PCN From Smart Parking - But I Don't Drive?

The_Deep

I know nothing about FindLaw, I have never used them. I have however used C.A.B. twice and have been distinctly unimpressed. The last occasion I ended up speaking to someone with less knowledge of the Distance Selling Regulations than myself.

No, I will not explain; it will do you good to work it out for yourself.

I am not splitting hairs to win an argument, I am just asking that people do not post misinformation, of which you are demonstrably guilty.

Marktheshark

The best reason for not opening other peoples letters is you do not have to worry about other peoples problems and worry about the threats made to other people.
You can put the letters straight in the bin and live a worry free life.

Tilt

wiogs wrote: »

It is entirely possible that someone could have read your post and believed it to be true.

Which it isn't.

But it was true. I just didn't mention the "without reasonable excuse" bit. I even provided a link which would of expanded the information to confirm?

wiogs wrote: »

There are no split hairs.

No? But you still want to make pointless argument.

The_Deep

A word of advice tilt, google "The First Law of holes"

Tilt

The_Deep wrote: »

I know nothing about [STRIKE][STRIKE]Find[/STRIKE][/STRIKE]Law, I have never used them. I have however used C.A.B. twice and have been distinctly unimpressed. The last occasion I ended up speaking to someone with less knowledge of the Distance Selling Regulations than myself.

Fixed that for you

The_Deep wrote: »

No, I [STRIKE]will not[/STRIKE] can't explain; it will do you good to work it out for yourself.

Fixed that for you again.

The_Deep wrote: »

I am not splitting hairs to win an argument, I am just asking that people do not post misinformation, of which you are demonstrably guilty.

I posted 2 links which backed up my comment to post #4. I then clarified the info when I was challenged by Wiogs to add "without reasonable cause".

So exactly what "misinformation" have I given your worship?

The_Deep

I would love to engage you in a battle of wits Tilt, but I fear that half of your forces have gone AWOL.

You might fare less badly if you confined your postings to things about which you have some knowledge, screen-wash perhaps.

Tilt

The_Deep wrote: »

I would love to engage you in a battle of wits Tilt, but I fear that half of your forces have gone AWOL.

Don't worry, that's all I would need

bod1467

This subject-matter has been done to death many times on the Consumer Rights forum. My earlier post in this thread reflects the consensus of opinion of that board. (Which happens to not be what Tilt has asserted). The key is the "intent to deprive or cause harm" to the intended recipient; if no such intent is shown or indicated then no offence has been committed by opening such mail.

The_Deep

Indeed Bod, but will he accept that he is wrong, somehow I doubt it.

Just look at his signature. He advocates face to face meetings only, no letters, no emails, no telephone calls, no faxes, the man is a walking misinformation mine.

Tilt

The_Deep wrote: »

Indeed Bod, but will he accept that he is wrong, somehow I doubt it.

Just look at his signature. He advocates face to face meetings only, no letters, no emails, no telephone calls, no faxes, the man is a walking misinformation mine.

To disagree with that makes you an idiot. The only way you know someone is adequately qualified to give professional legal advice is to surely see them face to face so that they can prove their qualifications? Hardly something that can be done via email, phone calls, faxes etc.

And I say, I havn't given any incorrect information in this thread. Merely pointed out that the OP perhaps wrong to open a letter which wasn't intended for him/her and I provided links to expand on that information which does give detail of certain exemptions.

You my friend, originally said that my statement; "It is an offence to open mail which was intended for someone else" was rubbish. Ok, what I could of said was "IT CAN" be an offence so I will concede to that BUT, you were dismissing my input outright in a typical point scoring type of exercise.

Oh and for what it's worth, I still say that in my opinion the OP had no reasonable excuse to open a letter from a PPC intended for someone else, it should of been re-posted un-opened marked "not known at this address".

Thank you and good night.

P.S. I note you have edited post #12 and changed the word "rubbish" to "misinformation". Hmm.