Cheers DX and Dave. I got that defence from the sticky threads at the top of the page in this subforum. As I said before it's just a draft. So take out anything specific regarding signage at the site etc? Am I leaving in the parts about POFA for now or leave that until later as well? I'll have a look at some recent threads in PPC successes in the meantime and find out some more info. That's correct, a family member uses the vehicle on occasion to visit a friend at their apartment complex. However, said family member doesn't like confrontation and would likely just pay up if I was to name them as the driver, so I'm quite happy to deal with this as the registered keeper as there's no legal requirement to name the driver? Thanks CD

This is what I've got so far; 1. It is admitted that the defendant is the registered keeper of the motor vehicle bearing the registration mark nnnnnnn. 2. The defendant is unable to admit or deny the precise times that the vehicle was parked at Century Wharf as he was not the driver on the day in question. The claimant is put to strict proof of the same. 3. It is denied that the claimant has complied with Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. Specifically; i. Paragraph 8 (1)(2)(a) The period that the vehicle was parked was not specified. ii. Paragraph 8 (1)(2)(h) The creditor was not identified. The proper creditor would be the landowner. Consequently, it is further denied that the defendant is liable for this charge as the keeper of the vehicle, since the terms of Schedule 4 have not been adhered to by the claimant. 4. It is denied that the Claimant entered into a contract with the Defendant. As held by the Upper Tax Tribunal in Vehicle Control Services Limited v HMRC [2012] UKUT 129 (TCC), any contract requires offer and acceptance. The Claimant was simply contracted by the landowner to provide car-park management services and is not capable of entering into a contract with the Defendant on its own account, as the car park is owned by and the terms of entry set by the landowner. Accordingly, it is denied that the Claimant has authority to bring this claim. The proper Claimant is the landowner. 5. If there was a contract, it is denied that the parking charge is incorporated into the contract. As per Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking [1971] 2 QB 163, the relevant term must be made known before a contract was formed. Here, the charge was not incorporated into the contract because the signage at the site states “permit holders only”. Therefore no contract terms or consideration was offered to any driver who was not a permit holder. No contract could have been formed based on these terms so no breach of any kind could have occurred. 6. Save for as expressly admitted above, the particulars of this claim are denied in their entirety. It is also denied that the claimant is denied to the relief claimed, or any relief at all.

Cheers DX, I'll work on it on my own for now and post something up in a few days. Is it safe to post any draft defences up here or should I PM them to someone?

AOS submitted and the CPR letter is in the post. Regarding the defence, I've seen the standard generic defence in the sticky threads but what if I need to add extra bits to it, like reference to UKPC vs Miss C (the residential parking case that Dave linked above)? Or do I just stick to the standard defence for now and include details of those in my evidence pack later? Thanks CD

Cheers DX AOS will be submitted first thing tomorrow. CPR letter has been drafted and will also be sent tomorrow. I've also started drafting a defence. Thanks CD

Name of the Claimant : NSGL Ltd Claimants Solicitors: QDR Solicitors Ltd Date of issue – 7th Jan 2021 Date for AOS - 26 Jan 2021 Date to submit Defence - 9 Feb 2021 What is the claim for 1. The claimants claim is for an outstanding parking charge issued to vehicle XXXX when parked at Century Wharf, Cardiff, CF10 5NP. 2. The site is managed by the claimant. 3.The defendant is the keeper or the driver named in accordance with Schedule 4 of Protection of Freedom act 2012 of the vehicle. 4. Vehicles parking at the site are subject to the parking restrictions and terms and conditions which are set out on signs at the site and from part of a contract between the driver of the vehicle and the claimant. 5. On 09.03.2020, the vehicle was parked at the site in breach of the contract, the contravention being not displaying a valid permit. 6.By entering this contract the defendant agreed that they would be liable for £80.00 parking charges, plus additional contractual charges incurred by the claimant for the collection of the debt pursuant to the terms and conditions. What is the value of the claim? Amount Claimed £162 court fees £25 legal rep fees £50 Total Amount £237 Scanned POC to follow in the morning.

So to my great surprise I returned home today and found a county court claim form from NSGL Ltd on my doormat. I've been to county court a couple of times but never as the defendant. I'd appreciate any advice on what to do next. I know the first order of business is to submit the AOS, but I'm not sure whether I need to do that now or nearer the deadline. I can get a scan of the POC up tomorrow when I get to work but is there any advice anyone can give in the interim on drafting up a defence? Thanks CD

Cheers Dave. Do you have a link to that case or any further details on it? I already have plenty of notes and photos saved, also links to numerous articles about relevant case law etc. I'm happy to continue to file their correspondence into the round filing cabinet unless they nut up and try taking me to court. I've spoken to the resident and she's stated that if it does end up going to court, she's happy to give a signed statement confirming that she is the leaseholder of the apartment and the corresponding parking space and has given my driver full permission to be there. Thanks CD

Thanks DX. I appealed to the PPC and also to POPLA as the keeper, and have never identified the driver. Their NTK paperwork is non-compliant with POFA anyway as it does not identify the creditor or state the time period that the vehicle was parked. I'm happy to continue ignoring them, just wanted to double check that there wasn't anything else I needed to do. Thanks CD

Hi all. Long time no see. I used to frequent this part of the forum many years ago but my knowledge in this area may be a bit out of date. I've been involved with a bit of a long running battle with a company called NSGL Ltd over the last 6 months or so. The driver of my vehicle has been visiting a friend at her apartment complex which has it's parking areas managed by NSGL. Said resident has an allocated parking space but does not own a car so the driver uses that space whenever they visit. However the driver has collected approximately 8 invoices over the space of the last few months for parking without displaying a resident's permit, despite leaving a note on the dashboard stating that they are visiting the apartment that the space is allocated to, they get a ticket approximately once every two weeks. The car park is signed as resident permits only (and is forbidding to anyone not displaying a permit) and the signage is very sparse, and access to the underground car park gate is controlled by an electronic fob which the driver has. I've appealed all these charges to the PPC (all denied, no surprises there) and then to POPLA. POPLA have apparently only just started processing appeals again after a lengthy hiatus due to Covid, and so far only two of my appeals have been heard. Despite being exactly the same circumstances and copy/pasting the entire appeal each time, I've had one appeal successful and another rejected (by a different adjudicator). On this basis I'm expecting around 50% of these appeals to succeed and the others to fail, as it seems to be dependent on the individuals interpretation of the evidence rather than any kind of logical interpretation of law. I've done some digging on NSGL and from what I can see they don't appear to be particularly litigious and don't tend to take people to court and I'm happy to defend the case if they do. They don't seem to be on the same scale as the bigger rackets like Parking Eye but my only concern is that if the number of POPLA failed appeals stacks up, they might feel like chancing their hand. But my question is now that I've exhausted the POPLA route, am I safe for now to just continue to ignore anything else they send, save for actual court papers? Thanks CD

I'm in a similar position myself, I'm just in the process of buying a new property following a divorce. What I found is that as a general rule, anything that's purchased before the Decree Absolute is granted is technically a joint marital asset and she could make a claim for part of it. Issues with child custody are sorted out at the family court and this can be expensive so it'd be in your interest to try an independent mediation to try to agree these things in advance. Your solicitor is right, if you're serious about divorcing you need to initiate this process before you do anything else. I know it's tempting to start looking for properties straight away but don't rush into anything, as it could come back to bite you in the near future if you do it too soon. If you're renting and she's staying with you without your permission it may be worth speaking to your landlord to see if he can help, although if she's been there since 2017 as per your original post, she may now have some tenant's rights even if she's not named on the rental agreement, so evicting her may not be straightforward. Whether she's been contributing to the rent or not may change things too. I'm no expert on this side of things though.

Hi BF I've heard back from the ex's solicitor today. She's advised that this appears to be an error on the court's part that they were not aware of. They've now written to the courts asking for the sealed order to be updated to reflect the amended order under the slip rule. So fingers crossed, looks like this may be sorted. Thanks for your assistance with this. I'll keep you posted on how it progresses.

Hi there. This sounds like an absolute trainwreck in slow motion. As far as I know there's no such thing as an automatic right in law for the mother to be able to live where her children currently reside. Plus I'm not sure why the police would force you to let her back in as surely this would be a civil matter rather than a criminal one, unless they were just "keeping the peace". It'd be interesting to see that letter she produced if you still have it. What's your current living situation? If you're renting and if it's just your name on the rental agreement then she's got no right to be there, however if she's lived there since 2017 she may now have some resident's rights. If you own your current house and you bought it while you were still married she may have a claim to a share of it as a marital asset, even if it's just your own name on the mortgage. I'd say you really need to speak to a divorce solicitor ASAP.

Thanks BF. I've sent them an email as follows; If I haven't heard back from them within a few days I'll follow it up by post, and see where it goes from there.

Thanks BF. The only thing I can think of is that they may claim that they never received the signed amended order. I communicated my intention to return it via email and then sent the signed paper copy the next day. However it was about 3 months ago and I can't remember if I sent it via recorded delivery or not. If they claim to have not received it I'm not sure what more I can do.

Hi Bankfodder Yes, your take on the events is pretty much spot-on. The court, in their financial order decided for whatever reason that I should be eligible for the costs, the breakdown of this was £550 court fees, plus my ex-wife's solicitors fees of £250 plus VAT, making £850 total. I communicated my intention to her solicitors to appeal to the court regarding the costs as I felt this was unfair. They responded with a revised offer of a 50/50 split as they were keen to put this thing to bed quickly, and my appeal could potentially have drawn it out for several more months. I don't have access to a scanner until Monday so can't scan in the whole agreement at the moment but the relevant part of their letter is reproduced verbatim below; The above is on a letter headed "WITHOUT PREJUDICE". I replied initially via email to confirm my acceptance of their offer, and the signed documents were returned in the post to the solicitors the following day. However when the sealed financial order was received back from the court about a month later, the costs were still included. My ex-wife has then deducted this from the total paid to me. I have tried contacting the solicitors several times since then to clarify whether they are still intending to honour this agreement but I have so far had no response. I'm not sure now whether I need to pursue my ex for the remainder of this money, or the solicitors.

Hi all It's been a long time since I've used this site, I used to be a frequent poster, mainly in the parking subforums. I'll try and keep this as concise as possible, although it may get a bit confusing, so apologies in advance. Also I hope this is the right subforum for such a matter, but I couldn't see anything more specific for divorces/family law. So here goes.. My now ex-wife and I divorced last year, after our relationship broke down due to irreconcilable differences. She initiated the divorce proceedings so was the petitioner, I was the respondent. We informally agreed early on that she would stay at the family home (I moved out), and buy me out of my share of the house and contents. We went to family mediation and hashed out an agreed settlement figure that we were mostly happy with. A lump sum for the house and contents, plus she would give me the money to pay off several loans for goods on hire purchase that remained in the house, as the debts were solely in my name at the time. I did not contest the divorce on any point, except she wanted me to pay the court costs of the divorce (£850) since she blamed me for the breakdown of the marriage. I objected to this on the financial paperwork, stating that I was not the petitioner, plus the cause of the breakdown of the marriage were not due to adultery or domestic abuse. The financial court ruled against me, meaning the £850 would be deducted from the final settlement figure. I was looking to appeal against this decision which would have delayed the proceedings by several months, however in the meantime I was able to make an agreement with her solicitors to split the court costs 50:50, so we would in fact be paying £425 each. They sent this offer in a letter headed "Without Prejudice", stating that if I was agreeable, they would submit an amended financial order to the courts with the amounts amended so I would only be paying £425 instead of £850 towards the costs. I responded to this in writing and signed the form they sent me, initialling where the amount was changed on the financial order. This is where it gets a bit tricky. They then resubmitted the ORIGINAL financial order to the family with the £850 deduction still on it and promptly stopped responding to my calls and emails. My ex wife has now paid the settlement figure, with the £850 deducted rather than the agreed upon £425. It's a bit of an odd situation as my ex paid me basically exactly what it says on the court form, even though I made a different agreement with her solicitors. I feel they've been dishonest in this case, whether intentionally or not but it's still left me over £400 out of pocket. My question basically is this? Do I have any legal recourse options available to me against the solicitor? Does the fact that they headed the offer letter "Without Prejudice" mean that they can basically go back against their word and not honour an agreement that was made in good faith? I've been doing my own research into this subject and it's a bit of a minefield, but I'm wondering whether I've got grounds for a complaint to the Solicitors Regulatory Authority, or possibly even pursuing them via the Small Claims Court? Any thoughts? If you need any more information or need me to clarify any particular points, please let me know. Thanks in advance CD

Just out of curiosity how did you have a conversation with a police officer/civilian police staff member on the phone if you are deaf?

Interacting with LPS now in any way, shape or form will get you nowhere. If it ever did proceed to court you can bet they'd bring it up to try to discredit you in front of a judge. It'd probably work too, as that kind of behaviour is never excusable. They may even report you to the police just to cause you more hassle. Do not speak to them in any way, either in person or by telephone. Keep all communications to writing.

Letter here, apologies for the quality but I don't have access to a document scanner at the moment.

I too have had one of these letters from Sky within the last week. I haven't been downloading anything but there's 4 other people in the house who could potentially have done so. It doesn't really give much info regarding, other than saying that "we've had to give them your details due to a court order they've taken out. Expect them to write to you soon." I'm expecting a threat-o-gram through the post in the next few weeks, probably demanding several hundred pounds. The laughable thing would be that you most likely could buy the DVD of whatever it is that they're claiming I ripped off for about a tenner, so even if I did rip them off, this is the most they possibly could have lost. And that'd be assuming it was them selling the film in the first place. I'll try to get a scan of the letter up in the next day or two.

UKCPS are absolutely toothless. I received the very same "14 day notice before the matter is issued into court" letter about 2 months ago now, and despite me writing back saying "fine, I'll see you there, bring cake", I've heard precisely jack-all since. You've replied as much as can be reasonably expected, so ignore them from this point on. Only respond to them if actual stamped court papers arrive, but frankly you've more chance of finding Willy Wonka's Golden Ticket on your doormat in the morning.

You'll in all likelihood get the "10 day notice before the matter is issued into court" letter. They will have probably increased the amount owing to £125 as well with no explanation or breakdown of what this is for. I had this letter on 29th July and I'm still waiting for my court papers. Utter shower of unwiped arses they are.

Hi, I have had several run ins recently with UKCPS and the IAS. I would submit the appeal to IAS anyway, even though there is zero chance of the appeal succeeding. That way though you have covered yourself by liasing with them as much as can be reasonably expected. UKCPS almost certainly won't take it to court unless they think they have an easy win. I've been taunting them to take me to court but they haven't, yet.... IAS simply don't allow appeals. The GPEOL argument won't work as they will simply say that in their opinion it doesn't need to represent a genuine loss since the charge is not for a breach of contract. They claim that the charge is a pre-agreed sum for not abiding by their rules and that your car being there is indicative of your consent to pay the charge. They recently tried to claim £100 for an hour's parking after my grandfather's disabled badge slid off the dashboard. I wouldn't have been at all surprised if their trained chimp rocked the car to get it to fall off - stranger things have happened. In the appeal they stated that "any driver who parks in a disabled space without a blue badge has entered into an agreement to pay this charge". My response was that you would have to be certifiably mental or filthy rich to agree to pay £100 for an hour's parking. For comparison a space in the most expensive car park in Britain was recently sold for £480,000 in an underground car park in Kensington. By the IPCs maths, parking at the slightly less prestigious Red Dragon Centre in Cardiff will set you back a whopping £873,600 annually at £100p/h. The most laughable thing is that the "Independent" Appeals Service is owned and operated by the IPC, the very same trade organisation that UKCPS pay to be a member of. How they can possibly claim to be independent based on that is completely beyond me. When you break it down like this, it really does become clear what an absolute shower of unprincipled cowboys they really are.

Exactly as you suspect. POFA does not apply North of the border, so they cannot chase the keeper. You can safely ignore them in this case.