ukcps love letters

BASFORDLAD

The troll who came on about 10 days again claiming to have sent lots of court claims off does appear to be our friend haswell.

Seems he is really going for it at the moment with the number of claim seen.

Alas I have not had a love letter from peter.

Oh dear and I wanted a sugar daddy to!!

edward123

BASFORDLAD wrote: »

The troll who came on about 10 days again claiming to have sent lots of court claims off does appear to be our friend haswell.

Seems he is really going for it at the moment with the number of claim seen.

Alas I have not had a love letter from peter.

Oh dear and I wanted a sugar daddy to!!

What thread was this?

Crabman

BASFORDLAD wrote: »

Seems he is really going for it at the moment with the number of claim seen.

I've just been looking at the list of vexatious litigants (LINK) and couldn't see any companies listed there.

Can a (private parking) company that issues a series of claims (which fail) be termed a vexatious litigant? Or would the listing apply to the Director/individual who actually issued the claim for the company?

Just curious...

Guys_Dad

Frankly I don't see what options the PPCs have but to go to court if they want to stay in business.

They have lost clamping as an income stream. The word is spreading about ignoring fake tickets. Shona isn't rolling over.

Business looks pretty grim to me. So maybe Peter is doing his Battle of the Bulge and hoping for some successes. If this fails, then not much hope for PPCs and the current business model.

Obviously the 500 recipients didn't go down the POPLA route otherwise they wouldn't have the court papers yet.

Maybe time to rethink the ignore strategy and go for the POPLOA appeal route? At least keep an eye on it.

Coupon-mad

I think people should be encouraged to do the POPLA appeal thing because even if they do not have much other reason to appeal, they can use other points that Shona understands, like 'no ownership of the car park' = no case.

The_Slithy_Tove

Guys_Dad wrote: »

Frankly I don't see what options the PPCs have but to go to court if they want to stay in business.

They could start by actually following through with their "threats" (which is all the court procedings are). The way that certain PPCs use the courts is shameful, dishonest, and a complete abuse of the system. They never have any intention of actually going to court and putting their case against a reasonable defence. They are simply using it as a way of stepping up the intimidation, and getting their victims to settle.

After all, we know they have no case, so will always lose in court against any reasonable defence.

Now, if they sued for actual losses, maybe they'd get somewhere. It all shows their business model is based on a sham and is nothing more than a scam to fool the ignorant. Maybe they should change to do something completely different. I know, how about car park "management", where they actually manage car parks in return for a fixed fee from the landowners. It would be a whole new concept to them.

trisontana

But, of course, those losses have nothing to do with the PPC. They are supposed to be those suffered by the landowner. So, in the remote possibility they do win in court, that money should be paid over to the landowner.

Guys_Dad

The_Slithy_Tove wrote: »

They could start by actually following through with their "threats" (which is all the court procedings are). The way that UKCPS and others use the courts is shameful, dishonest, and a complete abuse of the system. They never have any intention of actually going to court and putting their case against a reasonable defence.

I was responding to BASFORDLAD's post where he indicated that friend Has well has indeed gone for it with court papers.

I feel that it is inevitable that the PPCs would follow this route to protect their ill gotten income as other routes were being cut off.

Not defending their scams, but they will need to do something if they want to keep their blood money rolling in. And a tide of court papers will scare some into paying up. Those weaker people would be advised to go the POPLA route first, possibly with advice from here or elsewhere.

Half_way

Which PPc will be the first to apptempt court, after ( the ppc ) looses a popla appeal, didnt the BPA say that even if the PPC lose at popla they can still try court??

Stroma

I can't see them getting far with this, if people starting defending the claims they'd (scammers) have to go to court all over the UK , it would take an army of people just to do that, any gain would be thrown away by the costs that they'll have.

And lets face it going on the figures of those reaching court they'd win half of claims statistically. They are simply looking for anyone settling before it reaches court and probably dropping all that are defended.

That's my take on it

Kite2010

Hasbeen is hoping for some easy undefended cases, either by people thinking they can ignore the court papers or having them sent to places where mail has been marked as being returned to sender, old addresses and such like. Most likely as soon as someone logs a defence he will drop the case. But at £25 a pop at a dropped case, it will soon add up

Never ignore genuine court papers