NHS Trust taking 60% share of the revenue generated by PCNs

WageSlave1_2

mikey72 wrote: »

That sounds more realistic, than advising claiming hundreds on the first letter.

£300 was just the maximum claimable for the minimum court fee. Had he wished to spend £35 rather than £25 he could have sued for £500.

Obviously though if you claim thousands rather than hundreds it increases the chances that the defendants will defend rather than just pay.

mikey72

I thought you said this one went to court? So it didn't get there then?

WageSlave1_2

mikey72 wrote: »

I thought you said this one went to court? So it didn't get there then?

I said he sued. I said they didn't try to defend. They just paid up. It would only proceed to a hearing if they disputed liability.

Have a read of the thread. Just google pepipoo articmonkey DRP. I'm sure you'll find it.

trisontana

As with most bullies, if you stand up to them they will back down.

Coupon-mad

mikey72 wrote: »

I thought you said this one went to court? So it didn't get there then?

I had forgotten about the Arctic Monkey case.

The suing of a debt collector (for harassment over a fake PCN) case I was thinking of is for nearer a grand. I have seen the paperwork but am sworn to not repeat the details here. The motorist won.

It does exist and was not this year.

mikey72

Coupon-mad wrote: »

I had forgotten about the Arctic Monkey case.

The suing of a debt collector (for harassment over a fake PCN) case I was thinking of is for nearer a grand. I have seen the paperwork but am sworn to not repeat the details here. The motorist won.

It does exist and was not this year.

A fake PCN?

Coupon-mad

mikey72 wrote: »

A fake PCN?

Yep, a fake PCN like all those issued by any private company.

A Parking Charge Notice. Like all those mentioned on here. A case with a debt collector sending letters, like all the other ones on here.

mikey72

Coupon-mad wrote: »

I had forgotten about the Arctic Monkey case.

The suing of a debt collector (for harassment over a fake PCN) case I was thinking of is for nearer a grand. I have seen the paperwork but am sworn to not repeat the details here. The motorist won.

It does exist and was not this year.

I would guess again, if you're sworn to secrecy, obviously we will have to trust you, but I assume it didn't go to court, and was settled outside? But you reckon £1000 is the amount to claim for, when you've got a couple of letters?

Coupon-mad

The person got lots of letters and the person had already said they were not driving, and proved it I seem to recall. Therefore the debt collector knew they were harassing the wrong person but continued with that course of conduct. Usual threatograms which were obviously going to the wrong person.

Why not nearly a grand, seems reasonable?

As already said, ArcticMonkey decided on £300 just because it was the max amount he could claim for the lowest Court fee - and he wasn't intimidated in the slightest by the letters, he just decided that enough was enough and he would teach them a pepipoo lesson!

mikey72

Coupon-mad wrote: »

The person got lots of letters and the person had already said they were not driving, and proved it I seem to recall. Therefore the debt collector knew they were harassing the wrong person but continued with that course of conduct. Usual threatograms which were obviously going to the wrong person.

Why not nearly a grand, seems reasonable?

As already said, ArcticMonkey decided on £300 just because it was the max amount he could claim for the lowest Court fee - and he wasn't intimidated in the slightest by the letters, he just decided that enough was enough and he would teach them a pepipoo lesson!

So, all varied, very specific sets of circumstances, with no common ground to base a case on. Probably not very wise to jump in and sue for harassment on the second letter then?