Parking Eye County court claim letter

Nodding_Donkey

sma11person wrote: »

The advice to ignore is not 18 months out of date. That advice changed in March 2013 - I checked.

By which time it was already 6 months out of date.

Nodding_Donkey

sma11person wrote: »

Nodding Donkey, you're missing the point. People were told to ignore these things. 12 months on, "oh, you need to defend yourself against it, and you have to read this thread to start". I appreciate that someone has gone to great trouble to help out there, but this is a Bank Holiday weekend. People are going to be receiving these whilst on holiday, and perhps not even know about them until they arrive home. *That* stinks. That these cowboy firms are allowed to behave so badly.

"If people can't be bothered to read it, they could always just pay." There's no need for the tone exerted in your script. This is a ridiculous situation: we had legal experts telling us we could ignore these things. Now, we're being told we have to react, and spend time dealing with hem. I simply don't understand what changed. If the charges are spurious and won't stand up, they shouldn't be taking valuable court time. It really is that simple.

I'm sure that there are court cases (not just parking) lost all over the country on a daily basis because people didn't know how to defend them properly. I'm also sure that if a lot of solicitors were approached about defending a parking charge case they would tell you not to bother and just to pay it. This is the way the law works, it's a game. You either learn to play the game, which is what the newbies thread is about, or you pay like most of the sheeple do.

ampersand

sma11person:'I simply don't understand what changed. '
#
So you haven't read the NEWBIES THREAD?...still?

It's nothing to do with pedantry, more to do with accurate reading, keeping up-to-date, observing Forum courtesies, so please start your own discussion Thread and lighten up.
Laws do change.
All 16 Acts passed between 1798 and 1828 to impose duty on every pint of ale, beer or porter brewed or sold in parts of Scotland were repealed last year, too. So that's worth celebrating if you were still doing so:-)

No further posts from op. I see, which is of more concern.
Your Thread won't be hi-jacked, 101. Stay with us, go back to the first replies you had, from lisey-lou and da_rule, read well, then come back here.

Ask questions about anything you don't understand. Take encouragement from the successes which are reported here and on The Parking Prankster's blog, but stay focussed.

hoohoo

sma11person wrote: »

If the charges are spurious and won't stand up, they shouldn't be taking valuable court time. It really is that simple.

It might be that the MoJ is wising up to what is happening, and the massive increase in court cases since May 2013. Judges everywhere are saying they have never seen such large filings on both sides for such small amounts, and are probably not appreciating having to wade through 100 pages of legal arguments to decide the sum of £100.

One judge has taken a stand and has stopped all cases in his area and scheduled a test case. Perhaps this will alter the situation.

However, the current state of play is that we now have a few hundred conflicting rulings at the small claims level, with various judges all contradicting each other. We can also see by reading the transcripts that the outcome of each case depends largely on the abilities and resources of the defendant, and that the relevant law is (sadly) not so important.

Stroma

sma11person wrote: »

Nodding Donkey, you're missing the point. People were told to ignore these things. 12 months on, "oh, you need to defend yourself against it, and you have to read this thread to start". I appreciate that someone has gone to great trouble to help out there, but this is a Bank Holiday weekend. People are going to be receiving these whilst on holiday, and perhps not even know about them until they arrive home. *That* stinks. That these cowboy firms are allowed to behave so badly.

"If people can't be bothered to read it, they could always just pay." There's no need for the tone exerted in your script. This is a ridiculous situation: we had legal experts telling us we could ignore these things. Now, we're being told we have to react, and spend time dealing with hem. I simply don't understand what changed. If the charges are spurious and won't stand up, they shouldn't be taking valuable court time. It really is that simple.

Unfortunately we are not furnished with crystal balls, we were advising to ignore for a very good reason, parking companies hardly ever took people to court, and the proof of that is here . If you notice Parking Eye went from 5 claims in a year, to 8100 claims, how can we foresee that?

When that changed we updated our advice, and further evidence here . Some parking companies changed their tactics but we couldn't possibly know that!! And the change of tactics didn't really come through until people started getting claims in January & February 2013, which in itself is not unusual as some claims were always done.

But criticising people for giving that advice back then is a bit under the belt, and saying that people are being ridiculous now because we have the temerity to say read the advice is frankly pathetic!

People have an option if they don't want to go through with defending a claim, and that is to pay it! That is always there, and they can do that with a default judgement against them providing its paid within timescales, and will not show on any credit rating they have.

Also, they have 14 days to say they will defend, and a further 14 days if they do just that. Having a go at people for the tactics of parking companies around the holidays is not right, its not our bloody fault that these companies are unethical and scammers. We have no control over them!

hoohoo

Stroma meant 'without a default judgment' and will probably correct it once he reads this :-)

Redx

its worth noting that this person has their own thread and is replying in it , parking prankster has just replied on its page 2 and the person has had blinkers on all the way through that thread as well

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4950664

hopefully they will see the sense in what they are now being told , if they dont then a name change to foo1ishperson will have to follow

Stroma

No if someone gets a default judgement they can always pay it within a certain period and its not lodged on your credit file.

hoohoo

Ah, I misunderstood your post as meaning that if they paid up when the claim is filed then that would be with[out] a default judgment.

Now I see your actual advice was that fs they ignored the claim and got a default judgment, then if they paid up in time they won't get a CCJ.

I withdraw my comment. (but leave it there so people can understand the rest of the thread)

sma11person

REdX. I don't have "the blinkers on". I checked my threads, and the one I posted (referenced by the link) had all replies continuing to advise, "ignore - pccs ar all scammers.. nowt they can do". I've already dealt with the illegal notice received here. Whilst I appreciate that people here give advice in good faith, it is not reasonable to tell them "You should have done this then" if the advice here, and everywhere else (except PCC websites, obviously) was to ignore the (PCC) blighters. *That's* the point being made.