Driver observed leaving site whilst vehicle remained parked on premises

beamerguy

nosferatu1001 wrote: »

If he's still working for the claimant then there are no claimable expenses.

Guess that if he no longer works for the company then the onus is on the PPC to bring him to court.

All this for a £100 ???? so stupid

fisherjim

Smaru wrote: »

Dear forum members,


So,I now have a reply from them


They have said they will be following my further posts on MSE with interest!!

They will know that the majority on here consider them to be loathsome scamming greedy chancers then!

nosferatu1001

VAST majority

But the first thing is - theyre wanting to rely on hearsay, so must file a notice
If they dont do this, then you request the court to strike it out, and point to their complete knowledge of this requirement and that it would have taken them five minutes to do so; that they didnt would be showing contempt for the courts proceedings.

If they do this, you file your response requiring them to produce their own witness, and require them to confirm they will do so
If they will not confirm it, you will require they send the name and serviceable address so you can issue a witness summons

Umkomaas

nosferatu1001 wrote: »

VAST majority

But the first thing is - theyre wanting to rely on hearsay, so must file a notice
If they dont do this, then you request the court to strike it out, and point to their complete knowledge of this requirement and that it would have taken them five minutes to do so; that they didnt would be showing contempt for the courts proceedings.

If they do this, you file your response requiring them to produce their own witness, and require them to confirm they will do so
If they will not confirm it, you will require they send the name and serviceable address so you can issue a witness summons

They must know about it - it's posted on the forum! :rotfl:

Fruitcake

Smaru wrote: »

Dear forum members,


So,I now have a reply from them


They have said they will be following my further posts on MSE with interest!!

Perhaps they are hoping to educate themselves on how the law works, having realised how inexperienced they are in this field.
I wonder if the have read what our MPs have said in open parliament about this unregulated scam.
It's a shame there are some people in this world that have no shame, and can't be shamed into doing the right thing.

Don't forget, you can also use information on here as well as them in court now they have said they are following these posts.
You have told them you will be challenging their hearsay evidence and have in writing they know about it from here.

Guys_Dad

Fruitcake wrote: »

Perhaps they are hoping to educate themselves on how the law works, having realised how inexperienced they are in this field.
I wonder if the have read what our MPs have said in open parliament about this unregulated scam.
It's a shame there are some people in this world that have no shame, and can't be shamed into doing the right thing.

Don't forget, you can also use information on here as well as them in court now they have said they are following these posts.
You have told them you will be challenging their hearsay evidence and have in writing they know about it from here.

Well this forum has educated me over the years. :beer:

Smaru

Don't forget, you can also use information on here as well as them in court now they have said they are following these posts.
Originally posted by Fruitcake

Just to add here that in their reply to me ,the PPC actually used my MSE Forum name to address me (Dear Smaru......!)
I had used my own name, ref PCN number etc to email them -so there was no reason whatsoever for them to address me differently in their reply ..
To lurk on the forum , and to use the member's forum ID , and relate it to an email that they received seems to me an inappropriate use of my personal data that they hold.

nosferatu1001

Eh, its not that bad
Its accurate, at least!

However its laughable that theyre not actually responding to he substantive point you raise - that their "threat" to rely on hearsay needs to a) be communicated to the court and b) isnt really a threat at all - is quite amusing

Hopefully once they realise the contempt the public holds for their parasitical ways they'll quit and do somethign more honourable and far less odious - dung collector possibly?

Coupon-mad

Smaru wrote: »

Dear forum members,


So,I now have a reply from them


They have said they will be following my further posts on MSE with interest!!

They are sad and desperate. Imagine 'working' for a parking firm, as if it's a real job. Imagine harassing people with unwarranted penalties for a parasite firm from a rogue industry, hated by the entire Country.

We hold them in utter contempt. Useless harassing bullies.

Hello TPS. :wave:

Had you not noticed that this poster is NOT even the Defendant?!

My query is: am I allowed to represent my spouse (who is the registered keeper)?

So let's get this straight, TPS.

Your evidence will be hearsay from an employee, plus forum hearsay from the Lay Rep who isn't even the Defendant.

The Judge will have your guts for garters.

nyermen

They have said they will be following my further posts on MSE with interest!!

If you have that in writing, along with addressing you by your forum name, then does that mean we're all now potentially involved and could be witnesses? :rotfl: