance with Part 10 Rules.              
    • Unless I've got an incorrect copy of the relevant regulation: The PCN is only deemed to have arrived two days after dispatch "unless the contrary is proved" in which case date of delivery does matter (not just date of posting) and I would like clarification of the required standard of proof. It seems perhaps this hasn't been tested. Since post is now barcoded for the Post Office's own tracking purposes perhaps there is some way I can get that evidence from the Post Office...
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like
  • Recommended Topics

NSGL Ltd - pcn claimform no. 2 - CENTURY WHARF CARDIFF CF10 5NP. disc'd once - now trying again!!


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 150 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

Good morning all.  

 

This is the latest instalment in the long running saga between perhaps the most inept parking company in the country (NSGL Ltd) and myself. 

 

Previously on Britain's Stupidest Parking Operators;

 

Part 1;

 

Thread here:  

 

 

TL/DR:  NSGL manage the parking at a friend's apartment complex.  A family member borrowed my vehicle on a few occasions in 2020 to visit them during the pandemic.  When visiting they parked in the resident's own space with their full permission as the resident does not own a car.  During this time they attracted a total of 7 speculative invoices, 5 of which were overturned at POPLA.  

 

NSGL filed a court claim for the first ticket in January and it proceeded to a hearing in July, where they were roundly humiliated due to their crap signage, and the case was chucked out.   1-nil Cardiff Devil.

 

Part 2;

 

Between filing the first claim and the hearing, NSGL also filed a claim for the second lost ticket at POPLA.  I raised this with the judge after he passed judgement on the first one and he said "I can't enter any judgement on that matter at this time, but the claimant will need to have a long, hard think about whether they're going to pursue this any further."  

 

In October they filed a notice of discontinuance, and the claim was withdrawn.  2-nil Cardiff Devil.

 

Part 3 (today);

 

They've now filed a new claim for the same PCN as claimed in part 2.  But this is where it gets interesting.  The original second claim was for £162, plus court fees at £25 and legal fees at £50, for a total of £237.   This new claim has been filed for (presumably) the same £237, with the court and legal fees added on again, for a new total of £322.  Sounds a bit like double dipping to me.  

 

I'm filing the AOS this morning and sending a new CPR letter to their solicitors but I was wondering if there was a different tack I could take with this one. 

 

Surely if they've discontinued this case previously they can't just file it again for more money a few months later.  Is it worth me putting in a section in the CPR letter asking them to explain how they believe they can include the court fees from their previous discontinued claim to my alleged debt, or is this something to save for my witness statement later on.

 

Thoughts?

 

Thanks

CD

Link to post
Share on other sites

Name of the Claimant :  NSGL Ltd

 

Claimants Solicitors: QDR Solicitors Ltd

 

Date of issue – 17th Dec 2021

 

Date for AOS - 4th Jan 2022

 

Date to submit Defence - 18th Jan 2022

 

What is the claim for – N

 

1. The Claimants claim is for an outstanding parking charge issued to vehicle XXXX XXX when parked at CENTURY WHARF CARDIFF CF10 5NP. 

 

2. The site is managed by the Claimant.  The Defendant is the keeper of or the driver named in accordance with Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedom act 2012 of the vehicle. 

 

3. Vehicles parking at the Site are subject to the parking restrictions and terms and conditions which are set out on signs at the Site and form part of a contract between the driver of the vehicle and the Claimant. 

 

4. On 03 07 2020, the Vehicle was parked at the Site in breach of the contract, the contravention being Not Displaying A Valid Permit.

 

5. By entering this contract the Defendant agreed that they would be liable for £80.00 parking charges, plus additional contractual charges incurred by the claimant for the collection of the debt pursuant to the terms and conditions.

 

 

What is the value of the claim?

 

 

Amount Claimed  £237

court fees  £35

legal rep fees  £50

Total Amount  £322

Edited by dx100uk
Typo
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • dx100uk changed the title to NSGL Ltd - pcn claimform no. 3 - CENTURY WHARF CARDIFF CF10 5NP.

pop up on the MCOL website detailed on the claimform

.

register as an individual on the Gov't Gateway Site
Go to HMRC's login page.


Click the GREEN sign in button.
Click “Create sign in details”
Enter your email address where asked.
You will now be emailed a confirmation code. ...


You will now be issued with a User ID for your government gateway account.
 note down your details inc the long gateway number given, you might need it later.
 

then log in to the MCOL Website

.

select respond to a claim and select the start AOS box.

.

then using the details required from the claimform

.

defend all

leave jurisdiction unticked.

click thru to the end

confirm and exit MCOL.

.

get a CPR 31:14 request running to the solicitors

https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?486334-CPR-31.14-Request-to-use-on-receipt-of-a-PPC-(-Private-Land-Parking-Court-Claim


type your name ONLY


no need to sign anything

.

you DO NOT await the return of paperwork.

you MUST file a defence regardless by day 33 from the date on the claimform.

………….
 

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ye gods, we are used to the stupidity of these companies but here they may have reached a new high (low) for idiocy.

 

Are you absolutely sure it's the same PCN number that they lost at POPLA, then started a court claim for but discontinued, and are now suing you for again?

Edited by FTMDave
Typo

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Dave

 

That's correct.  They didn't include the PCN number in the particulars of claim but I've kept all the previous paperwork and double-checked it against what was sent previously.

 

What's most astounding is the way they've taken the total amount including court fees and legal fees that were added to the previous debt, and essentially added them again.  I actually really hope this goes to court as I'm sure a decent judge would tear them a new orifice for that one.

 

Thanks

CD

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok let it run.

 

If the same paperwork appears for claim2, the discontinued one and all theyve done is add the old claim fees, then thwy cant do that.

 

Be coy for now. DOnt play your cards yet.

 

HavE they sent paploc prior to th3 claim?

 

dx

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Might be an option when you file the defence,  sday that it appears they are claiming for the same PCN they discontinued the previous case No 000xxx11 as the POC are identical, and they have merely added the sum of the previous legal fees to the new one to inflate the claim.

 

The Team will be mulling this one over in the meantime, it really looks like Extreme Muppetry from the ppc

 

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

The bailiff: A 12th Century solution re-branded as Enforcement Agents for the 21st Century to seize and sell debtors goods as before Oh so Dickensian!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Have a think about your aim with this.

 

I'm pretty sure that if you detail their idiocy in your defence, and say complain to the BPA at the same time, that they will run away pretty damn quick.

 

On the other hand if you want to have a laugh and see them waste the hearing fee, then you could file a generic defence and then list their imbecility in your Witness Statement.

 

It depends what you want to gain and how much effort you want to put in.

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks both.  The CPR letter has gone off today and the AOS is done so I'm not touching this now until after the new year but I'll consider slipping that in the claim defence and see what happens.  If they're stupid enough to pursue it I'll flesh it out a bit in the witness statement later down the line and hopefully see the excrement hit the fan if it gets as far as a hearing.

 

I'm going to have a read through at the BPA's code of practice while I've got some time off over Christmas and see if there's anything in there that can trip them up.

 

Thanks 

CD

Link to post
Share on other sites

 Ifyou want to let it run a single line in the standard 3 - 5 line defence, It appears that this claim is a clone of the original claim they discontinued, with the sum demanded amended to include the legal fees and costs added to the original defunct claim.  If they are stupid enough to continue, you can flesh that out nicely at WS stage, and they can't say they weren't warned.

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

The bailiff: A 12th Century solution re-branded as Enforcement Agents for the 21st Century to seize and sell debtors goods as before Oh so Dickensian!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Come back to us after New Year.  To get rid of them ASAP I'd thought of something like

 

 

1.  The Defendant is the recorded keeper of [motor vehicle].

 

2.  It is denied that the Defendant entered into a contract with the Claimant.

 

3.  As held by the Upper Tax Tribunal in Vehicle Control Services Limited v HMRC [2012] UKUT 129 (TCC), any contract requires offer and acceptance.  The Claimant was simply contracted by the landowner to provide car-park management services and is not capable of entering into a contract with the Defendant on its own account, as the car park is owned by and the terms of entry set by the landowner.  Accordingly, it is denied that the Claimant has authority to bring this claim. 

 

4.  In any case it is denied that the Defendant broke the terms of a contract with the Claimant.

 

5.  The Claimant is attempting double recovery by adding an additional sum not included in the original offer. 

 

6.  The Claimant did not send a Letter of Claim before bringing the claim.

 

7.  The PCN has already been the subject of litigation (claim no. XXXXX).

 

8.  The Claimant is claiming double the amount allowed of both court fees and legal fees.

 

 9.  The Particulars of Claim is denied in its entirety.  It is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief at all.

 

 

However, if you want to have a laugh at their expense as BN suggests, then an alternative could be

 

 

The Defendant contends that the particulars of claim are vague and generic in nature which fails to comply with CPR 16.4.  The Defendant accordingly sets out its case below and relies on CPR r 16.5 (3) in relation to any particular allegation to which a specific response has not been made.

 

1.  The Defendant is the recorded keeper of [motor vehicle].

 

2.  It is denied that the Defendant entered into a contract with the Claimant.

 

3.  As held by the Upper Tax Tribunal in Vehicle Control Services Limited v HMRC [2012] UKUT 129 (TCC), any contract requires offer and acceptance.  The Claimant was simply contracted by the landowner to provide car-park management services and is not capable of entering into a contract with the Defendant on its own account, as the car park is owned by and the terms of entry set by the landowner.  Accordingly, it is denied that the Claimant has authority to bring this claim. 

 

4.  In any case it is denied that the Defendant broke the terms of a contract with the Claimant.

 

5.  The Claimant is attempting double recovery by adding an additional sum not included in the original offer. 

 

6.  The PCN has already been the subject of litigation.

 

7.  The Particulars of Claim is denied in its entirety.  It is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief at all.

 

 

The fact they've sued you would be there to the judge's satisfaction, but they'd be likely to miss it and go on and waste time on a WS and money on the court fee.

 

As said before, depends on how much time you want to invest in humiliating them.

Edited by FTMDave
Removing my error re POPLA

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

And you would have a blatantly obvious claim for seeking a costs order for unreasonable behaviour.  £750 in your pocket me thinks.

My time as a Police Officer and subsequently time working within the Motor Trade gives me certain insights into the problems that consumers may encounter.

I have no legal qualifications.

If you have found my post helpful, please enhance my reputation by clicking on the Heart. Thank you

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes either of those suggestions from FTM Dave are good but even with the first more comprehensive skeleton they might be stupid enough to continue.  Either way if they do progress Gick's suggestion has merit, if they do or don't gased on the fact POPLA Quoshed the PCN, a GDR complaint to ICO,. for unlawfully continuing to process your data as there was no merit in continuing to court twice given the POPLA decision ended the matter so processing from then on was a breach of GDPR, with a Costs order for unreasonable behaviour vis two claims on same PCN, and a GDPR strike would be a double tolchock for their Muppetry.   The other's might have suggestions also.

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

The bailiff: A 12th Century solution re-branded as Enforcement Agents for the 21st Century to seize and sell debtors goods as before Oh so Dickensian!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Evening all, and a belated Merry Christmas.

 

There might have been some crossed wires somewhere here, but this claim isn't relating to a PCN that was overturned at POPLA

 

There were 7 tickets in total, and 5 were overturned by POPLA, leaving just two. 

 

The first failed one went to a hearing earlier in the year where the parking company lost.  The details of that one are in the thread I linked in the first post. 

 

The second one was also filed as a court claim shortly before the original hearing but after they lost the first case, they chose to discontinue it.

 

Now for reasons unknown to science, they've filed a new claim for that same second ticket, with the amount owed increased.

 

Apologies if I wasn't clear enough in my earlier posts, I may or may not have already consumed a large amount of gin at that stage.

 

Thanks

CD

Edited by dx100uk
spacing
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • dx100uk changed the title to NSGL Ltd - pcn claimform no. 2 - CENTURY WHARF CARDIFF CF10 5NP. disc'd once - now trying again!!

ok so just confusion that its already been through popla.

 

you stated you've already had a clamform for this and they discontinued, but have now issued a new claimform for an increased sum (the lost claims court fees etc) ....this they cannot do.

 

so just to be 1000% clear, on both the old and the new claimforms the speculative invoice or PCN number in their POC is EXACTLY the same?

 

dx

 

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

HI DX, that's right, this particular PCN did originally go through POPLA but was lost. 

 

I'll have to check the POCs on the new claim form against the original one tomorrow and get back to you but yes, it's referring to the same ticket issued in July 2020.  As I stated previously the first claim for this ticket was for around £160, then with the fees added on it was £237.  This new claim has the amount owing at £237, and they've added court fees and legal fees on again for a new total of £322.  

 

Having read the replies I'm just tempted to go with the standard slimline defence to begin with, then drop the double dipping anvil on them later on in the witness statement if it gets as far as a hearing, then hopefully the judge will tear them a new one.

 

Thanks

CD

Link to post
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, Cardiff Devil said:

then drop the double dipping anvil

 

its not subject to double dipping is it?

that means you visited the same car park TWICE in one day but they've used the 1st time and the 2nd visits exit time.

 

i think you might be confusing the term double dipping?

 

dx

 

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi DX

 

Apologies, I was referring to their trying to claim the court fees and legal costs twice, hence my use of the term double dipping but if this means something else in parking jargon I'll refer to it differently going forwards as I don't want to confuse anyone.

 

Cheers

CD

Link to post
Share on other sites

On 22/12/2021 at 10:34, Cardiff Devil said:

the second lost ticket at POPLA.

That's where the gin - or more likely the Perlenbacher - caused confusion.  Apologies, I thought you meant they had lost, not you had lost.  I've edited the part about POPLA in the proposed defence.

 

11 hours ago, Cardiff Devil said:

Having read the replies I'm just tempted to go with the standard slimline defence to begin with, then drop the double dipping anvil on them later on in the witness statement if it gets as far as a hearing, then hopefully the judge will tear them a new one.

Understood.  Methinks you will end up having a great laugh at their expense.  Just double check the date of the PCN in this new claim is the same as the one they discontinued.

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...

How did you get on here with humiliating them CD?

 

 

.

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...