UKPC - Popla Appeal Success

UKPCNumpty

bazster wrote: »

You need to be very careful what you are claiming for. If you are claiming for losses you need to be able to prove them and you need to have a reason why they are liable. The cost of your time is not going to count as a loss. They haven't breached any contract that I can see. Was their behaviour tortious in some way, leading to losses on your part?

Normally if someone wants to claim for their time they try to prepare for this in advance by inveigling the PPC into a contract i.e. warning them that their claim is hopeless and that by pressing on with it they agree to pay certain sums when they lose. TBH I'm not even convinced this holds much water legally.

If you are going to claim for harassment then claim for harassment. It's very difficult to prove though.

I don't think you can claim for stress as such, but it could be part-and-parcel of a claim for harassment.

Where people have claimed against PPC's and won my feeling is that the PPC has simply decided it wasn't worth the trouble of defending. As far as I am aware no case has gone to a hearing (other than for trespass). You are more likely to win in this way with a smaller claim, you make it four figures and it will most likely be defended.

My charges were not a penalty, my charges were for my time and effort. The charges for harassment and stress were going to be a reasonable extra.

I did hit them with a notice of charges for correspondence. They never refuted the charges. In fact when I called them to reiterate the charges the two different people I spoke to agreed with the charges.
Prior to the commencement of the conversation I notified both parties that I was recording the conversation. At no point did they not agree to the recording and their telephone system even notfied me of their recording.

I was trying to be thorough. I have no real clue what I was doing but if someone wants to charge me for something I didn't do and they take up my valuable time having to dispute it I notify them of my charges.

I thought harassment is deemed harassment if it is persistent especially in view if the third party tells you what they are doing is unwarranted and unnecessary?

bazster

UKPCNumpty wrote: »

My charges were not a penalty, my charges were for my time and effort. The charges for harassment and stress were going to be a reasonable extra.

I did hit them with a notice of charges for correspondence. They never refuted the charges. In fact when I called them to reiterate the charges the two different people I spoke to agreed with the charges.
Prior to the commencement of the conversation I notified both parties that I was recording the conversation. At no point did they not agree to the recording and their telephone system even notfied me of their recording.

I was trying to be thorough. I have no real clue what I was doing but if someone wants to charge me for something I didn't do and they take up my valuable time having to dispute it I notify them of my charges.

I thought harassment is deemed harassment if it is persistent especially in view if the third party tells you what they are doing is unwarranted and unnecessary?

Well go for it if you want, all you are risking up front is the filing fee. I don't hold out much hope for success but they might decide it's not worth the trouble of fighting it and offer you a smaller amount. If everyone did this they would be so buried in claims against them they would be unable to function!

Harassment is deemed harassment if a judge decides it's harassment. This woman had to take it all the way to the court of appeal, risking costs of £30,000: http://www.out-law.com/page-9826

capsch

UKPCNumpty wrote: »

I did, but it did not seem to make much difference to them, they just stated that as the hire company said I was the driver that was good enough for them. The only proof they had that I was allegedly the driver was the hire agreement which they should not have been given.

They ignored my request for evidence that I was (according to them) the driver.

Really they have to prove you were driving.
I have had several of these 'invoices' and wrote to them stating I was not the driver and not the party involved and to leave me alone [which they did]

bazster

capsch wrote: »

Really they have to prove you were driving.
I have had several of these 'invoices' and wrote to them stating I was not the driver and not the party involved and to leave me alone [which they did]

Absolutely terrible advice. If you don't know what you are talking about (in particular when it comes to Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012) it would be better to post nothing.

capsch

really? its worked every time; in respect to 'relevant land' is not applicable in this case as its commercial, its the same as the advice on the newb sticky but an easier less objective objection.

Read the law before you start flaming.

Redx

capsch wrote: »

really? its worked every time; in respect to 'relevant land' is not applicable in this case as its commercial, its the same as the advice on the newb sticky but an easier less objective objection.

Read the law before you start flaming.

so when you say its "worked" every time , you are actually saying that 6 years after the event they still havent chased you up for the money and that the statute has run out under the MCOL rules ?

so these pcn,s you ignored are all over 6 years old ? - really ? (I think not)

why give out advice on pcn,s in 2014 that are prior to 2008 ?