Time limit before PPE must proceed to court, or abandon?

petere123

A generic question really. Is there a timescale by which PPE duplicate 'Parking charge' demands & threat of Court action constitute harrassment?.

After 18 months, i have told PPE to proceed to Court or stop sending letters. Do I have any pushback against their ridiculously slow time schedule?

thanks !

Redx

no you dont


they have 6 years in E & W to issue a court case using MCOL, which has been that way since 1973 (its 5 years for Scotland)

KeithP

Is this the fifth thread about your ParkingEye saga?

Redx

one previous thread here from last year


https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5636318/popla-appeal-lost-despite-strong-rebuttals-to-desperate-80-page-operator-evidence


no need for new threads unless its about a NEW pcn , thank you

The_Deep

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 HofC recently.

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

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

KeithP

Four previous threads from last year:

Submitting POPLA appeal help please

POPLA appeal submission tonight. Obligation to provide telephone number ?

Quick HELP please. Just 2000 characters for POPLA comments on Parking Eye 'Evidence'

POPLA APPEAL LOST despite strong rebuttals to desperate 80 page operator evidence

petere123

KeithP wrote: »

Is this the fifth thread about your ParkingEye saga?

What's your point?

Thanks to a helpful reply from Redx, I 'get' the 'one thread' rule.
I'm sure i'm not the only recipient of your sarcasm, so perhaps you too should confine that to one place.
NOT sarcasm.

petere123

Redx wrote: »

no you dont


they have 6 years in E & W to issue a court case using MCOL, which has been that way since 1973 (its 5 years for Scotland)

Thanks. Much appreciated. I figured there MIGHT be guidance on how often PPE's can send out letters, but not actually take positive action like proceed to court.

petere123

Redx wrote: »

one previous thread here from last year


https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5636318/popla-appeal-lost-despite-strong-rebuttals-to-desperate-80-page-operator-evidence


no need for new threads unless its about a NEW pcn , thank you

Sorry, but figured a generic question (which might help other people as well) doesn't need for anyone to read through a previous longwinded thread

Redx

petere123 wrote: »

Thanks. Much appreciated. I figured there MIGHT be guidance on how often PPE's can send out letters, but not actually take positive action like proceed to court.

nope, there is no statutory guidance on this, they can send them as often as they like, but that could lead to you claiming harassment under existing laws, in court, which could be costly , especially if you lose


nobody has managed to define that aspect and generally is a no no , the DPA and GDPR are more useful


bear in mind the harassment debate has been talked about on here many times, so use the forum search box and see what informed people have said about it previously (dont assume yours is the first thread about it , its not)

petere123

Thanks Redx for your useful reply. Much appreciated.

Was considering whether to push back the harrassment angle as elderly parents get stressed every time.
I'd gladly go to Court, but seems they are intent on not doing so.