PCN during lockdown - Wembley Stadium Retail Park

Scrapit

D_P_Dance said:

What part is misleading.

Perhaps the "several others" would care to answer that.  

I suspect that would be best 

nosferatu1001

Fighting can be difficult and time consuming.
-> it can be, or it can be really easy. No context, which can be misleading as it only presents in this case the singular negative view
 It may take up to 6 years to conclude.
-> or not
You will need to research and write alot. 
-> you MAY need to, you MAY also get a landowner cancellation from a 2 line email, which is almost zero research and writing - not "alot" (sic), "will" is clearly misleading, as it implies a certainty that is actually not there. 
->You may be facing a trip to court.
True, but the vast majority of tickets dont make it to court. Even the most litigious PPCs dont take every PCN ever to court. We know this for a fact, based on ticket and court stats. By failing to categorise the likelihood this is a misleading or potentially misleading statement, especially as...
-> You will most likely repeatedly receive threatening letters from "legal" types and debit collectors. Do you want that?
...here, you DO put a qualifier ("most") which has been absent on all others where you did not express a mistaken certainty. 
I'd give it about a 3/10 - as it is more alarming to the reader than this trivial situation warrants. 

Johnersh

A line needs to be drawn under this spat, which is helping no-one.

The fact is some cases are quickly resolved and some aren't.  Many do end up in court, yes, but that doesn't mean they all do or even that the results for the same car parks are consistent. 

Anyone fighting a ticket needs to do research - but then again, that's what the Internet is there for. The fact people arrive on the forum suggests they're willing to at least do that.

I have no doubt some read up, decide its not worth the effort and pay. That's their prerogative. 

I have yet to read about a small claim being litigated for 6 years. The system is designed for rapid resolution.  A hearing will come round much faster than that. 

Redx

We do see some cases that are towards the 6 year deadline and clearly they trawl for old cases and resurrect them , plus we have seen LBC letters that are after the 6 year deadline when clearly the cases are statute barred

Most companies tend to be issuing claims after 2 or 3 years , others after only a few months , so the whole spectrum can be seen

We have seen some threads last for a couple of years for various reasons , especially when at LBC stage because they drag it out with threats , different debt collectors and different lawyer firms

6 years ago all we saw were PCN issues and the old popla , few if any court cases back then and little input about legal matters, especially prior to the Beavis case

Mse is not setup for legal advice and Martin Lewis and mse have always pointed victims to lawyers when legal matters crop up

The issues have become more widespread , less clarity and various cases changing matters , plus POFA and the CRA as well  , plus CPR changes etc, so many of the issues have become more varied and complicated than when this forum was setup

Until new systems are put in place , the confusion , lies and innuendo will carry on , historical cases will carry on too

Scrapit

nosferatu1001 said:

Fighting can be difficult and time consuming.
-> it can be, or it can be really easy. No context, which can be misleading as it only presents in this case the singular negative view. can be. Not is. Not will be. Can be. Not at all misleading but quite open.
 It may take up to 6 years to conclude.
-> or not. Up to. That is up to and including but could be less. Again a very open statement.
You will need to research and write alot. 
-> you MAY need to, you MAY also get a landowner cancellation from a 2 line email, which is almost zero research and writing - not "alot" (sic), "will" is clearly misleading, as it implies a certainty that is actually not there. Again not misleading. A poster is unlikely to know they can get the landowbmner to cancel. Research will allow them to find this out. Getting this cancelled this way may be very simple but research almost certainly is required. I can change it to you may need to do alot of writing.
->You may be facing a trip to court.
True, but the vast majority of tickets dont make it to court. Even the most litigious PPCs dont take every PCN ever to court. We know this for a fact, based on ticket and court stats. By failing to categorise the likelihood this is a misleading or potentially misleading statement, especially as...again, not at all misleading. A poster may be taken to court.
-> You will most likely repeatedly receive threatening letters from "legal" types and debit collectors. Do you want that?
...here, you DO put a qualifier ("most") which has been absent on all others where you did not express a mistaken certainty. so you agree?
I'd give it about a 3/10 - as it is more alarming to the reader than this trivial situation warrants. 

Your grading apart, the is nothing there is wrong that you have flagged.
responses above.