IE Legal Total Parking Solutions

echo6

Heck yes!....

Coupon-mad

''Before we can deal with this point, as you are referring to a student parking permit, please confirm it was you / your son, who was in fact driving the vehicle. If a third party drove the vehicle, please identify them. Please don't expect to play silly games about this based on internet lawyers.

We will ask your son in court (as no doubt will the judge) and it will be a contempt of court, punishable by up to two years imprisonment to give a false answer.

You can refuse to answer if you wish, but then we would be entitled to ask the court to draw inferences, and you'd also annoy the judge which is not a good idea. Once you confirm the driver was the student permit holder, we can consider the other points your raise.''

I do hate companies that threaten people, and mislead about court processes and their own status.

What a pile of intimidating drivel that is, nasty trash, designed to remove the keeper's protection under the POFA.

I can only recall ONE case where a poster on here or pepipoo said the clueless Judge asked them directly: 'were you driving?' Far more likely is a Judge saying 'where is the evidence of who was driving and/or evidence of keeper liability?', particularly in decent clued-up courts like Manchester and Skipton.

echo6

He, yes he, as in the solicitor for this company backed this up by including a recent case they won in this jurisdiction. The google drive link provides a copy of what they included.

Coupon-mad

https://drive.google.com/file/d/18cp46aTqWsTX_kTAxvysQwcWL_FX3Ol4/view

Well that's a misleading one, because it appears to include an extra £255 court fee over and above the usual £50. It also doesn't tell you what occurred to lead to this Order and vacating the December hearing, and it's rare to see an order to pay £50 per month in instalments.

I am only guessing but it sounds like the PPC paid for a set aside or some other Order (fee £255) and then the victim got scared and offered £50 a month rather than face the hearing.

Hardly a common example! Misleading drivel.

I still hold the view that the last letter is threatening and attempt at intimidation and coercion when quoting a case they won which contains no further details except for the outcome. I will complain on this point.

Yes, write to the solicitor asking why he is misleading litigants-in-person by showing an example of a very specifically out of the ordinary case, that included more than one PCN (the sum claimed shows that) plus a £255 court fee on top of the usual £50 (the 'fees' sum shows that) and seems to be a case where there was no defended hearing of the facts of the case, as the Order says it was vacated.

Ask them to explain why they are disregarding their first duty which is to the court, and are abusing the pre-action protocol by failing to provide full details of their client's evidence, and instead threatening a keeper to divulge the driver's details (when the POFA only allows their client to 'enquire') effectively trying to pull the rug away from a registered keeper who is perfectly entitled in law, to defend the matter and rely on the protection offered in the POFA Schedule 4.

The fact that a solicitor who certainly should know better, using this pre-action period to intimidate and mislead a Defendant instead of narrowing the issues, is something that you feel the SRA will be interested in, so you have formally reported their communications.

And do so!

[Deleted User]

Coupon-mad is right. The order for payment is meaningless. If they want to provide you with details of a judgment they rely on, then they need to provide you with a copy of the judgment made in the proceedings (ie the basis for the decision) and/or a transcript. On its own it is meaningless.

They can ask the court to be announced pope if they want, doesn't mean they'll get it. There is no basis to argue contempt or to invite any inference as yet. Something may be likely on balance of probability, but you are perfectly entitled to ask a claimant proves his case...

echo6

I just noticed something else. The letter is dated the 8th January, the pre-action protocol paper letter is dated the 3rd January. Both letters are fanklin stamped the 8th. Hmmm, doesn't seem right!

echo6

Coupon-mad wrote: »

I am only guessing but it sounds like the PPC paid for a set aside or some other Order (fee £255) and then the victim got scared and offered £50 a month rather than face the hearing.

Am I to assume the top right is the date for the hearing 1st December, as the Judgement order is dated 17th November 2017 on the bottom. Which I find confusing!

Castle

Coupon-mad wrote: »

https://drive.google.com/file/d/18cp46aTqWsTX_kTAxvysQwcWL_FX3Ol4/view

Well that's a misleading one, because it appears to include an extra £255 court fee over and above the usual £50. It also doesn't tell you what occurred to lead to this Order and vacating the December hearing, and it's rare to see an order to pay £50 per month in instalments.

I am only guessing but it sounds like the PPC paid for a set aside or some other Order (fee £255) and then the victim got scared and offered £50 a month rather than face the hearing.

Hardly a common example! Misleading drivel.

The sum of £420 is exactly the same figure as you worked out in post 78 on this thread; what are the chances of that!
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5648451

echo6

A copy of the PRE-COURT NOTICE

hxxps://drive.google.com/file/d/1RtCefLg65qg5rLv0atQDWhJCJO796ZDi/view?usp=sharing

Umkomaas

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1RtCefLg65qg5rLv0atQDWhJCJO796ZDi/view?usp=sharing

@echo6 - I think you probably have enough posts under your belt now to post ‘live’ links. The days of the hxxps are probably over for you!