parking eye and i am at county court stage

ampersand

Thankyou for sight of this dun.

RE: point 4. of judgment, PAYMENT DUE BY 13 JAN 2015 - is this correct? i.e. this happened 4 weeks ago?

Did you pay? [ okay, nomb that one]

Looking at your #50, with c-m's immediate advice, which - let us assume- you followed pronto-ish, does this mean that you were not notified ahead of Hearing date that all issues would be settled in one go? i.e. within a fortnight[or near as], notwithstanding Court crimbo/NY closures?

Was this what you understood would happen?

msers - is this normal for such Hearings?

There must be more that can be done, if you, dun, have stomach for it.
I think we are not allowed to speak about donating on Threads, but I would do so, small as it would be from pension.

How else can we help, beyond awaiting Beavis and deciding from there?

dazupnorth

the advise has been generally followed all the way through.
the letter we recieved was post marked 20th Jan. so i have sent an email to Dr Who to be transported back in time so i can pay at the correct date and time........ parking eye have not chased this at all. so that leads me to believe they arnt going to chase us in france. i will be paying the debt however. as travelling around is my wish.

it has NEVER EVER been about the money. its always been about the principle. this is a bogus business built of straws held together by the fear instilled into the victims.

i certainly thought that when it went before a judge that the ruling would be final. i did think that it was realistic to stay the case till the beavis one. we DID point out that the bavis one was at appeal, that it was at appeal due to witheld information. we DID ask that it be thrown out due to it not being thw actual land owner taking us to court. all of the points raised in this and many other forums. we did quote a lot of what parking prankster says and refers to......

the judge said pay.........

what i would say, is that i believe in karma....... one day...... one fine day..... someone in parking eye will need something from me... help at the side of the road due to their breaking down or such...

jkdd77

There may be a technical argument that, since it is impossible under the laws of time, physics, and thermodynamics, to travel back in time to pay by 13 January 2015, the order for payment is effectively undated, and that the OP has as long as he/she likes to pay it, without risking an unsatisfied CCJ, or other enforcement action. However, it is not an argument I would particularly want to rely upon.

It's entirely up to the OP whether to pay it, but it may be worth remembering that:
1) English bailiffs cannot operate in France, nor would a 'charging order'/ 'third party debt order' imposed by an English court be directly enforceable in France;
2) Civil debts would not lead to arrest or travel restrictions in other countries, and I imagine that French employers and credit agencies have no record of English unpaid CCJs;
3) By paying, he/she is funding a organisation held by the CoA to have committed the 'tort of deceit', and helping to finance the fleecing of future victims;
4) Furthermore, by paying and not appealing, the matter would then be closed, and the OP would have little chance of getting his/her money back even if Mr. Beavis succeeds with his appeal.

ampersand

Yes, jkdd77, exactly so, esp.:

3) By paying, he/she is funding a organisation held by the CoA to have committed the 'tort of deceit', and helping to finance the fleecing of future victims;

4) Furthermore, by paying and not appealing, the matter would then be closed, and the OP would have little chance of getting his/her money back even if Mr. Beavis succeeds with his appeal.
#
I am fully aware that you are hurting, baffled, feeling low and temporarily floored by this decision, dun.

Wish you'd reconsider though.

I repeat, I'd happily contribute to Appeal Hearing, were one to be granted. The level may differ, but this is, in essence and principle, the same as drawing Lead Popla Assessor's attention to a defective decision on one or more points of Law.

Marktheshark

You have automatic right of appeal if you can provide case law which should have applied to the case and was ignored.

dazupnorth

i am grateful for the responses. the amount of work that went into the case from our side and the amount of reading, reading and collating wasnt insignificant.

i'm not too happy to go through such a process as an appeal in public forum. but i would listen. and would even travel to meet etc.

perhaps we could find an alternative communication method?

ampersand

pm sent.
#
'message too short' etc.

Not now.

Ralph-y

others may like to help if needed ....

Ralph:cool:

dazupnorth

HI Ampersand. thanks for your pm. have replied via method indicated within.

jkdd77

If the OP does appeal, it is worth noting that the granting of an appeal would not stay the judgment unless this is specifically ordered.

The OP may, when submitting an appeal, also apply at the same time for the judgment to be stayed pending the appeal, perhaps on the grounds that:
1) The OP has very strong grounds for appeal (albeit that, if the ruling was made 'on the papers' without giving reasons, it may be more difficult to identify exactly what he/she is appealing against'); even POPLA have said that:

In each case that I have seen from the higher courts, including those presented here by the Operator, it is made clear that a charge cannot be commercially justified where the dominant purpose of the charge is to deter the other party from breach

if the Beavis ruling goes against PE, then this would prove beyond doubt that the judgment was incorrect;
2) The aforementioned impossibility of complying with the judgment by the supposed payment date of 13 January, and the lack of clarity this creates; the OP could suggest that an order which is impossible to comply with due to its backdated payment date, ought, as a matter of basic justice, be either corrected (presumably with a new payment date), stayed indefinitely, or quashed altogether;
3) PE have been held by the CoA to have committed the 'tort of deceit', and have apparently committed other dishonest acts, such as falsely claiming a 100% success rate in court, and redacting contracts proving that they have no standing to bring claims, and then claiming in court that they do have such standing;
4) It is conceivable that a Beavis ruling against PE could lead to a flood of claims by motorists for recovery of monies paid to PE under false pretenses, albeit that they would be profoundly unlikely to succeed if a court had previously held, however erroneously, that the money was due. Nonetheless, it is plausible that PE would then follow in the footsteps of so many other PPCs, particularly clamping firms, and ignore any order for repayment; it would be unjust if the OP, having won at appeal, was unable to recover his/her money;
5) (If true) paying the money now, and in one installment, would cause financial hardship for the OP and his/her family.

Clearly, the fifth point should only be included if it actually applies, and the OP's financial position is none of my business. Personally, I wouldn't pay at this point, with or without an appeal.