Hi, hope this is in the right section, and I'll try and keep it brief I had a small monthly direct debit that was used to fund a monthly PayPal subscription. Last month I had an unexpected yearly subscription payment (thought it was supposed to be done in January) charged to my PayPal account. At the time I did not have sufficient funds in my bank account to complete the payment. Soon after, I was sent just over half of the required amount into my PayPal account, and then the yearly payment was made, putting my PayPal account into a negative balance. As far as I was concerned, the yearly subscription was paid and the negative balance was between me and PayPal to sort out, which I would. A week or so later I went to rectify this by transferring some funds from my bank account, which normally takes a few days. This was completed so I had no PayPal debt, however on the same day I noticed the amount of the yearly subscription was removed from my account and that the monthly direct debit had been upped to the yearly amount (over 5x as much!). This was unexpected and put me overdrawn, after which I incurred over £80 in charges during the time it took for the money to go from my bank, to PayPal and then back to the bank. Essentially, I've emailed them a few times explaining the situation with a letter from my bank detailing the charges incurred due to their mistake, however I don't seem to be getting anywhere aside from the usual "PayPal are unable to reimburse any charges" blah blah - anyone got any thoughts as to how I can get the money from them?

Guido, cut that quote down to size [edited] Preferably to this:

Eh? From posting hardly anything we're meant to conclude it was a bad defence??? Get a grip mate, the only conclusion I can come to is that you're irratating git of a troll, winding us up, and making spurious claims many of which you haven't backed up - and that's a factual report from me...

With regards to 1 and 3, they would be able to take you to court to try and claim damages from you, but not penalties. But in the case of PPCs, they don't as they'd be claiming only very small amounts.

Fraud Act 2006 (c. 35) Just incase you CBA to read it, here it is: 2 Fraud by false representation (1) A person is in breach of this section if he— (a) dishonestly makes a false representation, and CHECK (b) intends, by making the representation— (i) to make a gain for himself or another, or CHECK (ii) to cause loss to another or to expose another to a risk of loss. (2) A representation is false if— (a) it is untrue or misleading, and CHECK (b) the person making it knows that it is, or might be, untrue or misleading. CHECK (3) “Representation” means any representation as to fact or law, including a representation as to the state of mind of— (a) the person making the representation, or (b) any other person. (4) A representation may be express or implied. CHECK (5) For the purposes of this section a representation may be regarded as made if it (or anything implying it) is submitted in any form to any system or device designed to receive, convey or respond to communications (with or without human intervention). Therefore, as a result of making the representation that "you are required to pay" and "(2)(a) it is untrue or misleading, which it is as the PCN is designed to mimic a Council PCN, and it addresses the RK as being responsible for the alleged invoice, and (b) the person making it knows that it is, or might be, untrue or misleading." clearly an offence under said act has been committed. Plus the yellow cover is further false representation. In addition, the Administration of Justice Act 1970 would cover this as well.

To continue on the subject that Buzby brought up, as a photographer myself, I ensure all of my images have IPTC meta data in them, which I was asked to do by a picture editor for a sunday newspaper - as they read the meta data in the photo for title, caption, copyright etc. While I don't know your setup with the website etc, watermarking can be done easily through various programs (the one I use to sort pics, apply IPTC data, and upload to websites with watermarks is called Photo Mechanic, I'm sure others do the same), so consider doing that and ensuring your pics are watermarked and your name is beside the photo on the website. Good luck.

It would also make photography of anyone in the street illegal - which it most certainly is not.

I know on other forums you can email people through their profile, but you never see the person's email address and it comes with more than just the message, it also has "this is a message from xxx forum sent by abc". But as far as I can see, there's no way to email members here - so was it a PM, did they get the email from here by illegal means or did they get it some other way?

A magistrates court does not deal with DPE, so it can't be involving PCN, NTOs etc. It could be a FPN, or it could be an ECN under RTR 84. We can't give you advice without facts, so please scan the letter/documents in (removing all personal details) so we can give you advice.

I knew about the case, and knew about the fact that this guy was a repeat offender, and that the Uni was not trying to extort money out of him by fraudulent means, which is what most PPCs do. Nit picking? Well if you go in the cream when we ask a few questions and bring up a few points then that's your perogative. I mean, if everyone on here (and Pepipoo) didn't take any ACTION or FIGHTBACK when presented with what is in your view a very open and shut case for the PPCs then what would be the point? And if you can't see what lamma is on about, then get a grip - you come on and say yet provide us with a case which does not even have a parking ticket involved, and haven't yet shown us wins in the lower courts by PPCs in Scotland - now I wonder why that is?

Well we'll give you all the info you need, if you give us enough info to help you out!

Eh? Why not just go to court? You will probably win, and will have a better chance of winning that just giving them your money!

Is there anything in that which has the same content as s40 of the AJA?

Leniency means they were going to do something about the non-payment. We know thats not the case ;-)

Jason, your username is spelt wrongly. No one's arguing over any money, there will be only letters from the PPC which I'm sure highlandhelp knows can't harm him. The Administration of Justice Act does not apply to Scotland, but the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 does. However, the stuff covered by the AJA s40 (d) is to do with "uttering documents which he/she knows to be false", would come under the new Fraud Act 2006, s1, "fraud by false representation".