Real Court cases and what happened next!!

kittiej

Is it the usual "we could get the landowner to take you to court" rubbish?

I did see one transcript of a case I think on Pepipoo, it was hilarious since the landowner (wickes? don't quote me though) and their representation had to return to court at a later date to answer questions from the Judge and could have been subject to contempt of court.

Needless to say the elderly gentleman Defendant had no case to answer. Best laugh I had in ages.

Editing to say CouponMad has the link, it is the 2nd one on her list.

I am also finding the differences in the amounts they are trying to extort out of people to be comical. They want £150 from me yet others have different amounts. I think they need a new accountant pmsl

Traindriver4

Its a Notice of Intended Litigation.

It quotes Dept of Transport guide to section 56, sch 4 etc etc. It also refers us to their website - debtrecoveryplus.co.uk to view a selection of CCJ's obtained against people for ignoring or not paying up. It also threatens our ability to obtain credit in the future.

Don't know whether to laugh or not!

kittiej

Sounds to me like they have planted that little seed of doubt in your mind. Their letter is doing what it set out to iyswim.

View it like the loud bloke down the pub who tells tall tales of everything fantastic he has ever done - it's all front.

They sent me an email, one point said they have to dish out these notices as part of traffic control, they have me wondering why I bother paying for my local Police force if DR+ are able to control traffic.

Coupon-mad

Traindriver4 wrote: »

Its a Notice of Intended Litigation.

It quotes Dept of Transport guide to section 56, sch 4 etc etc. It also refers us to their website - debtrecoveryplus.co.uk to view a selection of CCJ's obtained against people for ignoring or not paying up. It also threatens our ability to obtain credit in the future.

Don't know whether to laugh or not!

:T

LAUGH!!!!!!!!!!:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=74154

I posted loads of links in my reply there (as SchoolRunMum) showing everyone is advised to carry on ignoring and you can also see your letter there and the ones that will come next, shown in those pepipoo threads.

This is just a standard letter chain from DRP (also Zenith letters, same company). They always mention their CCJs on their website but seeing as they are a Debt Collector who work for other companies like Mail Order catalogues (where there is an actual credit agreement in default) what they fail to tell you is that none of those CCJs relate to parking issues. Only the alleged 'creditor' (the originator) could theoretically try a small claim (not a debt collector, they are just pen-pushers in this instance as there is no credit agreement or default to chase).

And look, they have been using a similar version of that 'Notice of Intended Litigation' (only without the Schedule 4 sentences) for YEARS:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/2329119

This is predictable drivel - just junk mail - but always keep it all just in case a PPC ever did try a small claim (still almost unheard of, and a robust defence can be obtained free from pepipoo to see off any such rubbish). So yes, laugh!!

parkin_spy_spanka

bargepole wrote: »

They seem to be mainly people who have ignored everything up until now. In the case of CEL though, they appear to have been dredging up unpaid tickets going back as far as March 2011 and issuing claims like confetti.

I had ignored everything until i got a county court money claim online.
Sent acknowledgment of service now defence with extra questions.
Is it right that PE has to pay a court fee 14 days before court date or
fold?

bargepole

parkin_spy_spanka wrote: »

I had ignored everything until i got a county court money claim online.
Sent acknowledgment of service now defence with extra questions.
Is it right that PE has to pay a court fee 14 days before court date or
fold?

Yes, that is correct.

Before that, you will get a Directions Questionnaire which gives you the chance to have the case transferred to your local court, and that court will set a hearing date.

I'm a bit puzzled by the "extra questions". Your defence shouldn't contain any questions, only assertions of why you aren't liable for the amount claimed, supported by appropriate case law.

parkin_spy_spanka

Thanks Bargepole
I can now see i should of taken advice from you and others more knowledgeable on this forum. i will be back when next paperwork arrives.

A part of the defence is extra signage that appeared after the alleged
offence at the Range Halifax. I would be pleased to hear from anyone about this Range site.

Scouse_Magic

surfboy1 wrote: »

There was a poster on here who had been into court against Mr Sobell (graham white). I think he won his case.

Hi Surfboy, just to answer your question we have won two.. The first one, sobell attended with MD Gary Osner... The second one Sobell tried to adjorn but failed, then tried to appeal the judgement and failed, and is currently refusing to pay the judgement, although they paid the first one.

Seems to me they threaten people for money but cry like babies when they have to pay out :beer:

peter_the_piper

BPA should oust all ppc's with ccj's against them, as should the dvla. Sobell is due to get one if he fails to pay the judgement. Maybe this is a line that should be pushed more.

trisontana

peter_the_piper wrote: »

BPA should oust all ppc's with ccj's against them, as should the dvla. Sobell is due to get one if he fails to pay the judgement. Maybe this is a line that should be pushed more.

Never going to happen. Don't forget that there are two PPCs with actual criminal convictions against them (OPC and UKCP) that are still BPA members. Then there were various clamping firms that had CCJs against them but were still in the BPA club.