I really dont know what to do :-(

Quentin

wendb69 wrote: »

But if they take me to court, wont there be all the charges that build up added?

My initial ticket was £60, now £100 plus an admin fee of £1.50... its just growing.

Yes, but you only would have to pay the court fees if you lose in court - they are paid initially by the claimant.


The court fee for issuing a claim and a hearing would be £60 at most.

Quentin

wendb69 wrote: »

Many thanks.

How can you determine which are fake and which are not.

You can safely ignore all debt collectors letters.


(Just don't ignore anything you get from the Court)

wendb69

Quentin wrote: »

Yes, but you only would have to pay the court fees if you lose in court - they are paid initially by the claimant.


The court fee for issuing a claim and a hearing would be £60 at most.

So the court would nt make me pay the debt collector fees?

wendb69

Redx wrote: »

you host it on tinypic or photobucket and add a link to it in your reply (ie:- you dont add any photos here, you add links to photos held elsewhere)

http://tinypic.com/r/11hyuyr/9

wendb69

Redx wrote: »

you host it on tinypic or photobucket and add a link to it in your reply (ie:- you dont add any photos here, you add links to photos held elsewhere)

http://tinypic.com/r/11hyuyr/9

wendb69

beamerguy wrote: »

IAS has real adjudicators ???? nobody knows who they are, no doubt is was Mr Mouse as IAS are a Mickey Mouse outfit

As said, you now just wait. Next little trick is the debt collector chain mail which you just ignore and save them. DO NOT MAKE CONTACT WITH THEM

It must be the PPC who takes further action so let us know if or when it happens, unlikely though

Were you spending money with One Stop and can you prove it, the ONE STOP sign saying "One Stop Customers only" will take precedence over anything else

http://tinypic.com/r/11hyuyr/9

beamerguy

wendb69 wrote: »

http://tinypic.com/r/11hyuyr/9

http://s1028.photobucket.com/user/Wendy_Boult/media/IMG_5720%203_zps8e8bivoe.jpg.html

Ok, its live now so you were parked at One Stop shopping and as the sign clearly said "IT IS FOR ONE STOP CUSTOMERS"

So was the PPC trespassing on One Stop's land or rights

hoohoo

wendb69 wrote: »

So the court would nt make me pay the debt collector fees?

You stop any liability for debt collector fees by making it plain to the operator you do not believe any debt is owed. The operator can then disagree with you and try and use the court to rule on the matter, but cannot add fictitious debt collection charges

Something like (as well as the other stuff)

Dear Operator,

I disagree with the assessors decision (reasons here, including the missing signage). The debt is therefore denied and debt collection is not appropriate. I am willing to continue to use alternative debt resolution to attempt to settle the matter, and suggest the Consumer Ombudsman.

Failing that, I suggest we use the courts without delay and without artificially incurring costs. Please follow practice directions to state
your claim. I will then reply and we can then narrow the issues before any action.

wendb69

beamerguy wrote: »

http://s1028.photobucket.com/user/Wendy_Boult/media/IMG_5720%203_zps8e8bivoe.jpg.html

Ok, its live now so you were parked at One Stop shopping and as the sign clearly said "IT IS FOR ONE STOP CUSTOMERS"

So was the PPC trespassing on One Stop's land or rights

One Stop have tried to help. They have since taken down their signs as the land is owned by the Landlord who brings in private parking company. One Stop do not own the land.

Herzlos

wendb69 wrote: »

The Appellant argues they did not see the signs and the writing is tiny. They provide no evidence on this point. However, the Operator’s evidence shows numerous signs around the site, which appear to be at a readable height, and whilst the text is not large it would clearly be capable of being read at close distance.

The IAS just admitted that the sign isn't readable, or to code. It has to be obvious and read from a distance. If they regard parking as acceptance, you must be able to read before parking.

This should never make it to court, because it's a total laughing stock.

Fire off a complaint to Trading Standards and your MP.