CP Plus and appeals

Social_Medium

bazster wrote: »

So you think that threat caused anything other than laughter in the CP Plus office?

I didn't write to the 'CP Plus office', so no idea where you got this from. My threat of action (which in any case would not have been in the small claims court) was through their solicitor. Their actions have ceased.

bazster wrote: »

To be honest you'd have handled this whole thing in a far less clumsy way if you'd come here for advice first, legally qualified or no.

Thank you for your opinion. I've written one letter of appeal on the date the 'PCN' was issued and one letter to the solicitor on the date the threat of court action was received. The action has stopped. In what was is that 'clumsy'?

Social_Medium

andy13 wrote: »

Yawn.........

Thank you for your opinion

Social_Medium

bazster wrote: »

Lucky for you it's not going to court because if you'd tried to claim costs for "leading Counsel" in the Small Claims Track you'd have got a nasty (and expensive) surprise.

I doubt I would have pursued my action through the small claims track.

bazster

Social_Medium wrote: »

I didn't write to the 'CP Plus office', so no idea where you got this from. My threat of action (which in any case would not have been in the small claims court) was through their solicitor. Their actions have ceased.

Thank you for your opinion. I've written one letter of appeal on the date the 'PCN' was issued and one letter to the solicitor on the date the threat of court action was received. The action has stopped. In what was is that 'clumsy'?

Yeah, whatever. I've tried to be polite but now I'll be honest: in my opinion you are an egotistical pedant and far from being "helpful" your account of your experiences could actually be quite misleading to some of the people who come here for help.

Social_Medium

bazster wrote: »

Yeah, whatever. I've tried to be polite but now I'll be honest: in my opinion you are an egotistical pedant and far from being "helpful" your account of your experiences could actually be quite misleading to some of the people who come here for help.

Yes, sadly pedantry is a part of my profession, though I don't think I am egotistical. I was interested that you thought I had been clumsy and wanted to understand in what way you perceived that to be so.

dggar

Social_Medium wrote: »

I doubt I would have pursued my action through the small claims track.

What track would you have used?

Social_Medium

dggar wrote: »

What track would you have used?

My thinking wasn't that advanced, but I've seen similar matters pursued successfully through both County and the High Court using the Protection from Harassment Act (1997) in the matter of unjustified threats of legal proceedings.

HO87

@OP - I'm still at a loss to understand how SWT are in breach of byelaw 14 - that is what you stated. If they misrepresent it on their notices then that does not constitute a breach of it but merely ensures that any action they take is doomed to failure.

At this stage the most useful piece of information you could offer is to name the solicitors concerned. I am aware of one other firm that CP Plus have used in the past - based in Southampton. Frankly I would be surprised if the SRA were prepared to initiate disciplinary proceedings as you suggest given their comparative lack of action in respect of others who use identically worded letters on a far more frequent basis. Time will tell.

Please don't take the cynical questioning too personally. We are regular assailed by those claiming to have legal qualifications but are in fact PPC goons engaging in straightforward wind-ups.

Social_Medium

HO87 wrote: »

@OP - I'm still at a loss to understand how SWT are in breach of byelaw 14 - that is what you stated. If they misrepresent it on their notices then that does not constitute a breach of it but merely ensures that any action they take is doomed to failure.

It is the action they take that is the breach. I guess we just disagree, as it is unlikely to be tested I will probably never know. Such is the nature of argument (in the legal sense).

HO87 wrote: »

At this stage the most useful piece of information you could offer is to name the solicitors concerned. I am aware of one other firm that CP Plus have used in the past - based in Southampton. Frankly I would be surprised if the SRA were prepared to initiate disciplinary proceedings as you suggest given their comparative lack of action in respect of others who use identically worded letters on a far more frequent basis. Time will tell.

No comment (which should be enough comment) on the name of the Solicitors concerned, save to say I recognise those you describe. The likelihood of the SRA to take action can be influenced by the letterhead and status of the complainant. Here the LSB is also helpful.

HO87 wrote: »

Please don't take the cynical questioning too personally. We are regular assailed by those claiming to have legal qualifications but are in fact PPC goons engaging in straightforward wind-ups.

Ah, point taken. Sorry this would have been lost on me. Cross my heart, hope to prosecute inventive step.

trisontana

Social_Medium wrote: »

Yes

And I imagine that was obvious to all but the most challenged reader from the text. I apologise. I knew I had done it, but didn't realise until checking that the advanced editor allowed the thread title to be edited. Thank you for pointing this out in such a friendly, civilised and helpful way.

Not obvious. For all I know you might have been talking about another PPC we hadn't heard of before. New ones seem to be popping up all the time. I think I was friendly . All I did was to ask you if you were talking about CP plus. What's not friendly about that?