Valid Parking, Stockport

AlexisV

Vcp2011 wrote: »

As a PPC we have chosen to post so that motorists can discover that not every piece of advice is as qualified as some would lead you to believe.

Anyone reading this thread for the first time should take note that not a single person has responded with evidence to show that either: a) the aforementioned court case reference number was ficticious.
b) the company decided to "summons itself".

The reason for this lack of response is because it is a genuine County Court Summons issued and paid by a motorist who received a parking charge from us.

We fully intend to post real evidence as a matter of course, in the hope that motorists can make a considered decision from both the tone and content posted on sites such as these.

Once again we stress that County Court action is taken as a last resort. We do not want people to end up with CCJ's or poor credit histories, but if our evidence is strong and a settlement has not been reached then we are more than prepared to issue a summons.

Yawn. Just pick somebody from your 40% of non-payers and post their name and a scan of the court claim in a new thread on here. It's very simple and will only cost you £25.

bargepole

Vcp2011 wrote: »

... The reason for this lack of response is because it is a genuine County Court Summons issued and paid by a motorist who received a parking charge from us. ... We do not want people to end up with CCJ's or poor credit histories, but if our evidence is strong and a settlement has not been reached then we are more than prepared to issue a summons.

Erm ... there is no summons involved for a money claim. The Court will send the particulars of claim to the defendant, and if he elects to defend it, there will be an allocation questionnaire, followed by a hearing date if it goes that far.

Looks like Vcp's grasp of how the law works is quite shaky, lucky for him their ridiculous threats scared this mug into paying up!

HO87

bargepole wrote: »

Erm ... there is no summons involved for a money claim. The Court will send the particulars of claim to the defendant, and if he elects to defend it, there will be an allocation questionnaire, followed by a hearing date if it goes that far.

Looks like Vcp's grasp of how the law works is quite shaky, lucky for him their ridiculous threats scared this mug into paying up!

Stole my thunder. I was about to suggest that so strong was vcp's grasp of procedure (clearly based on sooooooo many cases having passed through their hands, not doubt) that I'd doubt they could reply to p-t-p's post as the word "evidence" was probably beyond them.

bromsgrovebarry

Looks like some more Perky Law graduates. Talking about our favourite troll, I gather after Manchester he has changed his favourite snack of a family sized steak and kidney to a generous slice of humble pie.

Vcp2011

HO87 wrote: »

Stole my thunder. I was about to suggest that so strong was vcp's grasp of procedure (clearly based on sooooooo many cases having passed through their hands, not doubt) that I'd doubt they could reply to p-t-p's post as the word "evidence" was probably beyond them.

BARGEPOLE and H087
Again, the contributors on this forum have missed the point completely. Whether or not the correct terminology has been used is not of importance to those motorists who are about to receive post from the Courts.

Point score all you like over semantics, but the core argument for this thread is that PPCs do not carry out these steps to recover monies. Well, we do.

peter_the_piper

Gosh, I thought you had come back with the requested (mythical) evidence. Oh well, too much to be expected I suppose.

esmerobbo

Vcp2011 wrote: »

BARGEPOLE and H087
Again, the contributors on this forum have missed the point completely. Whether or not the correct terminology has been used is not of importance to those motorists who are about to receive post from the Courts.

Point score all you like over semantics, but the core argument for this thread is that PPCs do not carry out these steps to recover monies. Well, we do.

Yawn!!!

did you miss "Evidence" like this "REAL" case!

NHS Aintree Foundation Trust v Perera
Case no. 1UD12840

£1622.84 costs sought from 25 tickets.

Mostly double yellow line parking incidences.

• Judge agreed that each amount was a penalty not a pre-estimate of damages
• Agreed that the Circuit Judge's findings in Thurlow v OB were persuasive
• Nobody was obstructed, no spaces were taken and a permit was on display
• Dismissed the notion that parking management was the purpose of the private ticketing regime

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/3672741

torontoboy45

peter_the_piper wrote: »

I look forward to seeing all this "evidence".

nearly 2 weeks later and you're still waiting. no point calling by their website - nothing there, either.

if 75% is the real figure, valid would be falling over themselves to post specific, bona fide victories and clear evidence of 'hard man' attitude - if only to frighten victims and impress prospective clients.

but nothing.

impressive site, though. check out the 'regal' crest in the top left-hand corner - not a million miles away from the crest that sits above a judge's head. very official.

click on 'news' and you'll find dark warnings about following website advice - not that valid are rattled or anything....

so if valid can post up clear,indisputable evidence to support the 75% claim we'll be all ears.

AlexisV

Vcp2011 wrote: »

BARGEPOLE and H087
Again, the contributors on this forum have missed the point completely. Whether or not the correct terminology has been used is not of importance to those motorists who are about to receive post from the Courts.

Point score all you like over semantics, but the core argument for this thread is that PPCs do not carry out these steps to recover monies. Well, we do.

Where's this court claim then? Pick somebody, post scan of claim in a new thread.

Hadeon

Vcp2011 wrote: »

Point score all you like over semantics, but the core argument for this thread is that PPCs do not carry out these steps to recover monies. Well, we do.

Really? :eek:

Then how come, I and a dozen or so friends/relatives (not to mention the countless posters on this & other forums) who have 'ignored', are still waiting for the various cowboys in your scamdustry to 'walk the talk'?

Newbies, please don't take this troll seriously & be spooked into 'coughing-up'.