The Small Claims Court and Parking Companies

beamerguy

bargepole wrote: »

No, I wasn't referring to POPLA or the BPA, the County Courts themselves stayed cases throughout most of 2015 while the Beavis saga was ongoing through the court system.

The Supreme Court only considered the facts and legal arguments in that one particular case. The wider implications were never a part of their deliberations.

Thanks for that, I was not aware it was the courts, I could not find anything about that on a google search. Can you point me and others to a site as I would like to read it, thanks

dazster

There is no one site documenting County Court proceedings and nor was there a "blanket" decision for all County Courts to stay parking cases pending the Beavis Supreme Court decision. It was up to individual District Judges to make up their own minds on each case, and those who are involved in court cases for parking claims (of whom bargepole is the most active and prominent) know of many examples where the judge did indeed stay the case pending Beavis.

You'll just have to take his word for it, whilst taking careful note that this is yet another area where more listening and less shouting on your part is indicated.

beamerguy

dazster wrote: »

There is no one site documenting County Court proceedings and nor was there a "blanket" decision for all County Courts to stay parking cases pending the Beavis Supreme Court decision. It was up to individual District Judges to make up their own minds on each case, and those who are involved in court cases for parking claims (of whom bargepole is the most active and prominent) know of many examples where the judge did indeed stay the case pending Beavis.

You'll just have to take his word for it, whilst taking careful note that this is yet another area where more listening and less shouting on your part is indicated.

woops ?? asking a question as I did is not shouting, given you or Bargepole, I will respect Bargepole

The_Slithy_Tove

Sooner or later, there will be a dramatic event, such as an (attempted) suicide by such a vulnerable person, directly attributable to the predatory bullying tactics of a PPC. When such a thing hits the news, one hopes that all hell will break loose.

Until then, it's a shame that the court system as it is allows it to be used as a cynical step in the "debt recovery" process. That is, most PPCs who file court claims have no intention of it proceeding that far. They are just using it to ratchet up the pressure or to get default judgements. They continue to press forward, right up to the last minute, or just not turning up, to show they mean business. An occasional appearance in court, even if it's a spectacular failure, is just a cost of doing business, but demonstrates that they are not vexatious litigants (yeah, right). That is the behaviour that needs to be stopped.

beamerguy

The_Slithy_Tove wrote: »

Sooner or later, there will be a dramatic event, such as an (attempted) suicide by such a vulnerable person, directly attributable to the predatory bullying tactics of a PPC. When such a thing hits the news, one hopes that all hell will break loose.

Until then, it's a shame that the court system as it is allows it to be used as a cynical step in the "debt recovery" process. That is, most PPCs who file court claims have no intention of it proceeding that far. They are just using it to ratchet up the pressure or to get default judgements. They continue to press forward, right up to the last minute, or just not turning up, to show they mean business. An occasional appearance in court, even if it's a spectacular failure, is just a cost of doing business, but demonstrates that they are not vexatious litigants (yeah, right). That is the behaviour that needs to be stopped.

100% correct, remember a few years ago when a couple of OAP's killed themselves because of the bully boys from British Gas ?

Ivor_Pecheque

Whilst it may be cathartic to express our disgust about this , in all truth, the directors probably try and rationalise things in their own little heads.

It must be difficult paying for their Porche, personalised plates, and Chorley newbuild.

beamerguy

Ivor_Pecheque wrote: »

Whilst it may be cathartic to express our disgust about this , in all truth, the directors probably try and rationalise things in their own little heads.

It must be difficult paying for their Porche, personalised plates, and Chorley newbuild.

It is a disease, it's called "scammeritis", it is infact terminal but some will last longer than others.

Ivor_Pecheque

They seem to be doing very well on it.

beamerguy

Ivor_Pecheque wrote: »

They seem to be doing very well on it.

Do remember ... IT'S TERMINAL