Submitted Witness Statement and and Draft Order by Email - Judge Unwilling to Strike Out

AnotherForumite

There is a rule on this forum not to disclose a users identity or anything that could assist to identify the user. I know how trigger happy you guys are with the 'report' button; therefore, I will remain anonymous. I will see if we have a copy of the judgments to redact and upload through the week though. There are a couple of threads on here where the OP has been advised to ignore our PCNs; therefore, when they escalate, you may well get your chance to put your theory to the test. 

Were_Doomed

How would advising which PPC / legal you work for identify you? (Other than identify you to your own employers - if that is an issue then you should refrain from posting further, here or on any thread).

beamerguy

Were_Doomed said:

How would advising which PPC / legal you work for identify you? (Other than identify you to your own employers - if that is an issue then you should refrain from posting further, here or on any thread).

This is not a forum for parking companies to allude their special techniques that fail.
Do we really care what PPC, not really, would I report the user ... NO, this is pure enjoyment 

The OP has identified themselves as a parking company and there is no more to be said

Coupon-mad

Sigh...even if the fake 'indemnity' costs are quantified on the signs it doesn't make them recoverable, if the D knows what to say.

Umkomaas

Were_Doomed said:

How would advising which PPC / legal you work for identify you? (Other than identify you to your own employers - if that is an issue then you should refrain from posting further, here or on any thread).

@AnotherForumite is articulate and writes well. Rather narrows things down! 😄

Redx

Enlighten me , I have never know anyone recommending to ignore a PCN for England and Wales , not since march 2013

The only exception would be if the PPC was not in the BPA or IPC trade associations (TA)

Once the PAS comes in for Scotland , England and Wales, we should hope that clarity reigns for both sides of the argument

I deliberately left out Northern Ireland because that won't change anytime soon , no matter which Steering Group is involved

Sometimes I have advised people to cough up where it's clear they breached a contract and the PPC will probably have all bases covered , even whilst embroiled in a court case , like recent contracts with BPA members

Therexare a few recent foolish people who have ignored PCN s and now have a court claim , due to listening to fools in pubs etc. More fool them if they lose

nosferatu1001

AnotherForumite said:

There is a rule on this forum not to disclose a users identity or anything that could assist to identify the user. I know how trigger happy you guys are with the 'report' button; therefore, I will remain anonymous. I will see if we have a copy of the judgments to redact and upload through the week though. There are a couple of threads on here where the OP has been advised to ignore our PCNs; therefore, when they escalate, you may well get your chance to put your theory to the test. 

But you are posting in that capacity, based on your hilarious posts so far - and so I've hit report, because it's one of the forum rules. You're a shill, for a parasite company.  You're not welcome. 

AnotherForumite

Redx said:

Enlighten me , I have never know anyone recommending to ignore a PCN for England and Wales , not since march 2013

The only exception would be if the PPC was not in the BPA or IPC trade associations (TA)

Once the PAS comes in for Scotland , England and Wales, we should hope that clarity reigns for both sides of the argument

I deliberately left out Northern Ireland because that won't change anytime soon , no matter which Steering Group is involved

Sometimes I have advised people to cough up where it's clear they breached a contract and the PPC will probably have all bases covered , even whilst embroiled in a court case , like recent contracts with BPA members

Therexare a few recent foolish people who have ignored PCN s and now have a court claim , due to listening to fools in pubs etc. More fool them if they lose

The advice here is more often than not to ignore everything other than an LBC (granted there are one or two exceptions), at which point the opportunity to pay at the discounted rate (or even a small admin fee) is long gone.

Whilst some operators fail miserably to legally justify the extra £60/£70, they have the capacity to prevail with the £100.

Add the £25 issue fee, the £25 hearing fee, and in some cases the fixed solicitors fee of £50; the motorist is still paying at least 100% more than they would had they just paid when the charge was £60.

Coupon-mad

And that is not a reason to give in to a scam. 

A 'pay up or be sued for more' attitude does your ilk no favours and rather reminds me of the threats that the industry littered the BSI consultation with:  'give us what we want or you'll regret it' was the clear message.  Not a good one. It won't go unnoticed.

£100 is twice what it should be.  Minor issues could be even less and still work, as long as the signs were clear (for once).  Ever read any articles about optimal deterrence? 
No, I thought not.

Redx

AnotherForumite said:

Redx said:

Enlighten me , I have never know anyone recommending to ignore a PCN for England and Wales , not since march 2013

The only exception would be if the PPC was not in the BPA or IPC trade associations (TA)

Once the PAS comes in for Scotland , England and Wales, we should hope that clarity reigns for both sides of the argument

I deliberately left out Northern Ireland because that won't change anytime soon , no matter which Steering Group is involved

Sometimes I have advised people to cough up where it's clear they breached a contract and the PPC will probably have all bases covered , even whilst embroiled in a court case , like recent contracts with BPA members

Therexare a few recent foolish people who have ignored PCN s and now have a court claim , due to listening to fools in pubs etc. More fool them if they lose

The advice here is more often than not to ignore everything other than an LBC, at which point the opportunity to pay at the discounted rate (or even a small admin fee) is long gone.

Whilst some operators fail miserably to legally justify the extra £60/£70, they have the capacity to prevail with the £100.

Add the £25 issue fee, the £25 hearing fee, and in some cases the fixed solicitors fee of £50; the motorist is still paying at least 100% more than they would had they just paid when the charge was £60.

I disagree , after coming here almost daily since march 2013 the forum advice has been do not ignore a PCN from a trade body member and myself , coupon mad , Umkomaas and many , many others on here have said the same

Do not ignore a private PCN in England and Wales

It even says so in the signature by coupon mad and has done for many years

It is complete b*****X to say otherwise

Sometimes the discounted rate is £35 , even the Beavis case was not £60 and he probably paid less than £175 to PE after losing the first case , which was £85 with a 40% discount

The lowest current payment is £20 for major keying errors

The charges allowed in the rules do not phase me , I regularly tell people on here it will cost them £175 if they lose to PE in Court , if it's a £100 pcn