Our company has both of what you're referring to, bailiffs and as you state the so called powerless debt collectors. My role, once a debt is queried for whatever reason and needs looking into before any action is taken is passed to our team for investigation/comment and if needed the file being prepared and we then follow the case and deal with it in court. I am fully legally qualified (hold a law degree) awarded in 1986. I am NOT here to argue the toss about parking charges/tickets/fines, I have my qualified legal opinion about the legalities of such charges. I originally responded to a question about the pre-action protocols and have answered this topic as I feel the above is a very poor piece of advice, badly put together and clearly designed by 'cut and paste'. The thing that MUST be remembered about the legal profession is no one person is always right, a whole profession is based around how a rule/law is interpreted - sometimes you're right and sometimes you're not - all you can do is give a qualified opinion.

If I wanted to say that I would have. Debts are not always simple, some are complicated whereas some are fairly straight forward, for the straight forward ones x owes y £100 and they pay it in instalments or over time. Other debts need loking into, mediating and often involve contractual issues thus needing a different company to get involved with.

I do dinate.I work for a company that deals with advanced debts and litigation against debtors.Advanced debts mean ones that have a dispute which needs resolving (as opposed to standard debt collection letters)

I think the above just shows the potential downfalls of the internet. The above has clearly been cut & pasted from various sources, the poster not knowing or understanding the relevance of it yet is trying to pass it off as some example of knowledge. No disrespect to lamma, but the above is awful and of a very amateur level.

You are partly correct lamma, I do not work for a PPC but work for a company who collect advanced debts and issues court proceedings for PPCs (and other companies). All parties have a legal obligation to comply with the pre-action protocols and I know of a few cases (PPC and other debts) where proceedings have been brought because a debtor has been 'difficult and evasive' ... At the court hearing the case has not been proven for whatever reasons and costs have been awarded to the claimant as the defendant could have given all the information on receipt of the 14-day warning letter and only did so after legal action began.

I think you will find that the Pre-Action protocol applies in EVERY case and 4.2 of the Pre-Action Protocol does state d) the parties conducting genuine and reasonable negotiations with a view to settling the claim economically and without court proceedings. It then, and this is the important bit states :If the defendant does not accept the claim or part of it, the response should (a) give detailed reasons why the claim is not accepted, identifying which of the claimant's contentions are accepted and which are in dispute; (b) enclose copies of the essential documents which the defendant relies on © enclose copies of documents asked for by the claimant, or explain why they are not enclosed (d) identify and ask for copies of any further essential documents, not in his possession, which the defendant wishes to see; and (The claimant should provide these within a reasonably short time or explain in writing why he is not doing so.) (e) state whether the defendant is prepared to enter into mediation or another alternative method of dispute resolution. That is why I suspect just a standard "go away, it wasnt me, take it up with the driver and I dont have to tell you who it is" may fail.. The company could then issue proceedings and even if they lost then CPR 44.3 could apply 1) The court has discretion as to – (a) whether costs are payable by one party to another; (b) the amount of those costs; and © when they are to be paid. And more importantly deciding what order (if any) to make about costs, the court must have regard to all the circumstances, including (a) the conduct of all the parties.If the court feels the defendant has not assisted, sent templates and in reality probarly did know who was driving but did not say .. This could be classed as unreasonable and the costs could be awarded (which was probarly more than the claim anyway).

I personally think bank charges are legal and this is a victory for common sense.If you sign a form saying "If you go overdrawn we will charge you £10 per day" ... and you go overdrawn for 14days and they send you a bill for £140 ... then you have received exactly what you have signed up for !!!I often get overdraft interest added to my account, and once I got charged £15 for exceeding it ... I couldnt moan as I accepted it when I opened the account.No one forces a person to open an account with a particular bank .. if you dont like the T&Cs then go elsewhere ...

I would agree with CPS you have spent alot of time on this.I have just 1 observation, from your own admission the pub carpark is 'heavily signed' and the driver took a chance and got caught.Why would you be putting yourself through all this hastle, and your friend allowing you to have all this hastle.Wouldnt it have been easier to say to the parking company, I wasnt driving it was xx of xxx - take it up with them.Telling your friend that you allowed them to se your vehicle and you dont want the hastle and they deal with it ?Seems to me that this would have been easier and let them deal with the grief.