Honest John - Telegraph paper

Sir_Roger_deLodger

Jeff_Bridges_hair wrote: »

ive emailed him back with a link to this thread to see if he will come and try and justify what he said.

What's his email address? Can't find it on the Telegraph site.
I'd like a word with him.

daveyjp

Join his forum - he does read it and post occasionally.

http://www.honestjohn.co.uk/forum/threads.htm?pg=0&f=2

There used to be a sticky about PPC tickets with excellent advice from a member (i.e. ignore), but it seems to have gone.

Jeff_Bridges_hair

Well i got this in reply where he seems to contradict himself a little

I stick with my advice.

It has worked before on scores of occasions.

What you are forgetting is that the parking enforcement agency could set a
hearing date, say it has informed you and not inform you.

Alternatively, set a hearing date so inconvenient you could not attend.

Simply making reasonable restitution stops all that because then the
parking enforcers know they do not have a leg to stand on.

HJ

bromsgrovebarry

HJ
Why do you just say you got it wrong? Or is that too honest for you?

taffy056

Honest_John_in_the_e-mail wrote: »

What you are forgetting is that the parking enforcement agency could set a
hearing date, say it has informed you and not inform you.

Complete rubbish, they don't inform you of a hearing, the court does ! Basically if he advised what he quoted scores of times, he is doing a complete disservice to the people reading his articles and advice.

Also a legal expert who specialises in traffic law has already given his opinion, and that is to ignore the tickets and the threatograms, now John is saying basically that he knows better than this expert.

John if you are reading this, you are wrong, we have literally thousands of cases on various forums that have followed the advice, you have scores that you have given the wrong advice, sorry but you need to revise what you are saying!

Madmel

I don't read the Telegraph but my dad does and he has told me about HJ's answer to PCNs. From what dad says, HJ has been *advising* to pay a very small amount to the scammers for some months now.

Of course my father believed everything he said until I pointed him in the direction of this forum. Even now he thinks it's better to pay a bit.... believe me, I am trying to get him to see sense!

rev_henry

I'm way ahead of you guys. Saw this and emailed him about 5 days ago. I sent him a pretty comprehensive email as well explaining being unable to prove the existence of a contract etc etc. His reply:

Fair enough. I take your point.

But I am offering readers general advice, which a safer way out of their
predicament than your advice, the following of which might cause them
undue stress.

I propose a "reasonable" solution. You propose a fight.

I know which foes down best in court.

HJ

I think he has a fair point though for people who would rather not receive threatograms.

lucylucky

rev_henry wrote: »

I'm way ahead of you guys. Saw this and emailed him about 5 days ago. I sent him a pretty comprehensive email as well explaining being unable to prove the existence of a contract etc etc. His reply:

Fair enough. I take your point.

But I am offering readers general advice, which a safer way out of their
predicament than your advice, the following of which might cause them
undue stress.

I propose a "reasonable" solution. You propose a fight.

I know which foes down best in court.

HJ

I think he has a fair point.

No one on here proposes a fight.

HJ does not propose a reasonable solution.

Why pay money to people when there is no need to? Is that reasonable?

No it is not.

EDIT - it never goes to court so what the hell is he on about.

If this is the standard of his advice then anything else he posts must be viewed with a degree of caution (or ignored)

rev_henry

lucylucky wrote: »

No one on here proposes a fight.

HJ does not propose a reasonable solution.

Why pay money to people when there is no need to? Is that reasonable?

No it is not.

EDIT - it never goes to court so what the hell is he on about.

If this is the standard of his advice then anything else he posts must be viewed with a degree of caution (or ignored)

Yeah that's what I thought as well.

Hadeon

rev_henry wrote: »

I'm way ahead of you guys. Saw this and emailed him about 5 days ago. I sent him a pretty comprehensive email as well explaining being unable to prove the existence of a contract etc etc. His reply:

Fair enough. I take your point.

But I am offering readers general advice, which a safer way out of their
predicament than your advice, the following of which might cause them
undue stress.

I propose a "reasonable" solution. You propose a fight.

I know which foes down best in court.

HJ

I think he has a fair point though for people who would rather not receive threatograms.

How utterly naive is that? Does HJ, & you rev-henry, seriously believe that £10 would 'buy-off' a PPC? I don't think so.
HJ's advice would more than likely cause his readers immense additional stress if followed.

As already touched-on by C-M in post #2, the PPC would then have evidence of the admission of liability thereby stengthening the possibility of a court case, but my guess is that the PPC would exploit this weakness & at the very least vigorously & mercilessly pursue & harass the victim for the remaining amount if not more. Exactly the opposite to the intended consequence eh?.

Have you not read about cases where victims have even paid up in full & still been pursued for alleged non-payment?