BPA Code of practice: 9.5 You must not use predatory or misleading tactics to lure drivers into incurring parking charges. Such instances will be viewed as a serious and sanctionable instance of non-compliance and may go to the Professional Conduct Panel.

So, yes, their PCN is ridiculous with no photographic evidence at all. We spend our time laughing at the PPCs but the Chuckle Brothers truly are the stupidest of the stupidest. My impression is that they have a background in other sectors of business and just latched onto the PPC scam as a way to make easy money, without having a clue what they're doing. The only thing that worries me is that if your brother did sue for GDPR distress, it could go wrong if the fleecers do have photographic evidence salted away somewhere which they could dig out, and he could lose the case and have to pay their costs. Also, what is likely to happen in practise is one of two things. SCENARIO 1 The buffoons ignore a claim form as they don't understand it and your brother wins by default. SCENARIO 2 The imbeciles panic and run to Gladstones solicitors, who file a ludicrous defence in order to spin the case out and rip off, hopefully your brother, but certainly their own client. We've seen this happen. In any case, don't do anything immediate. I think a little discussion with the other regulars over the next 48 hours would be a good idea.

Make sense. I think I will try that route. Accept mediation not settle any less for my full claim and if they decline the I will go to trial. I will now prepare notes for mediation and post them up here.

The first thread that the OP posted on about this also tells a very worrying story.

Had email today - mediation set for 14th September.

I'd like to start off by saying that it's a mystery to me why we have to prompt you to post documents which you have received. We are trying to help you and it is clear that we will need to see this information and it saves time if you just post it up without being asked. As you can see in their defence, they have referred to your undervaluation of £999 – and I think I have already expressed the view that it is unlikely that you will manage to recover more than that. It is clear that you will recover something. Your case is excellent of course because as we know, the insurance requirement is Unlawful under Section 57 of the Consumer Rights Act. Had you found some way of declaring value correctly then your £23XX would have been pretty secure. I think if you go to mediation then the best you can hope for is that they will settle for £999. I would be very surprised if you manage to budge them beyond that. If you go to trial then you can certainly argue the full amount. I think the worst that would happen is that the judge would find in your favour but only award you your £999. If you manage to make a sufficient case then you would get all you are claiming for – and we would certainly help you – but I've already expressed my reservations about your chances of success. So I think it's up to you. If you think that you are prepared to settle for the £999 which is what I think you are definite get a mediation and is what I think is the likely outcome at trial then you could go to mediation. Certainly, 1300 quid is a lot to give up and so you might well want to try your luck at trial and we will try to help you with inventive arguments and of course we will be extremely pleased if you win. If you go to trial – I think there is nothing to lose, you will get your £999 – that much is almost certain – with some ingenuity you might get. You choose

They have up to 33 days from the date of the claimform to file a defence.

It'll be interesting to see what defence they file. Probably try to rely on their pathetic attempt at falsifying the return dates to you...

Well done, I dont think you realise how rare it is for a claimant to lose a SJ application and how difficult it is for a LIP to stop it in its tracks. Usually a failed SJ application does not bode well for a claimant and its even rarer for the claimant to proceed to trial after losing. The following is hilarious for a District Judge to state:- Thats possibly because section 77 does not refer to Legibility its section 65 as per your WS above. If you refer back to my amendment in the conclusion of your statement you will now see why its imperative to conclude and prompt the court to test if the claimant can show and prove it has the means and evidence to pass the threshold to be awarded Summary Judgment. Well done.

Just did another search but doesn’t look like the decision is online still. Don’t know why it’s taking so long. Happy to help with info if I can otherwise. I have the full decision as a pdf I can share somewhere? I just need to edit it to remove personal details Just by the by, Erudio have accepted the decision and the loan went back into deferment but they are still playing games with me by pretending that their system cannot update my account and put it back into deferment so that I keep getting threatening letters. That’s a whole other thing but my account will be aged out this year so just biding my time til October. Anyway, let me know how I can help.

I beat the case. No thanks to any of you. Manxman in exile, honeybee13 and dx100uk, perhaps consider trying to help rather than seeing this as one collective intellectual self pleasuring activity. Similar to what I imagine must take place frequently in solitude. You all aren't that impressive, believe me. Give space for grace and encouragement with these nuanced situations. Now you are the dead ducks. NB I won't be coming back to this thread or reading replies, so save your insults. As long as you've read what I've to say I'm pleasured