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

Coupon-mad

mikey72 wrote: »

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?

I think they were all pretty similar cases, all just fake PCN situations where the debt collector letters were getting irksome. Arctic Monkey's case was just a bit easier as the PPC had been stupid enough to try a Court case themselves and it had been struck out, so obviously some PPC idiot dredging the case back up again with renewed threatogram vigour was then easily worth a harassment claim.

What do you mean, who said to actually sue on the second letter?

If someone wants to sue for harassment then IMHO it is a good idea to put the groundwork in place after the second letter. That would involve writing and saying that their contact is considered harassment and that the recipient is minded to sue for damages.

If a person decides to do this, then it would not be actually suing at that stage, only the start. I would suggest a brief letter warning of proceedings to follow and explaining reasons why, which could be 'was not the driver' or 'was disabled anyway' (depending upon the circs) or even in any case with any circumstances at all, 'private parking companies who do not own or have a propriety interest in the car park cannot seek damages for trespass nor make a contract with a motorist as per VCS -v- HMRC binding decision May 2012'.

mikey72

Coupon-mad wrote: »

What do you mean, who said to actually sue on the second letter

Seems to be a stock response to newbies in threads I've read recently. Latest one here.https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/54167075#Comment_54167075

Coupon-mad

You are reading that as saying that the person should actually sue on the second letter? I don't.

But the 'second letter' is important as harassment is I think, deemed to occur after at least 2 separate incidences. So that's the point where a person could call it harassment and set the wheels in motion for a planned Small Claim for damages.

And whyever not?

Why on earth should PPCs be allowed to send these shocking, frightening threatograms, demanding money with threats of Court, when they have absolutely no basis in law? It is great if people here can fightback - and unlike the PPCs they generally DO have a case that will stand up!

:mad:

mikey72

I think you should too. There must be at least one regular who could start the ball rolling, rather than keep posting for a newbie to try when they ask about PCN's.

esmerobbo

There is one problem with the harassment approach, you would need to contact them!

Our stock advice is to ignore them from the outset, it would be difficult to claim for harassment if you never told them to stop contacting you.

Once they have been told that any debt they believe is owed is denied, then any further contact could be used against them.

WageSlave1_2

esmerobbo wrote: »

There is one problem with the harassment approach, you would need to contact them!

Our stock advice is to ignore them from the outset, it would be difficult to claim for harassment if you never told them to stop contacting you.

Once they have been told that any debt they believe is owed is denied, then any further contact could be used against them.

I agree that it would certainly be easier to mount a harassment claim after the harassers have been told to pi$$ off and leave you alone, particularly where one of the harassers is a debt collection agency. And it shouldn't be too hard to tell them in such a way that they probably won't take a blind bit of notice.

Not sure I would agree that it is an absolute requirement though. The Protection from Harassment Act was originally enacted as a piece of 'anti-stalker' legislation. If some nut-job is stalking you do you have to tell them to cease and desist (and be ignored) before you can bring an action?

The PPCs are aware that they are demanding payment of penalties which can't be recovered through the courts and yet they threaten to sue for them. They now know, post VCS v HMRC, that they cannot in fact enter in to contracts at all with the motorists - and yet they continue to send out invoices and the usual chasers and threats.

You might win a harassment claim without having first warned them off but I would still be inclined to give them some idea that I considered their actions to be harassment and that some sort of action would be taken against them if they persisted.

ManxRed

I think the pre-warning letter would be even more relevant were you to include the Principal in any potential action. They might have little idea of what their agent is actually doing and ought to be afforded the opportunity to call them off.

trisontana

There is a clear case of harassment playing out over on PePiPoo involving our old friends "Legal Parking Enforcers/Judges Demand" (don't laugh!). The RK has told them he wasn't the driver but still they are taking him to court and even sent this email:-

I am emailing you to advise you that we will continue to chase you the Registered keeper until we receive the driver details