CPM ignoring transfer of liability abroad completely (no rejection letter, nothing)

beamerguy

Umkomaas said:

Johnersh said:

The duty of the keeper is discharged under pofa when a name and correct address are provided. The PPC don't get to come back to the keeper if the details are provided done in good faith and the driver doesn't cough.

That is unlikely to stop them. Many PPCs run a paragraph in the NtK that should a nominated driver not respond (or address is defective) they reserve the right to return liability to the keeper. Whether that is lawful or not, I don't know, but it will likely be a sufficient basis (in their minds, like most of the crap legal arguments they propound in their court claims) to re-target the keeper. 

The law is a mere distraction in their thirst for blood. 

They can reserve the right on whatever they want but would a judge accept this in an unregulated industry of scammers.?  The PPC would be crazy to throw what's left of their money on a stupid claim.  Then of course the idiotic legals pop in and will say that the fake £60 is an international fee ....  along with all the rubbish they come out with ?  The PPC has been told of the drivers address, let them work it out, they are stupid enough to waste their lack of income

Umkomaas

I'd say that, ultimately, they would never take this to court - but there's no need for them to make that decision until years down the track. In the meantime, there's nothing to stop them (nor will it) from harassing, haranguing, intimidating and threatening the keeper in the hope they will at some stage cave and cough. And once the details are loaded into the hopper, it will all be completely automated, no further effort from the PPC (or the debt collector/legals they might employ). 

Johnersh

Umkomaas said:

I'd say that, ultimately, they would never take this to court - but there's no need for them to make that decision until years down the track. In the meantime, there's nothing to stop them (nor will it) from harassing, haranguing, intimidating and threatening the keeper in the hope they will at some stage cave and cough. And once the details are loaded into the hopper, it will all be completely automated, no further effort from the PPC (or the debt collector/legals they might employ). 

Well apart from the Court of Appeal authority in British Gas v Ferguson which they should be reminded of, if the correspondence continues.

The courts have made clear that persistent unmeritorious debt collection which disregards responses raised by the recipient can constitute actionable harassment in both the civil and criminal courts. 

Umkomaas

Johnersh said:

Umkomaas said:

I'd say that, ultimately, they would never take this to court - but there's no need for them to make that decision until years down the track. In the meantime, there's nothing to stop them (nor will it) from harassing, haranguing, intimidating and threatening the keeper in the hope they will at some stage cave and cough. And once the details are loaded into the hopper, it will all be completely automated, no further effort from the PPC (or the debt collector/legals they might employ). 

Well apart from the Court of Appeal authority in British Gas v Ferguson which they should be reminded of, if the correspondence continues.

The courts have made clear that persistent unmeritorious debt collection which disregards responses raised by the recipient can constitute actionable harassment in both the civil and criminal courts. 

I understand that, as most regulars would, and I won't attempt to paraphrase our octogenarian Diplomat (Ret'd) scathing assessment of the capability of the majority of newbies (current OP excepted) to string two words together adequately deal with anything that isn't spoon-fed or written for them, but I'd tend not to disagree with his general thrust. 😊

Johnersh

Hmm to be fair, that sentence wasn't likely to win many plain English awards, was it? 

Umkomaas

Johnersh said:

Hmm to be fair, that sentence wasn't likely to win many plain English awards, was it? 

But I knew a lawyer could handle it! 🤭 😄

MothballsWallet

@Johnersh, @Umkomaas - when dealing with these bottom of the barrel cheapo legals, perhaps it might be a good idea to fight fire (legalese) with fire (legalese)?

Impossibleparker

Umkomaas said:

I'd say that, ultimately, they would never take this to court - but there's no need for them to make that decision until years down the track. In the meantime, there's nothing to stop them (nor will it) from harassing, haranguing, intimidating and threatening the keeper in the hope they will at some stage cave and cough. And once the details are loaded into the hopper, it will all be completely automated, no further effort from the PPC (or the debt collector/legals they might employ). 

That is fine. They can come and write to me. I collect all letters and write one standard reply which I will be sending every time after I received a letter. This can go on for years or decades if they want. I might look into legal action at one point myself if it get's too wild. Let's see how this develops. I can keep you all posted in this thread.

nosferatu1001

Once theyve sent two letters, sue them. Easy £500 for harassment. 

Impossibleparker

nosferatu1001 said:

Once theyve sent two letters, sue them. Easy £500 for harassment. 

Only £500? I want £500 per letter at least, plus 1 year free parking on all their parking land they patrol nationwide!