Fort dunlop birmingham - legal cases

HO87

trying to read the thread as dispassionately as possible I read it as a simple "heads up" and, actually, an attempt to disengage the business from it not the other way around. Not clearly worded I accept but I think that was the intention.

That aside, the information is all in the OP. Parkshield are issuing substantial numbers of PCN's and have been obtaining default CCJ's on the back of them. It would seem that there are a number of issues that need to be addressed and "victims" are being pointed here and to PePiPoo.

I'm sorry if I have a particularly obtuse approach but that seems as plain as a pikestaff to me.

atilla

Fergie76 wrote: »

And could that warning not have been given without mentioning 'our company', especially if it is no secret who the OP is and the service that they offer?

I have nothing against the OP and they have clearly helped a lot of people on these boards and off. I am just trying to be impartial and say how looks to an outsider.

They offer service which I can liken to the PPI reclaim companies, in that it is something you can do yourself, but if you don't have time or don't want the stress then they will do it for you for a fee. I have no problem with that.

They regulars on here always quick enough to jump on Perky's numerous aliases, saying that if he posting then he should declare himself as a business, I just don't see the difference here, just because they are on our side. Smacks of double standards and if we are going to moan (and quite rightly so) about Perky then 'we' have to be whiter than white.

How can you compare the OP to perky?
Can you please show where the OP has used false identities, names, monikers etc. Refused to offer help and assistance. Gloated and deliberately provoked.

I'd say you can't and that suggests you're moaning for the sake of it.

The OP made no mention, that I can see, of the company name, but did clearly explain their position in large font. Offered a free service to any unfortunates and tipped of the board experts of another likely scam.

Hot_Bring

Fergie76 wrote: »

They regulars on here always quick enough to jump on Perky's numerous aliases, saying that if he posting then he should declare himself as a business, I just don't see the difference here, just because they are on our side. Smacks of double standards and if we are going to moan (and quite rightly so) about Perky then 'we' have to be whiter than white.

4CR has always been open and honest about her link to her appeals company. She hasn't been constantly banned and re-morphed into another identity.

Our piggy friend on the other hand never admits who he is - even as a person rather than a company. Gives false and misleading information and then threatens posters off forum before trying to get them banned.

Back to Fort Dunlop - given Capita have a very large office there it probably won't be long before ParkingEye take over.

Dee140157

Although there is only one thread currently relevant to this situation, there has been, it seems to me, a minor flurry of CCJ posts in the last couple of days which need help.

The OP was warning that there may be an even greater influx of these. Possibly as people google ParkShield etc and then luck in by finding this forum. And although as a fairly new member I can help with "normal" appeals, it takes the more expert members of the forum to help with the CCJs I think.

So pre-warning them so they look in a bit more often or to watch out for them is really helpful for the people concerned

These are someone of the recent ones:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5002814

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5004898

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5002814

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5005117

The_Deep

But Dee, only one of your references was a PE case.

Perhaps the OP is unused to writing this type of post. I found it cryptic, opaque and misleading.

I am all for PPCs obtaining a few CCJs, the word will soon get around that they are abusing the judicial process, judges will be even more loathe than they are to find for them, and more MPs will become involved; clamping style legislation will surely follow.

It is hard to get a CCJ unless you are very stupid or careless. If you move house and drive or own a car you must inform DVLA. If DVLA or the courts err you can have it expunged. It is very easy to check your credit record.

Furthermore, well over 50% of CCJs are not satisfied. I took a tenant to court once, and won, It cost my insurance company over £2,000 in legal costs, and I am still nearly that much out of pocket myself. I could have bankrupted him but that would have been more money down the pan.

Johno100

HO87 wrote: »

trying to read the thread as dispassionately as possible I read it as a simple "heads up" and, actually, an attempt to disengage the business from it not the other way around. Not clearly worded I accept but I think that was the intention.

That aside, the information is all in the OP. Parkshield are issuing substantial numbers of PCN's and have been obtaining default CCJ's on the back of them. It would seem that there are a number of issues that need to be addressed and "victims" are being pointed here and to PePiPoo.

I'm sorry if I have a particularly obtuse approach but that seems as plain as a pikestaff to me.

Still can't see why a particular heads up about Fort Dunlop, why not The Range, Fistral Beach or any other of the notorious PPC honeypots?

Are Parkshield (or self issuers) using a particular underhand method of entrapment or somehow manipulating the court system? If so shouldn't that be made public to help our fellow MSE'ers?

Redx

HO87 wrote: »

trying to read the thread as dispassionately as possible I read it as a simple "heads up" and, actually, an attempt to disengage the business from it not the other way around. Not clearly worded I accept but I think that was the intention.

That aside, the information is all in the OP. Parkshield are issuing substantial numbers of PCN's and have been obtaining default CCJ's on the back of them. It would seem that there are a number of issues that need to be addressed and "victims" are being pointed here and to PePiPoo.

I'm sorry if I have a particularly obtuse approach but that seems as plain as a pikestaff to me.

totally agree with you and that was my impression too, there was little else to be said as the info was plain as day to amyone who has been here a while and knows who 4cr is and what her and kifl do

I can also understand the subjudece aspect involved, or protecting clients privileges or anonymity and I think enough info was given out as a "heads up" as you rightly say and I linked this thread in one or two others here, same as I would link pranksters blog about the coop and CEL court cases

apart from the first post, the rest is "much ado about nothing" and detracts from the object of the initial post, warning others or asking for anyone affected to contact them, so well done to 4cr and kifl for actioning this travesty at fort dunlop

cant see the problem myself !

(thinking its now nitpicking or people trying to justify their posts hijacking a useful initial topic)

if their are other multiple issues like the coop debacle, they should be raised in separate threads , like the aldi one , the coop one , Changegate Car Park, Haworth , etc , but this one was unknown to most of us and now it isnt !! job done

Hot_Bring

The_Deep wrote: »

But Dee, only one of your references was a PE case.

Perhaps the OP is unused to writing this type of post. I found it cryptic, opaque and misleading.

I am all for PPCs obtaining a few CCJs, the word will soon get around that they are abusing the judicial process, judges will be even more loathe than they are to find for them, and more MPs will become involved; clamping style legislation will surely follow.

It is hard to get a CCJ unless you are very stupid or careless. If you move house and drive or own a car you must inform DVLA. If DVLA or the courts err you can have it expunged. It is very easy to check your credit record.

Furthermore, well over 50% of CCJs are not satisfied. I took a tenant to court once, and won, It cost my insurance company over £2,000 in legal costs, and I am still nearly that much out of pocket myself. I could have bankrupted him but that would have been more money down the pan.

I'm sure you're happy for a few CCJs to be obtained ..... just as long as it isn't you. You appear to be struggling with the fact that PPCs use underhand tactics to get these CCJs often.

As for your tenant CCJ - yes, because the tenant entered into a financial contract after an offer and then consideration. That isn't the case with private parking.

Johno100

Redx wrote: »

if their are other multiple issues like the coop debacle, they should be raised in separate threads , like the aldi one , the coop one , Changegate Car Park, Haworth , etc , but this one was unknown to most of us and now it isnt !! job done

What was unknown, Fort Dunlop? One of the most iconic buildings in the West Midlands, seen by millions as they use the M6? Or that they use a company called Parkshield, issue tickets and 'do court'? Still none the wiser I'm afraid.

Johno100

Hot_Bring wrote: »

I'm sure you're happy for a few CCJs to be obtained ..... just as long as it isn't you. You appear to be struggling with the fact that PPCs use underhand tactics to get these CCJs often.

Well there is certainly nothing in this thread so far that will help prevent you me or any other poster getting a CCJ at the site in question. Just contact these nice people when you do get a CCJ and we will help you in court.