Has a PPC ever won in court?

Stonk

There's clear agreement about the way to deal with "parking tickets" from private parking companies. We hear a lot about how they don't win, either by giving up or by losing in Court.

They do occasionally go to Court, though, because reasons are sometimes quoted as to why they lost. Have any ever won in Court?

taffy056

The short answer is yes, but they are mostly default judgements as the person taken to the small claims didn't turn up for a variety of reasons, one notable one lied there, but its widely suspected of being a stooge. Also some people have appealed the judgements and had them over turned.

The vast majority that goes to there though win, but I can point out to you that that the numbers going to court are about 0.0000001 of invoices sent, so you probably have more chance of winning the lotto

Stonk

taffy056 wrote: »

The short answer is yes, but they are mostly default judgements as the person taken to the small claims didn't turn up for a variety of reasons, one notable one lied there, but its widely suspected of being a stooge. Also some people have appealed the judgements and had them over turned.

The vast majority that goes to there though win, but I can point out to you that that the numbers going to court are about 0.0000001 of invoices sent, so you probably have more chance of winning the lotto

The standard advice then, should perhaps be modified slightly: "ignore all communications from the PPC, but in the unlikely event that they start a Small Claims Court case to enforce the alleged debt, do not ignore that (in which case, communicate with the Court, but continue to ignore the PPC)".

The advice to "ignore everything" will tend to make people ignore stuff from the Small Claims Court too.

peter_the_piper

I still think th standard advice should stand, in the extreme event of a ppc trying it on then they will surely come back. The only further advice I would give would be to refer to ALL queries regarding ppc's to do it in the third person. My car did this, the driver did that etc.

taffy056

Stonk wrote: »

The standard advice then, should perhaps be modified slightly: "ignore all communications from the PPC, but in the unlikely event that they start a Small Claims Court case to enforce the alleged debt, do not ignore that (in which case, communicate with the Court, but continue to ignore the PPC)".

The advice to "ignore everything" will tend to make people ignore stuff from the Small Claims Court too.

That is the advice we give on here, ignore everything from the ppc , court papers are not from the ppc so should not be ignored.

Hadeon

taffy056 wrote: »

That is the advice we give on here, ignore everything from the ppc , court papers are not from the ppc so should not be ignored.

Agreed - however, just to add (for clarification), it should be borne in mind that certain PPCs are known to resort to 'sending-out' unsealed/unreferenced court papers themselves in their attempts to further harass/intimidate the recipient - these of course should be ignored along with their other rubbish.

sarahg1969

Stonk wrote: »

The standard advice then, should perhaps be modified slightly: "ignore all communications from the PPC, but in the unlikely event that they start a Small Claims Court case to enforce the alleged debt, do not ignore that (in which case, communicate with the Court, but continue to ignore the PPC)".

That IS the standard advice on here. No one has ever advised that court documents should be ignored.

prowla

Hadeon wrote: »

Agreed - however, just to add (for clarification), it should be borne in mind that certain PPCs are known to resort to 'sending-out' unsealed/unreferenced court papers themselves in their attempts to further harass/intimidate the recipient - these of course should be ignored along with their other rubbish.

Isn't that impersonating a court or something?

dzug1

prowla wrote: »

Isn't that impersonating a court or something?

Not quite - it's saying if you don't pay we'll send these papers off

Hadeon

prowla wrote: »

Isn't that impersonating a court or something?

Sadly not so, as 'dzug1' has posted above.
In additiion, in one of those very rare defended cases before a small claims court not that long ago (Liverpool, I believe), the DJ considered (disgracefully IMO) this to be a legitimate tactic by a PPC.

Fortunately, the same DJ dismissed the PPC claim anyway solely on 'identity' issues, in that there was no evidence presented that, on the balance of probabilities, showed that the RK was the 'driver'

trisontana

CAG are reporting yet another loss by Minster Baywatch. It seems that when the defendant called their bluff and said "see you in court", they just backed down and "failed to provide particulars of claim.". Typical behaviour from a bully.

Linky http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?323239-Minster-Baywatch-Northampton-Claim-Form-for-unpaid-parking-ticket(2-Viewing)-nbsp