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 private parking company has taken such cases to court they have received a belta of a kicking from the judge. Getting the registration number wrong is not a reason for pursuing motorists. That was established when Baroness Walmsley v TFL [2005] EWHC 896 in the High Court of Justice won her case. I would also point out that the new Government Parking Code of Practice due out shortly of which CEL will be only too well aware since it will severely hamper your money grabbing antics, includes the miscuing of registration numbers. I have of course kept evidence of the parking payment. Should this case go to court despite having pointed out the futility of doing so, I will be asking the Court not only for an unreasonable costs order under CPR 27.14(2)(g), but I will also later sue for breach of GDPR as you knew full well your case was totally flawed but still carried on. The standard for breaches of GDPR is now around £750. I look forward to your deafening silence. Yours in mirth xxxxxx

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 any funds that hit your old account would immediately be swallowed by PayPal to satisfy the 'debt'. If you know the address for service of your LBA and subsequent action, then nothing is stopping you continuing, but do bare in mind, you would require strict proof that you sent him what you say you did. Do you have that, e.g., a video of you packing up the item? All he has to do to defend your claim is introduce enough doubt that, on the balance of probabilities, the item was either tampered with en route, or you sent him the wrong thing. If you search the forum you'll see hundreds of threads about a certain delivery company that recently changed their name having packages go missing or their contents tampered with. It is just possible he's actually telling the truth.

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 me how the police can't get involved/rejecting investigation, or anyone helping of that matter. IT'S LITERALLY FINANCIAL FRAUD and there's tons of proof/victims. Even HMRC referred to it as a "scam" in my first hearing...

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 to be contentious. In 10, it is then a great leap to claim that the above then means that byelaws are arbitrary. From the Private Parking Code of Practice Feb 2022: "where land is governed by byelaws, those byelaws cannot legally be set aside unless specific provision is made to do so, hence it is important that parking operators do not confuse the enforcement of byelaws with the contractual application of parking charges." Ambreen seems to be deliberately and disingenuously conflating these two things. In 11, there seems to be a repeat of 8 i.e. the landowner can determine who enters their land and introduce T&Cs. Whether the T&Cs have been accepted, whether there is a contract, if the charges are fair etc are all valid points of contention for the defendant though. As for 12, Ambreen seems to be arguing that the defendant is claiming that the byelaws somehow negate the rights of a landowner to control access to private land. I am sure that claim in not being made. Whether the landowner imposes other terms and conditions is not relevant to the defence that POFA does not apply as the land is not relevant as Byelaws are in place.