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

AnotherForumite

nosferatu1001 said:

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. 

Please advise where the rules for this forum state that those that work in the parking industry cannot post; I must have overlooked it.

AnotherForumite

Redx said:

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 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

I did say there were exceptions, unlike others here; I do not tar all with the same brush. 

Coupon-mad

You can't post as a company representative without getting clearance - and you are on a parking forum, so clearly a parking firm clerk (or owner...how can you sleep at night?) coming here to mislead people and post stuff about me, is breaking forum rules.

AnotherForumite

Coupon-mad said:

You can't post as a company representative without getting clearance - and you are on a parking forum, so clearly a parking firm clerk (or owner...how can you sleep at night?) coming here to mislead people and post stuff about me, is breaking forum rules.

I have said nothing that is not 100% correct, is it against the rules to tell the truth 🤔

Redx

Your remarks to me about members telling other members to ignore private PCN s was 100% incorrect , unless you go back to February 2013 or earlier , pre POFA or earlier , I would agree with you if we are driving the TARDIS 😋😆

Coupon-mad

AnotherForumite said:

Coupon-mad said:

You can't post as a company representative without getting clearance - and you are on a parking forum, so clearly a parking firm clerk (or owner...how can you sleep at night?) coming here to mislead people and post stuff about me, is breaking forum rules.

I have said nothing that is not 100% correct, is it against the rules to tell the truth 🤔

Depends which rules you are talking about, when you are posting about me.

Coupon-mad

Also, the ''100% correct'' assertion is odd and incorrect, given the allegations made about me.

Redx

But I am positive that you have been here before under another username (unlike me) and probably banned on here , so have added a new sign-up alter ego , re-registered, your current name , which you have not declared to mse

Plus you are provoking people for your own amusement too , so have failed the trolling test 

You should be assisting the OP , but you are not , so disrespectful to the OP

Coupon-mad

Sauce* of the two allegations made?

*yes, deliberate.

bargepole

I don't have a problem with representatives of PPCs posting on here, it's not a bad thing to have an opposing viewpoint - after all, that is exactly what happens when a case goes to court.

I don't post on every thread every day like some of the regulars, but would make the following observations:

1. If an OP has received a PCN, and is still within the time window to appeal to the PPC and then POPLA//IAS, generally the advice is to appeal it, and there is guidance in the NEWBIES thread as to how to word the appeals.

2. If the OP has previously ignored everything, due to 'advice' given by a bloke in a pub, and is past the time for an appeal, then they should ignore letters from powerless so-called debt collectors, and be prepared to defend a court claim.

3. There is also a clear set of instructions within the NEWBIES thread, telling OPs what to do at every stage of a court case, and examples of how their Defence and WS should be written. 

4. Court reports show that, where the advice has been followed, OPs are mostly successful in defending court claims. Allowing for the fact that some lost cases may not be reported, the win rate for Defendants is over 80%.

5. Even when the Defendant loses, in the majority of cases, the £60 add-on is not allowed by most Judges.

6. OPs therefore have a choice to make - pay up if they are risk averse, or fight all the way, where the odds are very much in their favour.

7. The Parking (Code of Practice) Act 2019 came about due to the aggressive pursuit of inflated charges by PPCs. Back in 2011/12, the Government were hoodwinked by the BPA, who lied about the number of court cases, resulting in POFA 2012, a Heath Robinson piece of legislation which attempts to subvert contract law. This time round, they have learnt their lesson, which is why the SG for PAS232 is balanced with consumer representatives.

8. The responses to the PAS232 consultation comprised hundreds of templated texts from PPCs, threatening bringing back clamping, and dire consequences for landowners unless parking charges were maintained at a high level. These were easy to spot, as they all contained the same spelling and grammatical errors. The BSI have been made aware of this ridiculous 'campaign', which is about as believable as Donald Trump's claims that the won the US election.