Minster baywatch pcn

azz007

pappa_golf wrote: »

ok , you now know the "loosing" wording , now reprase the others and hope for a different assessor

loosing , or 'losing' not sure i follow what you mean here. the asessor got sold on the pics close ups by the opeartor who provided like 20+ pics.. so not sure if as keeper should waste my time anymore on the others for the same PPC. so reprashing just the same points to begin with prob wont have much sucess too

now i cant take them matter any further so either as keeper pay up or ignore . dont think i can keep ignoring as already done ignoring one with ECP. and dont like the sound of waiting arouund for 6 years to to get summoned for court..

azz007

Already had to submit the 2nd appeal to popla so will have to change the rebuttal points as now i know what went against the appeal.

also, hypothetically if the 2nd appeal becomes successful, could i question the 1st decision 'unsuccessful' or that one is done and dusted and the outcome cannot be changed

Coupon-mad

dont think i can keep ignoring as already done ignoring one with ECP.

I ignored about 3 from them a few years ago, and a few from Britannia I think. It's quite fun, no big deal to get letters.

Seeing as you are dealing with a firm who DO NOT sue people, of course you must ignore them!

azz007

there is a increase in court activity with MB IN 2017, althought its around 1% of the total tickets issued.
http://www.bmpa.eu/companydata/Minster_Baywatch.html

Dont really know what MB are like and how far they go, as many on the forum are other PPCs more often

Edna_Basher

A friend of mine is going to Court with MB in a couple of months' time. This relates to a parking "incident" from about a year ago.

He didn't respond to any of the early correspondence and ended up receiving a Letter Before Claim from Gladstones. He responded to the LBC highlighting its deficiencies but good old Gladstones have carried on regardless.

As you highlight, MB have not been prolific in the Courts and maybe they've been focusing on the "ignorers" in the hope of picking up easy default wins. However, you've already shown MB that you're a tough nut to crack.

azz007

first person i know that knows somebody going to court,. What area is your friend from if you dont mind me asking?

bmpa advised
1. The POPLA decision is binding on them but not on you. You need not pay if you don't want to.
2. You'll get lots of debt collector letters but as they cannot do anything they can be ignored.
3. MB do go to court but not overly so. They have two "favourite" courts - York for obvious reasons and Port Talbot (!!). If you are not within these catchment areas you should be safe but they do like multiple tickets.

nosferatu1001

Appeal to popla. You’ve got it all written so it’s negligble effort. Not every assessor is equal.

azz007

Edna_Basher wrote: »

A friend of mine is going to Court with MB in a couple of months' time..

Keep us updated

Edna_Basher

Will do.

My friend's case involves a "parking incident" in York. He's the vehicle's keeper but wasn't driving and wasn't even present at the time.

Maybe MB were hoping for an easy default win in York County Court. Too bad for them that he'll be defending the claim in his local Court which is quite some distance from York.

Redx

those debt collector cases you dealt with in an earlier life were regarding defaults on legal contracts , where there was an "intention to create legal relations" , SO NOT ALLEGED DEBTS BUT REAL AND ACCUMULATED DEBTS , PROBABLY WITH SIGNED AND DATED CONTRACTS

the whole premise of your current arguments with MB and ECP is that there is no contract of parking between you , that you never entered into one , the drivers intention was to just park there for free because they thought the land did not belong to anyone , so until a judge tells you that you did enter into a contract and must pay , its a disputed unsigned contract over a disputed and alleged debt or debts over no parking agreement

MIL collections and some parking companies got into trouble in selling details on where they breached their KADOE contracts and MIL were not the principal , so in some cases DPA breached occurred when the PPC had obtained the dvla details for the keeper and then sold the alleged debt on to MIL

a bit more research required as your previous job is irrelevant in these parking charge notice cases

and the more you incur as keeper , the more your letterbox will ping , so 1 down and 3 to go when you said "1 out of 4" , plus your ECP ones , mean the more you accrue , that remain unpaid or unresolved , the more debt collector letters you will receive

plus it takes over 6 years to know if a strategy against a debt collector works, the alleged debt never goes away , just the threat of court due to the 6 year statute , so do you seriously expect to keep us informed until 2024 ? (then we can have a new strategy starting in 2024 , even though a lot of the goalposts will have moved in the meantime , like the new 2018 private members bill and the new 2018 DPA protocols etc)

as for MB , they can and do issue court claims as EB says above (more so in the last 12 months or so) , like these recent ones

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5757012

and

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5710354

and

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5587476

and

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5578681

and

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5356821

are just a few

we believe that they got some new claims manager in to progress these alleged debts and issue court claims , perhaps 1 to 2 years ago