Consumer Protection Law 2014...

bazster

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Maybe it would take someone paying up then, after being threatened as keeper when they are not liable. Then sue the b0ll0cks off them!

There was a guy on PePiPoo who was utterly determined to pay Northern Rail for fear of prosecution, and he was delighted when I suggested that, if he insisted on paying, he could try to claim it back using these regs. It's gone quiet now but I did suggest he waited until the 90-day limit was almost up before he started his claim, so as to string it out towards the prosecution deadline, so he may yet give it a go.

bazster

gertysingh wrote: »

Many have paid with the threat of bad credit. My OH wanted to pay immediately due to thinking it was a penalty (as it is made to look like one) and also when the threat-o-grams started arriving. So it would be interesting if someone or a group would sue the PPC based on the Consumer Protection Law.

That is a very good point and brings a lot more PPC fake fines within the scope of the regs. You could also argue that, for PPC's who are known never to take court action, claiming that they will do so is both aggressive and misleading.

gertysingh wrote: »

However it should be noted it is about a 4-5 month process at MCOL and you will need someone who has time and is switched on to keep on top of the paper work that goes back and forth.

My suspicion is that, unless they started getting loads of them or someone claimed a huge sum in damages, they would simply pay up. The last thing a PPC wants is a judge ruling that its fake fines are dud because its actions were aggressive/misleading.

gertysingh

bazster wrote: »

My suspicion is that, unless they started getting loads of them or someone claimed a huge sum in damages, they would simply pay up. The last thing a PPC wants is a judge ruling that its fake fines are dud because its actions were aggressive/misleading.

I think you're right. A legal precedence is the last thing any PPC wants to risk starting.