Warning - apcoa - must see

taffy056

george-s2 wrote: »

and for -sassy-one- you was wrong!!!you are not doing ANY good to people like me, dont take it personal, but think before you write something...(head is not for dancing, legs are):rotfl:
and something i learned from it as well, please check your MOT status more often, or put reminder on your phone, it is allot of hassle after....

Yes sort of sums it up really, I have said many times that sassy gets it utterly wrong at times, and whilst ignoring ppc's is correct advice, sassy should stick to things he knows, working in an advice centre is a good thing, but giving out inaccurate information there and here does no benefit to anyone!

Stigy

HO87 wrote: »

The only notification that it would be necessary for any one to receive, were they to be dealt with (at court) for an alleged breach of a byelaw, is a Magistrates Court summons. Should a TOC chose to write a letter to someone they intend to prosecute to that effect then that is all it is - a letter. It is not a NIP - Notice of Intended Prosecution as defined. Such a notice has a very specific meaning and effect at law and has nothing whatsoever to do with railway byelaws or whether a TOC is a government agency.

As a letter, such as you seem to suggest, is purporting to be simply informative then it could safely be ignored without fear of consequence - together with every other item of correspondence from the TOC. As any summons would originate from the court, not the TOC, (and is the only document that need be responded to) then the advice stands and is entirely valid.

The difference between a letter that a Train Operating Company sends, to that of a PPC sent letter to a person that's committed an alleged offence, is that the PPC letters seem to only be empty threats, and as such, can be safely ignored with no court action likely. The TOC sent letter sent for an alleged offence, whilst can be ignored if the recipient wishes, court action WILL likely follow if ignored. Yes it's an advise letter, which usually requires the recipient to respond in order to give their version of events etc, but you can often avoid court action if you talk to the TOC.

Therefore, it's one thing to ignore threatening letters from a PPC, but quite another to ignore letters sent from a TOC.

Driver8

Driver8 wrote: »

Ok, You advise caution. But let us have clear and unequivocal proof that a PPC as taken ANYONE to court and WON on their so called contractual agreements, one, JUST ONE, that is all we ask.

Your scam is collapsing around you like a pack of cards and you don't like it one bit, not one bit, that the word is actually getting out about you. I personally make a point of doing it too, every time i go shopping.

If it isn't, explain all the new posters on other sites as well as this looking for reassurance from what are basically bullies, more or less, demanding money with menaces.

Let us have just ONE case a PPC as won without spouting the Thomas or the "Shirley" cases, if you do so, you will have lost........again.

I'm still waiting for an answer.

geordieracer

really sassy? Again your coming across as a power monger again thretening to close this thread at your whim. Just who the !!!! do you think you are?

Driver8

Stigy wrote: »

The difference between a letter that a Train Operating Company sends, to that of a PPC sent letter to a person that's committed an alleged offence, is that the PPC letters seem to only be empty threats, and as such, can be safely ignored with no court action likely. The TOC sent letter sent for an alleged offence, whilst can be ignored if the recipient wishes, court action WILL likely follow if ignored. Yes it's an advise letter, which usually requires the recipient to respond in order to give their version of events etc, but you can often avoid court action if you talk to the TOC.

Therefore, it's one thing to ignore threatening letters from a PPC, but quite another to ignore letters sent from a TOC.

This is for stigy, quite apt really.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2VPs3cF8vOI

Messrs_Arthur_and_Terry

Driver8 wrote: »

I'm still waiting for an answer.

That's not my job, but you can do your own investigation starting here (note, being a newb, I'm not able to post URL links Wx3 - www.) :

Wx3 registery-trust.org.uk


A sample debt recovery web page:

Wx3 debtrecoveryplus.co.uk/ccj/


or maybe paralegal Sassy will post the relevent CCJs.

Driver8

Messrs_Arthur_and_Terry wrote: »

That's not my job, but you can do your own investigation starting here (note, being a newb, I'm not able to post URL links Wx3 - www.) :

Wx3 registery-trust/org.uk


A sample debt recovery web page:

Wx3 debtrecoveryplus.co.uk/ccj/


or maybe paralegal Sassy will post the relevent CCJs.

I said a court case a PPC has used the Contractual Agreements. Not fantasy.

geordieracer

Messrs_Arthur_and_Terry wrote: »

That's not my job, but you can do your own investigation starting here (note, being a newb, I'm not able to post URL links Wx3 - www.) :

Www.registery-trust.org.uk


A sample debt recovery web page:

www.debtrecoveryplus.co.uk/ccj/


or maybe paralegal Sassy will post the relevent CCJs.

These ones?

I fixed the links for you but could not find anything there.. because your so eager to show us maybe give the full link

esmerobbo

http://www.debtrecoveryplus.co.uk/ccj/

I am sure it would be more convincing if they actually produced a transcript of a successful contractual win! It must be difficult not to produce a rolling list of names and numbers!

mcjordi

bloody hell is this thread still going rofl