Don't worry about producing a long section. Just put. DOUBLE RECOVERY XX Under "The Claimant claims (iii)" Ms Atkinson refers to "instructing solicitors". The claim already includes legal representative's costs at small claims. Inventing a further £70 is a badly-concealed attempt at circumventing the small claims cap. It is irrelevant what the Claimant's biased trade association (itself a breakaway from the British Parking Association, which dealt with appeals far too leniently for the likes of the Claimant) deem as lawful, it is the law in England & Wales which decides what is lawful. The addition of fictitious sums to t

Hi, they said it was because they hadn't received the driving licence summary for my additional driver. I offered to get it to them but was informed it was too late. Not sure why they needed this as I'd provided the licence number, they didn't ask for mine just for my additional driver

yeah done that too.

std reply the fleecers have 33 days to do 'something' else it will get autostayed. though dont start cheering for about 2mts if you dont hear anything. court get backlogs if it does go anywhere you will receive a blank DQ n180 from the court. time to read a good few lowell claimform threads here now. if they go true to colours, they will sent their proposed n180 to you stating the defence is generic/copied from the internet... will be struck out etc . its just willy waving to intimidate as they have not sent it to the court. shame you cant get mcol working then you could monitor the claim status as that will

Suggestion for rewording Section 8? 8. In the claimant’s "Controlled Parking Agreement" with the landowner "Schedule 2" (P22 of witness statement) it states that “Motorists loading / unloading their vehicle are exempt from the parking rules.” As evidenced in the attached document exhibits, the motorist was loading / unloading. Clearly under the terms of the Controlled Parking Agreement the PCNs should never have been issued.

Did you tell them it was a courtesy car? So the driver would have been a hirer of that car. I expect you were too late to inform them of the situation. However I may be wrong but when a PCN is wrongly addressed I thought a new PCN had to be raised and the discount offered. had that happened the rogues knew it would have been too late to issue a new PCN from an out of time perspective. If the address has been wrongly addressed then you argue that the PCN was incorrectly served and the follow ups were out of time.

Excellent. So you're in the clear. Well before litigation the charlatans were told they were threatening to sue the wrong person, you identified the right person, the right person owned up, but the imbeciles insisted on suing the wrong person. In their diseased minds it will be because your appeal was "too late" which will be irrelevant to the court, and in any case the "too late" was because they were incapable of understanding a double digit address, bless them. Yep, go for set aside, and when you do so request that the spivs be ordered to pay the £275 due to their unreasonable conduct for deliberately suing the wrong person

OK, fully confused now. Was the pass you were using, a student pass or full fare pass? if it was a full fare pass bought by you using the gift code supplied to you : why did the pass (or accompanying photocard) have someone else’s photo?

It would be helpful if you could tell us who issued the bus pass please and whether you're a student. I'm not clear about whether the bus company can track you via your email. I would also suggest you don't blame the bus company staff for something that either you or your friend got wrong. HB

@Nicky BoyYes definitely! I have now made the donations. Thank you all, wish you all the best. Take care!!