PPCs generally don't reply to the "changed address" letters. The important thing is to have proof they've been informed. That's it. I suggest e-mail them at the info@ address, and e-mail them at the dpo@address, and send a PM to TS6014. I've just flicked through their thread and they have one of the directors' home addresses. You could send a snail-mail letter there and get a free Certificate of Postage from the post office. That would be proof of communication of new address x 3.

You're absolutely right to give them the new address, just in case they try to sneak in a backdoor CCJ. Yes, they don't like to be contacted, do they? Presumably because they work out of one of the chuckle brothers' living rooms. The company number of this entry at Companies House corresponds to that on your brother's PCN https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/10212042 I remember he sent the first snotty letter to that address but it was returned undelivered. The idiots have redone their website https://www.completeparkingservices.co.uk/ There's an e-mail address info@completeparkingservices.co.uk There's also an e-mail address on your brother's PCN dpo@completeparkingservices.co.uk Try the e-mail addresses? It would be hilarious to sue them for not replying to a SAR, the problem though would be enforcement as they don't seem to have a real physical address.

Then I'm bemused about why you didn't plead not guilty if you really felt you were not guilty. There is no obligation whatsoever for anyone in court in England & Wales - even in a murder case - to pay for legal representation. You could have done it all yourself. You reckoned you had all the legal arguments. Therefore you should have represented yourself, pleaded not guilty, and been acquitted for overloading even though you overloaded and shown all the idiots on this forum and elsewhere were wrong even though they have been proved right.

As I'm away for three nights from early Friday morning just to finish off the summer, I'll bring forward some ideas, now that the SAR case is up & running. IDEA 1 Re NB's suggestion above, offer to discontinue your case if they will discontinue theirs. I don't think, realistically, you could humiliate them into paying your court costs too. Just you both drop the cases. You could emphasise that (a) they breached their statutory duty, the dates are clear, they have no defence, and (b) you have from PE themselves, in writing, that the landowner told them to drop their case. If they accepted, you would be down on the deal by £35. Is this something that would be acceptable to you? IDEA 2 You pursue the SAR claim all the way, as really they have no defence. With their £200 in your pocket, your mum could give in, pay £185, and still be £15 up on the deal. Again, would this be a positive result In your opinion? IDEA 3 Your mum fights them to the bitter end on both fronts. As scribbled before, your case is highly atypical with your mum's involvement and your imminent move abroad, and only the two of you can decide what's best for you both and what she is prepared to do.

And have you got any pix from the fleecers' site?

There is no reason for the WS to be massively long. The case is clear cut. They say you are lying about the cambelt (an appalling choice of words which will seriously unimpress the judge). You have evidence that the cambelt was knackered. That's what you need to emphasise. Beef up the bits you can - Change " The Defendant's Defence" title to "Conclusion". Surely you have receipts at least for the RAC and the independent mechanic?

OK, let's look at the latest version. I haven't followed this thread as closely as some of the other regulars, so check any ideas for accuracy. IIRC you won by default but then Hunt's managed to get judgement set aside. If you possibly can, wait until Bankfodder or Andyorch have had the chance to look in before sending it off. A lot of it is repetition or irrelevant. A new judge won't give a toss as to why the default judgment was set aside. The judge will only be interested if your case is better than Hunt's. The first part from 1 to 8. In (2 c) I would quote the part of the Act you are relying upon. In (3), if you have any written evidence from the RAC or the independent mechanic, it needs to be included as an exhibit. The exhibits have to be given numbers and referred to in your WS, e.g. " An independent mechanic was called to assess the car and they confirmed the fault after examination (Exhibit 2)". In (5) again attach an exhibit. Make the point that if there really was no problem with the cambelt, then why change it? (6) & (7) are completely irrelevant to this new hearing. The second part from 4 to 14. This whole lot is either repetition (4) or completely irrelevant to the new hearing (5-14). The matter of the set aside has already been adjudicated upon. A new judge won't give a monkey's. The third part from 15 to 19. (15) & (16) again irrelevant. The rest superb.

I haven't got the detailed legal knowledge of Bankfodder or Andyorch, so I'm not sure exactly how "bad" it would be, but immediately a red flag shot up. A claimant going into court with a Witness Statement not actually written by the claimant is a gift to the other side. They're bound to cast doubt on its accuracy, saying a person not involved in the dispute has written the thing. It's better and easier not to give them this gift. Plus, you know he has to be in court, right? There are ways of accompanying someone to court, but he has to be there and to be prepared to answer questions from the judge and from Hunt's. I'll help this evening if the others don't pop in.

That's not bad at all. There's a bit of repetition and a few bits that aren't relevant, but these can be seen to. But an immediate question. Why are you complicating things with "I , xxxxxx of xxxxxx, have been given the authority to act on behalf of my son xxxxxx who is the Claimant in this claim"? Why doesn't your son simply put his name on the WS and sign it?

Wait till the very last minute. It would be good if possible to read the fleecers' WS before you send yours in, so you can alter yours to rubbish their case. And even if the charlatans' one doesn't arrive by Monday - that has its positive angles too. E-mailing to the court on Monday, and sending 1st class post to the fleecers the same day, is fine.

@dx100uk @Nicky Boy @lookinforinfo I've tried various things and I just think the council are blocking non-UK addresses from searching, all of a sudden, which is strange. The important thing is that the OP can see the planning permission objections and include some of the ones about Internet connections in their WS, should they wish to.

When exactly is the deadline?

What idiots. Go get the pix when you can.

Standard bilge from them, except ... ... they've admitted there is no planning permission. They don't normally do this. It's nonsense that planning permission is "not required" . You can use this against them later. The imbeciles also reckon you will get a CCJ by default if you don't pay. Eh? There is the alternative that you defend the case. Don't forget to do so in early September.

Very good move to contact the retail park owners. However, you're right that you should have done it while this was a simple PCN, now that there is a claim form you can be sure the fleecers will fight like hell to not cancel, because the poor dears have shelved out the enormous sum of £35 to start the claim. Have a look at the last couple of pages of Reapstar's thread at Goodmayes Hospital. Good move though.

No need to do anything. Fellow Site Team member Nicky Boy has sorted the problem out.

You've left the fleecers' PCN number on the claim form - you might want to redact that. That's not the original PCN, it's a reminder letter. Hopefully the CPR will produce it. Make a note to come back here in a fortnight, and if the CPR hasn't come up trumps we can sort a SAR out.

Thank you. The important things now are (a) to send a CPR to the fleecers' solicitors, (b) upload here the original PCN from the charlatans, and (c) send the court their DQ - you still have quite a bit of time to do this by.

Excellent. So that's proof that outlets were open. No way is 45 minutes or whatever limit they've made up a reasonable time to have a meal in a restaurant. The very best thing you can do, if possible, is to go back and take photos of the signs. Good idea. Please fill in the sticky. It's perfectly possible the fleecers haven't respected the timescales for keeper liability.

So confirmed, no DQ has been sent by the court. PE are trying one of their slimy, "frightening" tactics. Ignore the rubbish they've sent. Wait for the real DQ from the court.

Is it possible, with it being the evening, that the idiots have a no-parking period after a certain time of day? Mind you, presumably the fast-food outlets were still open. Which shops or restaurants did you visit?

Can the rest of you manage to open Peter Parker's link on page 4, post 81 (or thereabouts)? I can't, with two different browsers. LFI kindly P'Md me the link, but that doesn't work either.

The government Code of Practice is being challenged on (a) the amount the fleecers can charge, and (b) if they can add on debt collecting fees. I think the rest isn't being challenged so arguably that paragraph can stay in. If you just cut out "and it’s so long ago I’ve forgotten who it was" the rest seems fine. It doesn't have to be legally perfect anyway, the point is to show them that you're a pain in the backside who isn't frightened of them and who would just be trouble in court - so best to forget about you and concentrate on mugs who wet themselves and cough up.

The forum doesn't allow swearing, so normally we wouldn't swear at them. Personally I don't see why you shouldn't swear at them, they are utter con merchants. Just one thing. Did the Letter of Claim come directly from them or from some bottom-of-the-barrel solicitors like DCBL, Gladstones or BW Legal?

Discussion a bit later than Wednesday then!