PE charge cancelled by principle - court costs 'required'

Guys_Dad

trisontana wrote: »

Which PPC do you work for?

With all the help he has given in the past, that's uncalled for. It's his pragmatic opinion and, frankly, it's not your money at risk.

I am surprised you wrote that, to be truthful, as a regular who must have seen his previous contributions.

Guys_Dad

spacey2012 wrote: »

I would go straight down the joint counter claim route by issuing a LBA of your own to both.
They "Aldi" will swat Parking eye faster than you can say "taking the mick".
With no foundation evidence they have no case to build.
The only foundation that they had was you owed a parking charge, this does not exist, they can not act in audience on behalf of a client and themselves when the client drops the charge.
The case has to have a foundation, the judge will throw them out in the first 30 seconds and they know this.

See post #13

betteroff

Guys_Dad wrote: »

The claim is by the PPC.

There is a conditional cancellation, but you have not fulfilled the condition to get it cancelled. The offer came from the landowner, the claim is in the name of the Parking Company.

If the offer was without prejudice, it may not be admissible anyway.

So, you decide as it's your money. Pay the £50 or if you think you can win, bang in your defence.

You are in the firing line and it's your money, so whatever you decide, no one else can criticise.

The letter from Aldi does not include any conditions about paying additional amounts nor was it marked without prejudice. It's a straightforward confirmation of their instruction to PE to cancel, no ifs or buts.
It's PE's letter that is conditional.

kirkbyinfurnesslad_2

trisontana wrote: »

Which PPC do you work for?

lol!

Ive done quite a few defences against parking eye in the last few weeks, had my fill of them!!!

i am just saying it as i see it.

betteroff

kirkbyinfurnesslad wrote: »

lol!

Ive done quite a few defences against parking eye in the last few weeks, had my fill of them!!!

i am just saying it as i see it.

The original 'discounted invoice' was for £50. If I just pay now, the past 8 months of worry, strife, research, reading & late nights on forums will have been for nothing!

kirkbyinfurnesslad_2

betteroff wrote: »

The original 'discounted invoice' was for £50. If I just pay now, the past 8 months of worry, strife, research, reading & late nights on forums will have been for nothing!

Well then you follow your own advice

Guys_Dad

betteroff wrote: »

The letter from Aldi does not include any conditions about paying additional amounts nor was it marked without prejudice. It's a straightforward confirmation of their instruction to PE to cancel, no ifs or buts.
It's PE's letter that is conditional.

Ah. That's clearer.

Then if it were me I would defend it.

I don't have the paperwork you have, but if anywhere in PE's paperwork they are claiming to be the agent of Aldi, and they receive instruction from Aldi as landowner/landkeeper, then they should obey.

I would put them at strict proof to produce the exact wording of the contract to the court and in advance to give you and your legal team sufficient time to study the document.

As they have received instruction to cancel from Aldi, then they should do so. The costs incurred are a separate matter and, strictly, these should be reclaimable from Aldi as it is Aldi who have given the instruction and lost the PPC the income stream. I would say that in my submission. In fact, the contract may very well have that as a material clause.

However, as to the parking charge itself, if the judge did not agree with the above, then you need to have your case as well.

But, as I said earlier, you need to balance the financial risk as it's your cash.

Custard_Pie

kirkbyinfurnesslad wrote: »

lol!

Ive done quite a few defences against parking eye in the last few weeks, had my fill of them!!!

i am just saying it as i see it.

For the life of me, why would someone pay cost that they are not liable for?

If I burgled your house then sued you because I ripped my clothes, would you pay up if the case was discontinued. These companies exist for profit alone. If the legal advice and basis is there, tell them to stick it. I'd like to see them argue a case in Court where the end client has discontinued the charge.

Guys_Dad

Custard_Pie wrote: »

For the life of me, why would someone pay cost that they are not liable for?

If I burgled your house then sued you because I ripped my clothes, would you pay up if the case was discontinued. These companies exist for profit alone. If the legal advice and basis is there, tell them to stick it. I'd like to see them argue a case in Court where the end client has discontinued the charge.

That's the point. You would be sitting in the gallery. Betteroff would be in the dock and it's their money at risk, not yours.

Whilst I agree with your point as my previous post says, we are not the ones involved or facing court.

betteroff

Just looking for the shortest and most polite way of saying, 'Thanks, but no thanks for your very kind offer'
The consensus seems to be that as they were less than likely to win when just claiming for the original PCN (for the same reasons all the POPLA appeals are being upheld), have flown by the seat of their pants in the administration of it all (non-compliant correspondence) and now that there is no PCN to claim for..... defend... defend... defend!