Lps

give_them_FA

Good man. Keep us advised as to how it goes. Write on the back of the cheque to "in full and final... etc. " and get a proof of posting from the post office. This company is a shower.

Oopsadaisy

give_them_FA wrote: »

Write on the back of the cheque to "in full and final... etc. "

Er...I think you're wrong here.

It's a common-ish misconception that writing full and final on a cheque means that if they cash it they have accepted you f&f offer. Sadly this is incorrect; the claimant can bank the chq and then pursue for the balance.

Kaydee_3

You are quite correct oopsadaisy,I have already checked this point ,but , on a matter of principle if I send them exactly the amount of their actual loss,then there is no debt they can chase.It also gives me the moral high ground as has been said,so for the sake of £10 it's leaves no loose end at my end,but I appreciate you taking the time to point this out

ManxRed

I would actually put the phrase in a covering letter, and keep a copy of the letter.

Its really just something they won't want you to show a judge should they be stupid enough to try a court claim.

give_them_FA

Oopsadaisy wrote: »

Er...I think you're wrong here.

It's a common-ish misconception that writing full and final on a cheque means that if they cash it they have accepted you f&f offer. Sadly this is incorrect; the claimant can bank the chq and then pursue for the balance.

Yes, you are of course correct; but, I do not think they are likely to know that; and, where a "balance" is an unenforceable penalty, they will be left looking even more stupid than they actually are.

Stephen_Leak

Oopsadaisy wrote: »

Er...I think you're wrong here.

It's a common-ish misconception that writing full and final on a cheque means that if they cash it they have accepted you f&f offer. Sadly this is incorrect; the claimant can bank the chq and then pursue for the balance.

Again, true. But very few people know this. It came as a surprise to me. However, if a judge saw anyone doing that, they would take a very dim view of it. As I said, I've yet to hear of even a PPC doing this. They usually just keep on chasing.

There is a certain irony in using legal "kidology" on a PPC.

give_them_FA

I had a good look at the much vaunted case of Parking Eye v Smith, where the judge awarded P.E. the £15 which Smith had failed to pay and which was the pretext for their claim. With that award, came costs in the region of £90 for Court fees and issue costs.

Had he paid the £15 pay and display fees then PE's claim would have failed entirely and it would have cost him nothing, as they failed in regard to their penalty charges.

Hence, we learn from that case. Where the matter stems from an alleged failure to pay a P & D charge, and the charge hasn't been paid, I advise to proffer that charge. We know it probably won't be accepted; however it lays the foundation for rebutting a claim in court if one is brought.

This will be especially important if RK liability is brought in.

Stephen_Leak

For the record ...

Parking Eye vs. Smith, Manchester, 2011, 1XJ81016.

The judge told the PPC that their demands were unreasonable, were therefore an unlawful contractual penalty and found in favour of the driver. As it was unpaid, he awarded the PPC the unpaid parking charge of £15.00. He also awarded them just £95.00 of their claimed costs of £4,457.20.

The defendant offering the £15.00 and the plaintiff still continuing to chase for the full amount of, IIRC £260.00, would've made it difficult (although not impossible) for the judge to have awarded it.

give_them_FA

Whether the judge was right or wrong depends upon the way the claim was worded, which I think hasn't been published. But had Smithie paid the £15 -which he admitted he owed -before the proceedings were issued, then P.E.'s claim would have failed completely and he would not have had to pay the £95 court costs.

Hence why I am pushing this policy. I think that it is in any case the policy of the Board that LEGITIMATE and FAIR charges should not be evaded.

AlexisV

A bit of a strange one. On paper, I don't see how the costs were reasonable. An offer to pay the sum of £15 was made umpteen times, and the Claimant never sent an invoice for this amount.

On the other hand, Parking Eye spent a considerable sum on sending 4 solicitors (presumably a bit of a jollie for junior members of Pannone).

The end result was that the judge was worn down - I understand she was pretty bored after 2 hours of 4 solicitors waffling at her. The purpose of which was to secure £1000 for each of them.

In the end they got £95 - £25 court fee divided by 4 = £17.50 each.

Ker-ching!