I'm taking the militant approach - Will Parking Eye send bailiffs ?

Rimmerworld

Tawny_Owl wrote: »

Many Thanks for all your replies. :-)
There's another thread on this forum mentioning that someone had received a "Letter before court action" from PE. I have also received this one. Because I ignored this, I received a claim letter from the court. And because I ignored the claim letter, I received a Judgement for Claimant letter from the court. At the foot of the letter it states 'If you ignore this order your goods may be removed and sold, or other enforcement proceedings may be taken against you.....'
The key word here is MAY. As I understand it, PE will need to apply to the court again to recover the debt. Then again, they MAY NOT because surely it is more hassle for them.
That's where it stands at the moment.

You always respond to the LBC. I'm sure the more knowledgeable members will be on here soon to assess your options.

Umkomaas

I know you say that you're not bothered about your credit score, but you might just want to do a check on where it's at right now. Not sure how long since the CCJ, but I expect your credit score will be trashed.

Please read this thread, then get complaining.

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5524754

If you're planning to take legal action against PE, you'll need deep pockets. PE's pockets are very, very deep!

Coupon-mad

Sounds like it would have been so easy to win at POPLA, too. Not 'relevant land', two template appeal stages by the keeper, job done.

Can you please join our campaign by writing to the Government and your MP about being 'credit clamped' (which you now are):

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5524754

You have been credit clamped as a registered keeper despite this not being 'relevant land' so 'keeper liability' under the POFA did not even apply. PE did not even have to show you were liable, that the driver agreed to a contract, no facts, nothing. WRONG WRONG WRONG.

Please write to Mrs May and Mr Corbyn to have a rant about this situation where you await the possibility of bailiffs for SIX YEARS due to this ridiculously unfair charge from a monster of a crapita-owned parking firm (the one that the Supreme Court Judges decided to 'adjust and update' the penalty rule for). WRONG WRONG WRONG.

Ralph-y

there is a campaign group looking for people who have a CCJ against them obtained by PE ....

it might be worth your while google-ing to find them

Ralph:cool:

Umkomaas

Ralph-y wrote: »

there is a campaign group looking for people who have a CCJ against them obtained by PE ....

it might be worth your while google-ing to find them

Ralph:cool:

http://casehub.com/cases/parking-eye-ccj-fines

ratechaser

Coupon-mad wrote: »

You have been credit clamped as a registered keeper despite this not being 'relevant land' so 'keeper liability' under the POFA did not even apply. PE did not even have to show you were liable, that the driver agreed to a contract, no facts, nothing. WRONG WRONG .

I'll be the latest to weigh in here and say that this so called 'militant approach' is frankly nuts. But given that the judgement appears to be be so flawed on a number of points of law, doesn't it make getting a set-aside more achievable?

Of course OP, if you are really seeking martyrdom, don't let me get in your way...

Coupon-mad

Yes he could get this set aside but didn't seem to want to!

Umkomaas

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Yes he could get this set aside but didn't seem to want to!

I suspect he might be back in a few weeks time, trying to find a way around this.

Time is not on his side; getting a set-aside late on in the process becomes more difficult/unlikely.