My take on this is that unless the OP has entered into a contract whereby he explicitly agreed to pay an admin charge of £10 if he failed to enter his reg correctly, he is liable for nothing. I would imagine that any terms that Excel would try to apply would not include such an explicit term. It is possible that Excel could sue (for the £10 only - not the £100 - they have already conceded that) as the loss they sustain by some breach of contract by the OP. But they would again need to prove that entering the reg correctly was a contractual term. They would also need to prove that they incurred a loss as a result. It would be open to the OP to argue (aside from no contractual obligation to enter cortrect reg) that Excel has contributed to or indeed caused the loss it suffered by its own method of enforcement. The good news for the OP is that Excel will of course not sue for the £10 and cannot succeed if they sue for the £100 as they have admitted they are not entitled to it.

Here's a new list of excuses for the CPS troll to use tomorrow when challenged as to why we are still waiting for answers:It was the wrong type of court/case/judge ...I managed to step out at the crucial time ...I suffered a sudden but temporary bout of blindness and deafness and therefore cannot confirm whether the defendant was there ...I was too busy chatting to the reporters and snappers I had lined up to notice if the defendant was there ...The defendant was in attendance but had chosen to make himself invisible ...The dog ate the transcript ...The dog ate the piece of paper with the hearing date on it ...The dog ate the defendant ...

This whole Excel thing looks like at attempt to deflect attention from the other questions the CPS troll has been asked. Are we to take it from the now deafening silence that the defendant did not even turn up in Portsmouth, yet CPS have the cheek to present the the case as a "win"?

This is getting really weird now. If these experts that you continually refer to have never posted the defence (100% contrary to what you said this morning), how do you know it is a "pepipoo/CAG defence"? Is it that "you just do"? These arguments have more holes than a sieve.

Is a filed defence not a public document available to anyone who requests it at the court? Where is the prejudice? This is beginning to sound like "the dog ate my homework" territory (if I recall correctly the last CPS troll was unable to post the transcript of the case they lost in Olham due to some equally spurious reason). What I want to know is - if this is the level of their (lack of) legal expertise how did the defendant lose. Suggests he may not have turned up fore the hearing and CPS had a free run that even they could not lose (another question that has suspiciously not been answered).

Whereas the general principle of CPS cases is: find an undefended/poorly defended case, win it and try to pin the poor defence on pepipoo/CAG members without any basis for doing so. Hmm.

Oh I see, not for the first time mr factual court updater is changing his story. Apparently the defences are not available on the site after all as he earlier told us. They are available by PM he now tells us. He has been repeatedly challenged to post the defence used and has failed to do so. I am not a lawyer but I would be able to tell what a pukka defence looks like and so I am sure would others. So, go on court updater do that so we can all have a look. Unless you are afraid we would draw other inferences that is.As for the other two cases, as this individual is already speaking with very forked tongue I for one would not believe they even exist, far less that anyone from here has been involved in the defence. Until I see definitive evidence, which I suspect will be far from forthcoming.To courtupdater, why is it so important to you and CPS to discredit pepipoo and CAG? Did thery hurt your fellings at some time?

I'm not aware of any defences being published either. I think he is talking about the template letters and does not know the difference. Just shows that his whole story is one huge crock of ****. IMHO of course.

Do you think perky/CPS "just knew" pepipoo/CAG advice was given?

To the mods, can you please change the heading of this thread as it appears to be factually incorrect. It appears to be an attempt to link an unsuccessful defence to Pepipoo/CAG and thereby discredit advice given on there and all relevant experts are appearing to claim they have had nothing to do with it.

Angela, you must spend all day and night on here , considering you responded within a few minutes of this latest "victory" being posted. And you do use the language/arguments that is so often used by the PPCs if I may say so. Hmm.

It is becoming abundantly clear that the statement by this latest CPS troll that this was a pepipoo/CAG defence is a lie. Clearly CPS has a vested interest in telling as many lies of this type as it can to give the impression that it has won a great battle. Apparently it continues with its small minded and patethic approach to try to trick and intimidate victims into paying. Why? Why does it need to do this if it is convinced that it is 100% right? Why does it feel the need to pass off what was clearly another inadequate defence (relying solely on driver ID) as one supplied by its great adversaries? What is wrong with this company and the people that work for it, that they can get involved in personal wars like this? Say what you like about the other PPCs, and no one here is a great fan of them, they do not seem to get involved in these bizarre rivalries (or indeed have something to prove all the time). It must be something to do with the mentality of Perky methinks.

It appears from posts on Pepipoo that far from being a pepipoo/CAG defence no experts were invcolved in this defence at all. Apparently the OP did not verify himself (wonder why). So we have a totally pathetic attempt to link a case (which may well be a bogus case for all we know) with pepipoo/CAG. Should we believe the experts at pepipoo or some ****** troll for a PPC with a major axe to grind? Not a difficult choice methinks. But it does say it all that CPS is SO desperate to prove a win. What a total and utter bunch of unmitigated losers.

I vote for a higher class of PPC troll. These latest versions are just disappointing. Shall we set up a PPC Trolls Association to regulate them (HQ a caff in Wolves).

I thought the schools were back this week. Clearly not as we appear to have gained a few silly truants. Either that or it's a very slow day down at Madame Clarke's.