Help! Court Claim from PCN-UK

AlphaRomeo_2

James_N wrote: »

.. that if this is genuine - and at an initial reading this appears to be so - that PCN-Uk has crawled so far out of its hole and exposed itself so completely. Which made me wonder if we were being baited - or we were seeing one good example of the type of things that maybe goes unreported and unchallenged ....

Dear James, I can understand your skepticism, for even though I have been a member of MSE for long, I have no post to my credit in all those years. I can assure you that this is not one of those underhand tactics that the PPCs might try to pull on the helpful members of the forum. I did PM my claim number to Bargepole (but not the password- as I was worried a bit, probably unnecessarily). If you still have doubts about my authenticity, please check the grammar and spelling of my posts- that should lay your doubts to rest !

AlphaRomeo_2

I have posted my issue on the pepipoo website as well!
http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=47297
Given the speed of the responses and the magnitude of help :T that I have received in the past few hours, I doubt if I do have to ask the court for the 28 day extension to submit my defence!

trisontana

philatio wrote: »

I recommend, as well as forming your defence, you do the following:

1. Inform the Police about the visits to your home demanding money. They don't have a court order so they cannot demand money in this way. It's harassment.
2. Inform Trading Standards that you're being harrassed for money by a rogue parking company.
3. (Most important) Write to Gala Bingo's head office informing them that you are being harassed for money by PCN on their behalf. Not only will this let Gala know what these guys are like.. but Gala have the power as landowners to quash your ticket if they see fit. ie: They can instruct PCN to make this go away.

That sign is very useful. It states that PCN will immobilise vehicles.
They do not hold a valid SIA licence for immobilising vehicles. It would be a criminal offence for them to do so. Thus the sign is invalid.

And to back that up, let us not forget this statement which was on their original website:-

The action we generally take to recover any balance is usually as below

Step 1, we send a reminder letter then a final reminder notice.

Step 2, Visit the address of the registered keeper to hand them any further notices, collect the balance and to look for goods to seize.

Step 3, if payment isn’t received then we would normally seize the vehicle or seize the keeper’s personal property.

Step 4, If the keeper has no real value in property then we will issue them with a court summons to attend court. There can be many outcomes from this step.

peter_the_piper

How much of the above would be classed as threatening behaviour?

trisontana

AlphaRomeo wrote: »

Here is the court claim letter: (I have deleted this pic now- if you would PM me, I am more than happy to send it across to you)

I have also deleted the link to that document I had posted on my Pepipoo thread.

ozvaldinho

I'm sure someone on here will be much better advised on this matter than me, but am I correct in understanding that costs can be awarded against the claimant where the court claim is shown to be false or vexatious? Could you not turn the tables on PCN and start chasing them for money once their claim has been laughed out of court?

philatio

If they talk about seizing the vehicle.. before any court action.. then that could be taken as conspiracy to the theft of a motor vehicle.

philatio

ozvaldinho wrote: »

I'm sure someone on here will be much better advised on this matter than me, but am I correct in understanding that costs can be awarded against the claimant where the court claim is shown to be false or vexatious? Could you not turn the tables on PCN and start chasing them for money once their claim has been laughed out of court?

If it actually gets to court then yes.. if you win, you can claim for the expenses that the case has caused you.

Legal advice, time off work, travel, cheese sarnies, stress.. the whole caboodle.

ozvaldinho

philatio wrote: »

If they talk about seizing the vehicle.. before any court action.. then that could be taken as conspiracy to the theft of a motor vehicle.

Or possibly conspiracy to Blackmail?

biscuitdunker

Does anyone have a cache of the original webpage?