2 court cases pending (over on CAG)

robredz

MrRedundant wrote: »

It's very reminiscent of bank charges PPC. 2 or 3 years free for all; insistent and compelling legal argument not far off the same kind of reasoning and then its all thrown out anyway.

I know the arguments and see both sides of it but I am not convinced that this will not eventually go a long way in a court and a legal precedent being set those on this board do not like.

I think a lot of those clearly at it who are using the legal loopholes to get out of a fine when they know fine what they where doing will be the eventual downfall of the anti PPC campaigners.

I am trying to decypher this ah yes I see possibly

Since when was an invoice miraculously transformed into a "fine"?

Oh I see you are saying our tame judiciary will side with the ppcs and create law by making the invoices criminal penalties.

And using a legal loophole? to get out of a fine? This is civil law, you cannot have a fine under civil law, just an invoice that relies on the law of contract.

peter_the_piper

MrRedundant wrote: »

It's very reminiscent of bank charges PPC. 2 or 3 years free for all; insistent and compelling legal argument not far off the same kind of reasoning and then its all thrown out anyway.

I know the arguments and see both sides of it but I am not convinced that this will not eventually go a long way in a court and a legal precedent being set those on this board do not like.

I think a lot of those clearly at it who are using the legal loopholes to get out of a fine when they know fine what they where doing will be the eventual downfall of the anti PPC campaigners.

If you could say this in English it would help, either that or some punctuation might help.

anewman

I feel the bank charges argument went the banks way because the banks argument was "well we're a bank, we're essential for the economy, we're pretty screwed as it is and if we have to pay back these charges in the end the Government will pick up the tab which at the end of the day will be paid for by the customer".

bromsgrovebarry

Take a look at the posts made by Mr Redundant, his latest is par for the course.

Messrs_Arthur_and_Terry

Shouldn't the two defendents just ignore any correspondence from PPCs? Afterall there's never been a successful action.

Why "wash" any posted details..surely that's not in the spirit of openess in the crusade against evil doers?

esmerobbo

Messrs_Arthur_and_Terry wrote: »

Shouldn't the two defendents just ignore any correspondence from PPCs? Afterall there's never been a successful action.

Why "wash" any posted details..surely that's not in the spirit of openess in the crusade against evil doers?

The reason the two defendants are facing action is because they didn't ignore. They foolishly fell for the bogus appeals process!

Maybe the un-washing should be done first by the PPC's It is easy to hide behind a PO Box number!

anewman

esmerobbo wrote: »

It is easy to hide behind a PO Box number!

Indeedy, if they are so devoid of evil and above all question of integrity at least give us an address we can go and discuss this politely with them (or maybe burn the place to the ground).

backfoot

MrRedundant wrote: »

It's very reminiscent of bank charges PPC. 2 or 3 years free for all; insistent and compelling legal argument not far off the same kind of reasoning and then its all thrown out anyway.

I know the arguments and see both sides of it but I am not convinced that this will not eventually go a long way in a court and a legal precedent being set those on this board do not like.

I think a lot of those clearly at it who are using the legal loopholes to get out of a fine when they know fine what they where doing will be the eventual downfall of the anti PPC campaigners.

Wading through your confusing post,:eek: I think your parallel with the banks is ludicrous. What resemblance is there, other than they are legal issues?

No one is using legal loopholes. Claims under Contract Law have to pass a number of tests. It is entirely right and proper that the onus is on the PPC's to prove the validity of their claim. Otherwise,I could send you any sort of invoice for anything, call it a fine, penalty, claim or any other label and expect you to pay.

The majority of people don't object to parking control, but they do object to arbitrary disproportionate invoices being imposed without good reason.Where those invoices escalate, just because you are not taken in by the rhetoric, shows the essence of what these people are about.

Why have you been taken in by the PPC's view of this?