Jump to content

peanutsallergy

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Content Count

    304
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

peanutsallergy last won the day on May 3 2013

peanutsallergy had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

81 Excellent

About peanutsallergy

  • Rank
    Basic Account Holder
  1. So you'll stump up for the appeal, and be in there with the poster? Or just defending vicariously?
  2. http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=76790&st=80 post#89 onwards. So get your heads out of the sand.
  3. Nev, I gave up posting on here recently. Even the site team accused me of working for PE, after I referenced all the cases that were being started, and how the PPC was going for contract rather than trespass. As for POFA, and Popla, again, villified for it.
  4. Far too late, but I don't think ANPR have ever done court, so ignore works.
  5. Details are important If the original claim was under £300, the court fee will be incorrect if they have now taken it to £350, as you admitted partial admission, and they may have hung themselves.
  6. They frequent Aldi, google puts one of those in the town centre.
  7. Why do I think PE think it? Because they put it on every claim they make. If you mean do I think they actually can claim it, the fact is they do claim it. It's down to the defendant to refute the claim. If no defence is offered, PE win by default, so yes, it'll be awarded. If a defence is offered, the amount must be addressed as part of the defence, and why it shouldn't be awarded. If the defence is adequate, the judge will rule in favour of the defendant. If it isn't adequate, the judge won't add to it, he'll rule based on the facts presented on the day. And if PE are more convincing, they'll be awarded the amount they ask for. As they have been occasionally. It's down to us to make sure it is as few times as possible, and they don't manage to repeat it.
  8. True, losing £4000 would have hurt a lot more than the £110.
  9. They were awarded costs of £95 as well. Not a great win in the grand scheme of things, but paying out £110 and taking an unpaid day off work to defend yourself in court wouldn't be my best day out, even if it was a moral victory.
  10. No, I said I wouldn't answer any more dumb questions from you. But if I was the judge, the registered keeper, or LPC, I'd answer that.
  11. The owner can ask the DVLA for a copy of the request, and if they lie they can be easily found out, and prosecuted. Easier to say it was parked on your property.
  12. No Guidance notes https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/207533/MIS546.pdf Now, is this case, stretching the truth, it could be Roxburghe are claiming they are acting (through the PPC) as solicitors on behalf of the landowner, who has a vehicle left on his property. and accrued a debt. Then passing the information back to the PPC as part of debt collection, not a parking charge. Or just cheating and using their own ATA number, and claiming the PPC is their client for enforcement. The DVLA should be asked if this is acceptable.
  13. Seems not to have mattered to the judge in the cases we know PPC's have won, maybe they haven't been well defended, and the latest one on PE's news page was to the tune of the £100 parking charge, and £255 costs. Payable to PE. So no reason to doubt it happens, and could happen again.
  14. Read all the links on the other threads. They're all there.
×
×
  • Create New...