LBC from Gladstones

HottoTrot

beamerguy wrote: »

How long was the overstay and the reason why, were you shopping

The Roundel will not really mean anything

Well it breaches the code of conduct and therefore the ability to commence the contract according to the BPA.

HottoTrot

The_Deep wrote: »

Thanks @The Deep. Letters to MPs are all well and good but they don't prevent a visit to the Magistrate.

There will be no visit to Mags. This is a civil matter, a disputed debt, just like an OTT plumber's bill, and if the putative debtor lodges a claim it will be heard in a Civil Court, aka County Court, where. on the balance of probabilities, a civil judge will decide the matter under contract law .

surely the only defence is that the T&Cs were inaccessible or some other technicality like not adhering to the Code of Conduct under which the PPC is supposed to operate - the APOS roundel for example.

As I have already said, nine out of ten of these claims are a scam, judges know this only too well.

Indeed, plus signage, contract, landowner authority, accreditation, timeliness, compliance with POFA, planning permission, advertising permission, double claiming, etc., etc., etc. They have many hurdles to clear, if they fail one they lose.

You seem to be under the impression that this unregulated (as yet) industry is legitimate, it is not.

Thanks but that doesn't provide much to boost confidence that they will fall. There is a lot of misleading advice out there, contradictions etc that make navigating this space more difficult than the Dardanelles during the War. Gladstones appear to have covered their bases on this occasion and the letter appears to be correctly presented with the relevant information given that outlines the claim. They also have APNR imagery that is clear.

The Keeper is inclined to write and offer to pay the £70 indeed to avoid the hassle of having to argue this in court unless there is a clear advantage.

KeithP

HottoTrot wrote: »

The Keeper is inclined to write and offer to pay the £70 indeed to avoid the hassle of having to argue this in court unless there is a clear advantage.

You have no hope of paying just £70.

To avoid this going to court you will need to pay the amount they are currently asking for - £140, isn't it?

Surely the 'clear advantage' you are looking for is to win any court case, pay nothing and walk away with circa £100 costs.

Even if you lose any court case, you are unlikely to pay more than £200.

It's a gamble, but only for £50 or so.

HottoTrot

KeithP wrote: »

You have no hope of paying just £70.

To avoid this going to court you will need to pay the amount they are currently asking for - £140, isn't it?

Surely the 'clear advantage' you are looking for is to win any court case, pay nothing and walk away with circa £100 costs.

Even if you lose any court case, you are unlikely to pay more than £200.

It's a gamble, but only for £50 or so.

and a CCJ... it is not then about the money

HottoTrot

If fighting these cases was only ever about winning and a net gain of such a measly sum then I am suspecting that the advice of all these fora is flawed. The advice needs to be tailored to caution individuals that are not inclined to pay that they should only not do so if:

1. they don't believe that they should pay because they have been wronged
2. they feel as though there are mitigating circumstances, that if heard in court, would be favourable to a successful defence
3. there has been an abuse of process

All advice, irrespective of circumstances, on this and other sites urges posters to ignore repetitive requests for payment and then fight in court. LBC is a lottery I guess and sometimes one gets fingered. The keeper will offer the £70. The results will be posted.

Thanks for your advice folks.

KeithP

HottoTrot wrote: »

and a CCJ... it is not then about the money

There is no risk of a lasting CCJ, even if you lose.

If you were to lose and pay the amount decided by the Judge in the timescale given, there will be no lasting CCJ.

It is all about the money.

HottoTrot

fair point - but a CCJ can be crippling to some. I suppose the bottom line is one of integrity. Does the keeper believe that they were in the wrong - No. But also does the keeper believe that the PPC really tried to mislead the keeper - No.

As said it is a game of numbers and sometimes yours is up!

KeithP

HottoTrot wrote: »

...a CCJ can be crippling to some.

Indeed it can, but I hoped I had pointed out that there is no risk of that.

beamerguy

HottoTrot wrote: »

fair point - but a CCJ can be crippling to some. I suppose the bottom line is one of integrity. Does the keeper believe that they were in the wrong - No. But also does the keeper believe that the PPC really tried to mislead the keeper - No.

As said it is a game of numbers and sometimes yours is up!

A CCJ is only crippling if a person ignores the court as to when to pay

Why not try the £70 offer, doubt it will be accepted, you never know

HottoTrot

What happens if the keeper decides to name the driver before a CC Claim has been filed? Does the driver then get pursued for £70 noting that the they have not, until that point, known that they had received a parking charge notice. This was an ANPR ticket.