We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
IMPORTANT: Please make sure your posts do not contain any personally identifiable information (both your own and that of others). When uploading images, please take care that you have redacted all personal information including number plates, reference numbers and QR codes (which may reveal vehicle information when scanned).
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
The Forum now has a brand new text editor, adding a bunch of handy features to use when creating posts. Read more in our how-to guide
Supreme Court asked to consider status of Litigants in Person
Comments
-
The supreme court had to find against the claimant so that the rules we have can be applied consistently and reliably.
Whether or not parking companies should be permitted to bulk issue claims through the small claims court is policy, for which you need to look to parliament not the court. That's the separation of powers and how our constitution works.
FWIW the courts do often apply huge latitude for LiPs but have always (professional or not) been robust on service of proceedings and limitation dates.
Reforms are for parliament. More pointedly, the judge contains the dissenting views and does highlight the need for re-evaluation of the rules regarding service, which will inevitably be redrawn to permit email service before too long.
There is, of course, a reason why I tend to refuse to engage with opponents by email when it comes to service of statements and the like. This would especially be the case for PPCs. Not only does it increase their overhead (discouraging disproportionate claims), but when they outsource their post to third parties it becomes much harder to comply with ongoing service provisions. And the rules allow you to refuse email service.0 -
There is, of course, a reason why I tend to refuse to engage with opponents by email when it comes to service of statements and the like. This would especially be the case for PPCs. Not only does it increase their overhead (discouraging disproportionate claims), but when they outsource their post to third parties it becomes much harder to comply with ongoing service provisions. And the rules allow you to refuse email service.
Are you dropping a big hint here?This is a system account and does not represent a real person. To contact the Forum Team email forumteam@moneysavingexpert.com0 -
a reason why I tend to refuse to engage with opponents by email...not onlly does it increase their overhead (discouraging disproportionate claims)
Totally agree!!
Send them reams of printed stuff and they can either photocopy it [if still manual] or scan it all into their systems [ideally we would print stuff in such a way that it can't be scanned into a pc????]....that costs the scum money.
Similarly always worth printing photos and sending them rather than emailing.....
Make the ba5tards pay!!!0 -
@IamEmanresu
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oz8RjPAD2Jk0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 354.6K Banking & Borrowing
- 254.5K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 455.5K Spending & Discounts
- 247.5K Work, Benefits & Business
- 604.4K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 178.6K Life & Family
- 261.9K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards
