UKCPS ticket. URGENT help needed. Threatened with court.

Stephen_Leak

It's a grey area. The letters they send are very carefully worded.

People are now sueing for harassment. But the PPCs are now settling out of court.

Threatening to sue the car park owner (they are "jointly and severally liable" for the actions of their agent) is the important part. It should make them realise the potential cost of allowing a PPC to "infest" their car park. Hopefully, they cancel their contract with the PPC.

PPCs have one problem with taking anyone to court. Their demands are an unlawful contract penalty. One of the more rabid PPCs took someone to court recently and got left with their costs of £4000. They haven't done it again.

flubdub

So the advice is to keep ignoring?

Kite2010

flubdub wrote: »

So the advice is to keep ignoring?

Unless you do receive genuine court-papers then ignore.

Stephen_Leak

flubdub wrote: »

So the advice is to keep ignoring?

You did ask.

give_them_FA

flubdub wrote: »

So the advice is to keep ignoring?

OK. UKCPS have indeed issued a handful of claims that we know about. Three have been won by default, because the person moved and didn't get the paperwork. We are in the process of applying to have the default judgments set aside. That is a high proportion and I believe he deliberately targets people that he knows may not get the paperwork so that he can claim it as a "victory".

Others have been defended and are proceeding. We know of two that have gone to a trial and UKCPS have had their claim kicked out in both.

He has made a habit of suing the registered keeper without providing any evidence that they are the driver. This will work if it goes by default, but he won't succeed with that if it's defended, and in fact one of his claims was kicked out for that reason. There are others in the pipeline which I expect him to lose likewise.

However the last loss was the most damaging to him. Although the Defendant admitted the facts he alleged, the Judge dismissed his claim on the grounds that there was no loss to anyone and what he was claiminig was an unlawful penalty. That would be fatal to ALL of his claims.

It's unclear whether he's going to carry on with the claims which have been defended. Bear in mind he has to pay another fee for a hearing, travel the length and breadth of the country, and has had no successes that we know of.

So your guess is as good as mine.

What remains true is that it is EXTREMELY unlikely that any individual claim would be taken to court; it is even less likely that he would win; as it's quite easy to defend his rubbish.

So my advice is, carry on ignoring. I think he has shot his bolt and he knows it. He needs to go back to threats rather than actual claims.

flubdub

Thanks for the above advice. I think I'm a little more worried as one of the cases that went to court recently, was actually from the same car park where I got my ticket, so it's a little too close for comfort, if you get me.

ppc_guy

Note they have spelt Majesty's wrong ? Surely that amounts to some kind of treason or other crime against the crown ?

Stephen_Leak

ppc_guy wrote: »

Note they have spelt Majesty's wrong ? Surely that amounts to some kind of treason or other crime against the crown ?

I wish.

And don't call me Shirley.

MacBudman

jizzler wrote: »

Why do you think the zig-zag white lines are on the road for decoration ?

What road ?? This is a private parking area that means nothing more than what may or may not be agreed to by the driver of the vehicle and without an agreement..., there is nothing to agree to

If you see zig-zag lines in a private parking area, this link could be good advice :rotfl: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1uOEMJSPE0I

Stephen_Leak

White lines, yellow lines, etc. on a private road or car park have no legal authority.

OK, it's a good idea to treat them as if they do, but there is nothing the car park owner or their agent, can legally do if you don't.

I sympathise with the CPOs, but that's just how it is. Employing a PPC isn't the answer.