We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum... Read More »
IMPORTANT: Please make sure your posts do not contain any personally identifiable information (both your own and that of others). When uploading images, please take care that you have redacted all personal information including number plates, reference numbers and QR codes (which may reveal vehicle information when scanned).
We're aware that some users are experiencing technical issues which the team are working to resolve. See the Community Noticeboard for more info. Thank you for your patience.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Change to a "threatogram"
Options
Stephen_Leak
Posts: 8,762 Forumite
HO87 and I have just picked up a change to the "Part 31 of The Civil Procedure Rules" letter.
At least one letter from Roxburghe now mentions Section 52 of the County Courts (ie. that’s where you’ll end up, if you don’t pay us) Act.
For the record, Section 52 of The County Courts Act (1984) “relates to impounding or seizure by the court of property subject of an action and to obliging a potential party to proceedings to produce documents.”
At least one letter from Roxburghe now mentions Section 52 of the County Courts (ie. that’s where you’ll end up, if you don’t pay us) Act.
For the record, Section 52 of The County Courts Act (1984) “relates to impounding or seizure by the court of property subject of an action and to obliging a potential party to proceedings to produce documents.”
The acquisition of wealth is no longer the driving force in my life. 
0
Comments
-
Indeed. s. 52 is as relevant to the situation of alleged parking debts as CPR 31.16. Perhaps, the actions of the OFT in continuing to work with Roxburghe has eventually struck home and they've had to switch tack?My very sincere apologies for those hoping to request off-board assistance but I am now so inundated with requests that in order to do justice to those "already in the system" I am no longer accepting PM's and am unlikely to do so for the foreseeable future (August 2016).
For those seeking more detailed advice and guidance regarding small claims cases arising from private parking issues I recommend that you visit the Private Parking forum on PePiPoo.com0 -
Is this some sort of cheaper option than an Norwich Pharmacal Order, whereby the claimant is suggesting thay you'll be forced to cough up who the driver was (though surely only if it's documented)? Other than that, I am baffled how it relates to parking matters at all.0
-
The words "County Court" are a much more effective scare tactic.
And don't forget that a Norwich Pharmacal Order (once described by a PTC employee as "a case involving Norwich council") was the start of the VCS/Ibbotson/HMRC legal train wreck.The acquisition of wealth is no longer the driving force in my life.0 -
We received an unenforceable invoice in May.
Never received any letters from the PPC.
Received first "Unpaid Parking Charge Notice" threatogram from Roxburghe.
Received second threatogram from Roxburghe suggesting we refer to s52 of the County Courts Act.
Received first letter from Graham White Solicitors stating additional costs.
Second letter received from Graham White Solicitors (Final Warning) quoting CR 31.16.
So they have quoted both to us since July.
Just thought you might be interested.:)0 -
Soz - I meant CR 31.160
-
Try again - CPR 31.16.
Seem to be having problems with my Pee0 -
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 350.9K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 453.5K Spending & Discounts
- 243.9K Work, Benefits & Business
- 598.8K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 176.9K Life & Family
- 257.2K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards