The CCJ Myth and threats and lies told by debt collectors and PPC's .. EXPOSED

The_Deep

Nine tmes out of ten there is an element of scam in these alleged breaches of contract, and, properly defended, few would survive a court claim. Many of these companies are former clampers, and they rely on fear, threats, intimidation and the ignorance of the law of the general public.

This is an entirely unregulated industry which is scamming the public with inflated claims for minor breaches of contracts for alleged parking offences, aided and abetted by a handful of low-rent solicitors.

Parking Eye, CPM, Smart, and another company have already been named and shamed, as has Gladstones Solicitors, and BW Legal, (these two law firms take hundreds of these cases to court each year). They lose most of them, and have been reported to the regulatory authority by an M.P. for unprofessional conduct

Hospital car parks and residential complex tickets have been especially mentioned.

The problem has become so rampant that MPs have agreed to enact a Bill to regulate these scammers. Watch the video of the Second Reading in the House of Commons recently

http://parliamentlive.tv/event/index/2f0384f2-eba5-4fff-ab07-cf24b6a22918?in=12:49:41 recently.

and complain in the most robust terms to your MP. With a fair wind they will be out of business by Christmas.

Elena196

Thanks just read this post about the myths surrounding a CCJ. Good to know! I posted a new thread about my failed rejected POPLA appeal for a Parking Eye ticket at Barnet Hospital..you may have seen my post. So what about what I was told by the CAB about if I lose in court, will I be liable for interest on after the 28 days have passed when my official appeal via POPLA has been rejected and I'm supposed to pay, or is that only if the judge rules I must pay, then I will be liable for interest on the fine as well? Thanks !

Umkomaas

ParkingEye never apply for interest. They want £100 parking charge + legal costs £50 + £25 court filing fee. £175 in almost every case.

Coupon-mad

So what about what I was told by the CAB about if I lose in court, will I be liable for interest on after the 28 days have passed when my official appeal via POPLA has been rejected and I'm supposed to pay, or is that only if the judge rules I must pay, then I will be liable for interest on the fine as well?

You only pay interest if you lose in court, and the Judge rules that you must also pay interest.

It is NOT a fine!

If you read the odd thread where people lost, interest is not normally granted and even if it was it would be tiny (typically under a tenner). I can't even recall one in years, where interest was granted, or even asked for by a scammer PPC.

The CAB need to shut up if they can't give proper advice about PPC scams.

Snakes_Belly

I would like to see the new CoP kick the debt collectors out of parking claims. I think that if they were regulated then they would not be able to chase disputed claims (I would stand corrected on that). As all these claims are disputed the debt collectors would be redundant. I am somewhat confused as to who actually controls these companies. The FCA have some involvement in the control of debt collection but only for certain types of claims.

They should not be able to chase vulnerable people

Any interest should be linked to base rate and not at 8%.

KeithP

Snakes_Belly wrote: »

Any interest should be linked to base rate and not at 8%.

It is linked to base rate.

It is base rate + 8%.

As the base rate is currently so low, it is not worth mentioning.

beamerguy

Snakes_Belly wrote: »

i would like to see the new CoP kick the debt collectors out of parking claims. I think that if they were regulated by the FCA then they would not be able to chase disputed claims (I would stand corrected on that). As all these claims are disputed the debt collectors would be redundant.

Any interest should be linked to base rate and not at 8%.

Correct ..... POFA2012 allows them to use these cretins but it does not say they must be regulated.
Probably yet another failure of those who wrote POFA2012 ????

Adding the word "regulated" would be easy

Snakes_Belly

KeithP wrote: »

It is linked to base rate.

It is base rate + 8%.

As the base rate is currently so low, it is not worth mentioning.

This is higher than they would be charged on overdraft.

Snakes_Belly

New CoP should included guidance on how the PPC deals with vulnerable people. Those debt collection letters 'ordered to court for questioning' could tip someone over the edge.

Umkomaas

New CoP should included guidance on how the PPC deals with vulnerable people.

That's going to take some definition - and ongoing argument!