KNOCK KNOCK Mrs May, anyone at home ??? what are you doing about these CCJ's

pappa_golf

catfunt wrote: »

"A spokesman added: ‘ParkingEye would be happy to cooperate with any proposed government review. ParkingEye does everything it can to ensure we use the correct details when contacting motorists. Every case is carefully reviewed before we decide to pursue legal action.’"

Utter bollox.

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=71291338&postcount=14


ParkingEye's Mark Anfield is a director on the BPA Board of Representatives."

yotmon

As Iv'e just replied in a different thread, seeing as its a judge that issues these ccjs and not the ppcs, then maybe the government should be setting better guidelines. All it takes is for a judge to ask the ppcs what steps have they taken to confirm that the defendant has received the court papers. And only after the guidelines have been exhausted can a ccj be issued.

Umkomaas

It's a humanless conveyor belt if there's no acknowledgement of service.

yotmon

Umkomaas wrote: »

It's a humanless conveyor belt if there's no acknowledgement of service.

Exactly. Years ago I would be given summonses to serve personally on defendants who were well known in the local criminal fraternity that would just ignore postal ones. The courts would knock the case back if the summons couldn't be proved to have been served. Eventually the court would issue a warrant for them failing to appear but only if it could be proved that hey had been served the summons in the fist place.
These ppcs are not dealing with low life criminals who move house every farts-end. The are hitting the normal law abiding public who should be treated with respect and not be allowed to be hounded this way.

pappa_golf

yotmon wrote: »

As Iv'e just replied in a different thread, seeing as its a judge that issues these ccjs and not the ppcs, then maybe the government should be setting better guidelines. All it takes is for a judge to ask the ppcs what steps have they taken to confirm that the defendant has received the court papers. And only after the guidelines have been exhausted can a ccj be issued.

see post 14 , no judge involved , no defence = automated default

beamerguy

yotmon wrote: »

As Iv'e just replied in a different thread, seeing as its a judge that issues these ccjs and not the ppcs, then maybe the government should be setting better guidelines. All it takes is for a judge to ask the ppcs what steps have they taken to confirm that the defendant has received the court papers. And only after the guidelines have been exhausted can a ccj be issued.

You are so right. In these cases it is the PPC that turns up in court and gets a default as the motorist did not know.

In such cases the court must require positive proof from the PPC

The next thing is what will happen to all the CCJ's that have already been issued without knowledge. Mrs May is about to open a minefield.

Umkomaas's post above regarding a 36 yr old lawyer.
The private parking scam has been hidden in a corner and most solicitors will not have a clue and probably would never get involved.
I will include most judges who do not have a clue.

Even the infamous Gladstones, BWLegal, Wright Hassall and Miah seem to be clueless hence the recent spankings.

As Theresa May has said ...
"Theresa May has pledged to root out abuse of county court judgments"

The abuse starts with the wild bunch who think they are judge and jury. If, after the PM's statement they continue to threaten with CCJ's ... the SRA should take action or maybe the SRA should be investigated by the PM.

The is a big story and will be detrimental to the predators such as Parking Eye and UKPC ... PLUS THE REST

Let us hope that the Justice Secretary and the said Court Minister
instructs judges to be wary and suspect of any PPC who turns up in their court without the defendent present.
They can instruct the courts immediately whilst it is being investigated

pappa_golf

"You are so right. In these cases it is the PPC that turns up in court and gets a default as the motorist did not know."


NO NO NO


in a case where papers are served to an old address , and the accused is not aware , if there is no reply within 14 days it goes to an automated default !


no solicitor would turn up mths later , as the default was automatically served mths before




"Let us hope that the Justice Secretary and the said Court Minister
instructs judges to be wary and suspect of any PPC turns up in their court without the defendent present "


only in a case where they could not be *ssed turning up , coz it was raining or bake off on tv

beamerguy

pappa_golf wrote: »

"You are so right. In these cases it is the PPC that turns up in court and gets a default as the motorist did not know."


NO NO NO


in a case where papers are served to an old address , and the accused is not aware , if there is no reply within 14 days it goes to an automated default !


no solicitor would turn up mths later , as the default was automatically served mths before

It's both pappa:)

With everything in life there will always be that type of person, doubt the people featured in the Dail Mail were watching "bake off"

pappa_golf

the problem is the automated default , without the PPC having to do a trace or electoral roll check within "x" days" of the claim.


royal mail forwarding is 2 yrs max , so why are claims allowed for 6 yrs?

yotmon

pappa_golf wrote: »

in a case where papers are served to an old address , and the accused is not aware , if there is no reply within 14 days it goes to an automated default !

Hi PG, I (and probably the masses) was totally unaware that this was the procedure. How on earth can something be called a 'Judgment' when it hasn't even been heard. The minimum requirement should be to have the claim read and then decided upon rather the farce we now have in place.

Maybe this is the first part of the system that requires an overhaul.