Roxburghe letters telling you to ignore internet advice

Pollybluecat

Hi there - have taken the advice of totally ignoring these bullying bandits (I took a chance and unfortunately was ticketed in a cinema car park as it was full at the time, in charge of a very distressed autistic child, but the 100 disabled spaces were totally empty -I wasn't depriving a disabled user, sorry if I have offended anyone!). I am now onto letter #1 and they are quoting:

"We are fully aware of anecdotal information being presented via the internet and on various websites and you may well feel this guidance is worth following. We strongly urge you to seek independent legal advice rather than rely on these opinions, and we would respectively [sic] suggest that you refer to the Civil Procedure Rules part 31*, and more specifically parts 31.16 and 31.17."

Are they attempting to up the ante with their scare tactics (I reckon so) or do these rules (I thought it would be a legal 'Act' to be honest) bear any weight? I hope I have guessed the answer correctly!

Many thanks and kind regards to any respondents:A

trisontana

To put it bluntly, Roxburghe are lying. They forget to mention that "Civil Procedure Rules part 31*, and more specifically parts 31.16 and 31.17." does not apply to the Small Claims Court (where all private parking tickets are heard).

I have complained to the BPA about that letter (which as been seen on here many times) but, surprise, surprise, the BPA reckon there's nothing wrong with it.

BASFORDLAD

trisontana wrote: »

To put it bluntly, Roxburghe are lying. They forget to mention that "Civil Procedure Rules part 31*, and more specifically parts 31.16 and 31.17." does not apply to the Small Claims Court (where all private parking tickets are heard).

I have complained to the BPA about that letter (which as been seen on here many times) but, surprise, surprise, the BPA reckon there's nothing wrong with it.

Well blow me down!
So how do the bpa justify it if those sections don't apply

trisontana

The BPA siad they had raised that point with Poxbourgh and their answer was that they include that phrase for "information purposes only", even though it's completely irrelevant.

AltheHibby

Trisontana,

What's your problem? It IS informative: it informs us that they're muppets!

SodG24

Pollybluecat wrote: »

Hi there - have taken the advice of totally ignoring these bullying bandits (I took a chance and unfortunately was ticketed in a cinema car park as it was full at the time, in charge of a very distressed autistic child, but the 100 disabled spaces were totally empty -I wasn't depriving a disabled user, sorry if I have offended anyone!). I am now onto letter #1 and they are quoting:

"We are fully aware of anecdotal information being presented via the internet and on various websites and you may well feel this guidance is worth following. We strongly urge you to seek independent legal advice rather than rely on these opinions, and we would respectively [sic] suggest that you refer to the Civil Procedure Rules part 31*, and more specifically parts 31.16 and 31.17."

Are they attempting to up the ante with their scare tactics (I reckon so) or do these rules (I thought it would be a legal 'Act' to be honest) bear any weight? I hope I have guessed the answer correctly!

Many thanks and kind regards to any respondents:A

Here's your independent legal advice curiosity of BBC's Watchdog :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R3J-Xl6rSlk

Strange how his advice matches ours don't you think ?

trisontana

AltheHibby wrote: »

Trisontana,

What's your problem? It IS informative: it informs us that they're muppets!

I agree, but some people might believe that rubbish and pay up.

AltheHibby

Trisontana,

Agreed. BTW I recently had the pleasure of telling someone in a Morrisons that they didn't have to pay the ticket on their car. I then followed them out and watched them wave cheerfully to a very confused scammer's lacky. It's fun saving people money. :-)

Stephen_Leak

The Blue Badge scheme doesn’t apply to private car parks. Anyone, who’s disabled under the terms of The Equality Act 2010 can use a disabled parking bay. If they’re also Blue Badge holders, they don't need to display it. The Equality Act doesn't say that able-bodied drivers can't also use disabled parking bays. OK, maybe they shouldn't, but they can. Doing so probably contravenes the terms & conditions for the car park, which usually state that you shouldn't park in a disabled bay without displaying a Blue Badge. This, in itself, contravenes The Equality Act.

I just love their phrase, "We are aware of anecdotal information being presented via the internet and on various websites and ... this guidance is worth following". At least they can get something right.

They omit to mention Part 31.1(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules, which says, “This Part applies to all claims except a claim on the small claims track”. Parking charge cases are heard on the small claims track of the county courts.

bondy_lad

do not worry about these scrotes,of course they are aware of info on internet sites, because we are costing them money,money which they are attemting to SCAM from the likes of you and other unsuspecting motorists,i have tons of loo paper from these clowns,just awaiting the next nov 5th to light bonfire with or use as loo paper ,which ever comes first,anyway regarding that internet info, ime sure somewhere it says IGNORE.there you go jobs a good un then.

Coupon-mad

Pollybluecat wrote: »

Hi there - have taken the advice of totally ignoring these bullying bandits (I took a chance and unfortunately was ticketed in a cinema car park as it was full at the time, in charge of a very distressed autistic child, but the 100 disabled spaces were totally empty -I wasn't depriving a disabled user, sorry if I have offended anyone!). I am now onto letter #1 and they are quoting:

"We are fully aware of anecdotal information being presented via the internet and on various websites and you may well feel this guidance is worth following. We strongly urge you to seek independent legal advice rather than rely on these opinions, and we would respectively [sic] suggest that you refer to the Civil Procedure Rules part 31*, and more specifically parts 31.16 and 31.17."

Are they attempting to up the ante with their scare tactics (I reckon so) or do these rules (I thought it would be a legal 'Act' to be honest) bear any weight? I hope I have guessed the answer correctly!

Many thanks and kind regards to any respondents:A

With an autistic passenger you CAN use a private disabled bay. As others have said, on private land the Blue Badge scheme doesn't apply...

...but the Equality Act 2010 does.

You could actually sue these chancers for this harassment and get money from them. It has been done, not under the Equality Act yet as far as we know but under Harassment laws.

Your case is even stronger but you'd need to tell the PPC and the cinema Manager that you had a disabled passenger (you did!! the law considers autism a protected disability/characteristic). Then if they still persist with the fake PCN then you'd be in a great position to take them to Small Claims for a few hundred quid.

And as I said to someone, yet again, last week on here who got your letter, if you went to the trouble of typing it out here like it's something new, do I assume you didn't copy a piece of that paragraph into Google yet? See how common the letter is on forums...?!