Court Report - Staines - PPCs 0, Motorists 3

The_Deep

the judge basically "fined" her for not playing the PPC's game of appeal and get rejected!

I think that the judge was wrong, the woman ignored a known scammer, why not? Had I been the defendant in this case I would have given the judge a good argument.

This case should never have got to court imo. It should have been discontinued by the PPC as soon as they saw her defence. PPCs and their solicitors constantly ignore motorists, and are rarely sanctioned.

[Deleted User]

The court is entitled to action a non compliance with the pre-action protocol. The best argument in the circumstances would have been to accept that the PPC needed to issue but challenge the decision to take it to trial.

On the hook for the issue fee makes sense but subsequent court costs and fixed legal costs possibly were more arguable.

In any event the point/learning outcome holds good. Engage with the letter of claim...

fisherjim

The_Deep wrote: »

the judge basically "fined" her for not playing the PPC's game of appeal and get rejected!

I think that the judge was wrong, the woman ignored a known scammer, why not? Had I been the defendant in this case I would have given the judge a good argument.

This case should never have got to court imo. It should have been discontinued by the PPC as soon as they saw her defence. PPCs and their solicitors constantly ignore motorists, and are rarely sanctioned.

We know they are scammers, but so long as they exist as a company belonging to a recognised trade organisation, and are seen as bona fide by a government agency you won't get very far in court using that descriptor I fear.

Next time you appear in court TD I would love to see you arguing with the judge please let us know!:D

The_Deep

I would love to see you arguing with the judge please let us know!:D


It will be sometime this year FJ, I will let you know the date.

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5735775