Dodgy Lawyers

trisontana

I know this isn't to do with parking tickets, but the SRA have just found against two lawyers who sent out 'intimidating letters' to thousands of people over alleged copyright infringements. These two points:-

the two men were found to have used their position as solicitors to take or attempt to take an unfair advantage of other persons

and

their actions were likely to diminish the trust placed in them and the legal profession by the public

could equally apply to the actions of lawyers employed by PPCs. Lets hope the SRA apply the same criteria when investigating the likes of Mr Sobell.

bromsgrovebarry

I would hope so, there should be enough rope to hang Sobell on what he has done over the years. It may also bring into question the practice of law firms selling 'letters before action' for a fiver a pop to debt hounds who want to put the frighteners on their victims.

RENEGADE_2

Sobell is probably rich and his estate should be put on the auction with money returning to those from whom he stole it. He should then spend the rest of his days sowing mailbags.

trisontana

Here is another article on the same subject. More points that could equally apply to the PPC "industry":-

The letters demanded compensation and costs and warned that the recipients faced further action and increased costs if the matter was not settled as a matter of urgency.

Some of those affected were vulnerable members of the public. There was significant distress.


The SDT found, in effect, that Miller and Gore became too concerned about making the scheme profitable for themselves and their firm.

Their judgment became distorted and they pursued the scheme regardless of the impact on the people receiving the letters and even of their own clients

RENEGADE_2

Whilst on the subject, has everybody seen the clip on Watchdog from April 2011?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/watchdog/2011/04/dvla_driving.html

Watch that and I swear to you this is BBC presenting slanted information yet again. If I didn't know better, all this nonsense tells me is that PPCs are unfair and unsympathetic. It does NOT give anybody the slightest indication that they are ILLEGAL, that the victimised person neither has to pay NOR respond. As a matter of fact, it may be contrived in good faith to expose the cruel nature of these companies but that just adds to people's ignorance that the venture is lawful when it isn't. What is worse, the BPA is presented as a regulatory body with powers and possibly something connected to the government. The Luton airport stopping example plus the young man parked on his own spot along with the photographic examples without times and dates are ALL used as examples where the individual had his appeal declined. What is wrong with telling the public that they can refuse further and have the matter dealt with by court? And that it never goes that far because the demand is illegal in the first place? Why not mention Contract Law? Why not expose debt collectors for what they are? Why not highlight that the PPCs are rogues and that declining appeals is a part of the uniform as these are money-grabbing swines whose "appeal declined" letters are all templates as the concept of perusal is foreign to their nature? And why not reveal the fact that the keeper may not be the driver and has no obligation to explain this to the PPC?

What a waste of a report. That just helped the PPCs.