Is there a way I can close it down then? I presume they gave up?

I dont haven anything like that, just the log on the moneyclaim portal: A claim was issued against you on 23/04/2021 Your acknowledgment of service was submitted on 01/05/2021 at 08:52:39 Your acknowledgment of service was received on 04/05/2021 at 01:24:55 Your defence was submitted on 17/05/2021 at 09:27:36 Your defence was received on 17/05/2021 at 12:05:15

Ive heard NOTHING. How long can something be dragged out as its been 180 days since we last spoke on here

No, I dont agree with many points but appreciate the warning - I think excess available credit could hamper me but the research Ive obtained has been mainly Amercian info so I was after any further experiences. I do know of one guy who blogs he has over 22 cards, rotates and makes the companies beg for his business, dump a card and return with new customer perks, I have had some of that too when I joined barclays and american express all of a sudden cards came through the door like junk mail For me, knowing the accounts are active isn't even a question, I do make one purchase on them every now and then to keep them rolling and I never go paperless so i can see for myself everything is good on all accounts. (more paper use is more trees too right?) Im just very good at fine tuning and de-cluttering, so if im struggling to identify why I would be declined for anything I want to know why and how it can be improved and also I want the best apr/perks/cashback, always, which sometimes gets me stung (moving bank accounts for a few hundred quid incentive hurt my file for a while, all ok now despite a certain Money Tips person encouraging penny pinching and volatility.) I enjoyed American express cashback, few perks and made it work for me, purchasing anything things like fuel and calculating, hey thats worth 3p a litre plus shell points, 5p a litre saving on my huge travel costs at the time, no brainer if done wisely Maxing out cards, not my style. Chasing a zero percent zero transfer fee 26 month card however I do see sense in, and Im nearly able to get that with Santander, but i know the accounts have gotta look good. Ill give it some thought, pull the trigger on the cards that dont work for me, when i know i wont need access to any credit (which tbh i have plenty now to choose from) but i am always on the look out for a deal, so currently the Amazon card is appealing as it pays you each time you shop on amazon ,which I do many times a week, that could bring in a nice slice back for the ride then pay it off immediately, the APR is therefor irrelevant if fee free. Cheers

Well that's my choice isnt it? I like credit eing there if we ever need it, car explodes, needs a new turbo, etc. I can afford it so why not. I want to have the best credit and rating for the best deals

I have 4 high APR credit cards, Ill never use them but due to my available credit with each (Around £7k on each) ive been able to get better cards I dont use these cards I have 8 other cards I also rarely use, all have between £2.5k-£10k available - I like them for balance transfers on larger purchases, APR start at 7% upto 25% So, with 8 'good 'cards, 2 I actually ever use, am I limiting myself owning these 4 poor credit high APR cards that I dont use? For example, if i look to get a new card, low APR than I own, then they may look at my file and think I have too much credit available to me (£100k+) and so, i cant have a new card and more credit. One example TSB ,i should have easily got the card, they declined (they since rang me and said I could have it) but initially computer said no. Is that a thing? To have to much available credit? To e, it sounds like a risk factor

OK then, as a final draft! 1. It is denied that the Defendant entered into a contract with the Claimant , or broke any such contract. 2. 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 only contracted 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. 3. It is denied that the Claimant has complied with Schedule 4, Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 to establish keeper liability. 4. No Contract could be formed for any action to be taken for breach of a Contract Frustrated from the start, due to inability to pass consideration as in fee to park due to inability of the App, the sole method of payment offered to process any payment. Therefore NO Actionable Contract can be deemed to exist

1. It is denied that the Claimant entered into a contract with the Defendant, or broke any such contract. 2. 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 only contracted 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. 3. It is denied that the Claimant has complied with Schedule 4, Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 to establish keeper liability. 4. No Contract could be formed for any action to be taken for breach of a Contract Frustrated from the start, due to inability to pass consideration as in fee to park due to inability of the App, the sole method of payment offered to process any payment. Therefore NO Actionable Contract can be deemed to exist 5. The Defendant has added additional amounts to the claim to try to circumvent limits on legal costs in an abuse of court procedure.

1. Two parking tickets were purchased using the only method of payment - a mobile parking app. One for initial payment, then an extension using said app. 2.The alleged "breach" of terms and conditions or contract have been aggravated by the App failing to take payment despite confirming the defendant was fully paid, twice. 3.Following the BPA Code of Practice, a 'You must not use predatory or misleading tactics to lure drivers into incurring parking charges.' This may lead to the member (Claimant) be suspended or expelled immediately from the BPA, investigated and disciplinary process commenced . The Claimant is in breach of this code as the defendant could not fail to be in breach of T&C's whilst being mislead into believing the parking was paid in full 4. Section 34.6 of the BPA COP Suggests inflation of the debt should not exceed £100. The Claimant inflated this to £140. Further breach of membership. 5. Claimant was informed of this App failures during the defendants Appeal, with evidence of other users of the app experiencing the same issues - This appeal was denied. They have failed to make any changes to the system nor show proof of further testing at the time of appeal to act cooperatively as per BPAS terms.

ok sure. Ill have a google for the generic

force of habit.

Feel free to rip my defence to shreds or add what you think 1 . The Defendant was forced to use a defective Mobile phone app to pay for the parking fee as there was no other option 2.The mobile App is confirmed 'defective' by firstly failing to process payment, then confirmed again by reviews of other users on the Google App store stating it does not function and users of the app receive a parking fine. 3. The Defendant believed to pay in full the required sum of £1 per hour and additional sums when the app alerted to extend the stay. 4. The defendant extended the stay within the App and believed to pay additional fees, suggesting the initial fee was taken due to this expiry alert. 5.The mobile App was the only payment method accepted and shows Greyfriars in the App visitation history 6. The Claimant has added disproportionate fees to the £1 per hour rate, firstly inflating without reason to £140 within 14 days, then £182 when this was appealed. 7.The Claimant knows their app is faulty, yet continue to make it the only payment method at Greyfriars carpark 8 No Contract could be formed for any action to be taken for breach of a Contract Frustrated from the start, due to inability to pass consideration as in fee to park due to inability of the App, the sole method of payment offered to process any payment. Therefore NO Actionable Contract can be deemed to exist. 9. The Particulars of Claim is denied in its entirety. It is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief at all. 10.If any outstanding fee is to be considered, it is for the total sum of the time spent at the carpark at a rate of £1 per hour of which the App failed to process. This could be claimed via small claims process.

Thanks, that's all done. Ill get reading other threads for the next steps and Ill get a CPR 31:14 request done. Thanks for your help At this stage, as i haven't had time to read up on other threads i presume AOS is all that's needed at this time or is there a defence i need to make as well now (its suggesting i have 28 days to create a defence) Sorry for my ignorance, ill need to read some threads. thanks

thanks for this is it not worth adding anything to my defence in case a judge looks at it and makes a decision? or anythign to scar eht other party who see my response?

sorry im confused by this bit, the issue date on the form is 23rd April AOS i calculated as 5 days after this date?