Hi All Searched on CAG and drew this letter up. Does it hit the mark? Dear Civil Enforcement Limited, Ref: Letter dated 07/07/2022, PCN reference xxxxxxxxxxxxx Cheers for your Letter before action - Claim for debt. I smirked at the idea you actually expected me to take your tripe seriously and cough up, which are further exacerbated with your extra unicorn tax made up extras thrown into the mix. You were paid the correct parking charge. You suffered no loss. In fact the driver left early, so you were paid extra! The chance of typing part of a registration number wrong is clearly "de minimis". Every time a greedy

Enter your details here to see the concil pics: Manchester Council - Pay PCN Home MANCHESTER.TARANTOPORTAL.COM

I think the point DX is trying to make is that, while fraud is obviously a crime, the Police have bigger fish to fry and I doubt you'd get anywhere with them. The same applies to Action Fraud. By all means report the guy, but unfortunately nothing will come of it. The suggestion DX makes is to request a chargeback via your bank so you get your money returned. PayPal will then place your account in negative balance, which, provided your PayPal account is pre-Brexit, they can't do anything to recover. The down side for you though is that you'd need to abandon your PayPal account and create a new one, since an

I told HMRC/Tribunal (and it is the truth) that I was aware FTR were submitting a tax rebate on my behalf, as I was eligible - that's the extent of me "knowing" what FTR we're doing and their "scheme" of keeping a % of the rebate. What I was never aware of, was the fact they were submitting tax returns for EIS relief... EIS was never explained to me, and the first I heard of that and of Cryoblast was from HMRC's letters. To answer HB, yes it was me that went through MCOL and issued a warrant against FTR. They turned up at their address only to find it was a virtual office/they weren't there, etc. It BAFFLES

These cut and paste arguments from Ambreen also appeared in a case I was involved in (and won!). I barely bothered to address them in the defence as I could not see how the points being made were that relevant to the defence case. In 6, Ambreen just seems to be claiming this is private land. I don't think this is contended. In 7, she seems to be arguing that there is no automatic right of access. This is also not really a point of contention. In 8, she is claiming that the claimant is within their rights to devise a scheme that determines who can access their property and on what basis. This also does not seem