Jump to content


Registered Users
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


FTMDave last won the day on December 22 2018

FTMDave had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

399 Excellent

About FTMDave

  • Rank
    Basic Account Holder
  1. Florence - magnificent news! And in the middle of such sad personal news as well. Well done for having such backbone and standing up to the creeps!
  2. I'm sorry to hear what you are going through. I was in a similar position when my brother died some years ago, leaving a mountain of debts. In my case I sent the various companies concerned a death certificate, told them he had no assets, and that was that. I noticed that they also always sent me proof of the debt. It clicked with me that otherwise any old conman could read obituaries and send letters to relatives referring to a made-up debt. It is up to the companies to prove a debt exists, not up to you to prove it doesn't. There will be forum members on later who are experts (unlike me) but I would be very, very tempted to stop all correspondence with everyone. Your father's dead. He left next to no money. That should be that. All this correspondence is stressing you and encouraging fleecers like Link to think they can get you to pay. Unless you actually get a formal threat of court action (I think called Letter Before Action) I'd forget about the whole thing. Others may disagree though.
  3. Brilliant news - well done! Give the court a ring just to make absolutely sure they've given in, they're not above lying to motorists to get them to not turn up to a court hearing.
  4. Yes, maybe worth a stamp writing a letter to the court to request this? In any case, belt & braces, get your WS in by the deadline as you plan to. Starting to look bad for the fleecers ...
  5. In point 24 add that they failed to answer your CPR request. And the conclusion, they have no "locus standi" in the matter. Did you check if their signs have planning permission? If so you can add that point too, that there is no planning permission which is a criminal offence and therefore it is impossible to enter a contract.
  6. Are points 6-10 really necessary? They just add waffle and don't really get to the point about their demand being pants.
  7. Well done! :whoo: These fleecers couldn't give a toss about the law, their whole vile business model is based upon threats to get motorists to cough up, given most people are ignorant about the law. Congratulations on standing up to them and compliments on giving them a good kicking!
  8. Good to see your child is genned up on how to treat the parking companies
  9. Your letter looks fine. Give it another 24 hours, and if no-one objects, send it off. Remember the volunteer experts here a load of cases every day and will concentrate on who gets it wrong, rather than who gets it right.
  10. DX is right, prepare some bullet points that could go in your WS (most mentioned above), then when it comes to it see what nonsense they send first. True, you can't prove you called, but they can't prove you didn't, and I bet your story would come across very well to the judge - you'd always paid before, your phone was on the blink on the day in question, you called to make late payment but they said they don't accept late payments. By invented costs I mean this. Say you really owed the money (you don't, but let's pretend for a minute). So it's £100. Plus court costs (I think they've gone for £75) & interest. But how the hell has £100 morphed into £236? They've invented fees that are expressly not allowed in the small claims system. Judges don't like this and I would add it as a point.
  11. I would use post 39 as the basis for your WS, expand on each of the points. Add about them refusing payment. Also add about their abuse of the county court system by inventing extra costs to get round the small claim costs limit. To answer your points: 1. There's no point arguing about £100 being too high any more. 2. Of course it's worth defending! They have no locus standi, the signs are crap, they refused payment, most of their claim is for fictitious invented costs not allowed in small claims, etc., etc. 3. Yes, the worst that can happen is that you'll have the pay their claim, plus maybe some small fixed costs which may or may not already be included in their claim. This point alone shows it's worth defending. A lot of the companies withdraw cases or don't turn up in court when they see a robust defence.
  12. I'm normally a "glass half full" sort of person, but I'd be pessimistic here. Presumably the court papers stated a deadline you had to file a defence by, and mentioned that in the absence of a defence there would be a default judgement. If you've ignored clear instructions from the court, it's looking bad Plus, as the default judgement arrived on 7 January, why didn't you come on here on 8 January? All this is a real pity, your case would have been one of the easiest to win given their unreasonable behaviour, and yet you might up with a CCJ and credit hassle.
  13. But that's good! It means the PPC were ignored or told to Foxtrot Oscar and then crawled back under their stone. Also have a read of some of the cases in the PPC Successes sticky. You'll see these clowns are eminently beatable! Going to court isn't pleasant, but don't get mixed up between a criminal court and a civil court. You'll just sit around a table with a judge dressed in a suit who will give you ample time to speak and explain your case. No more intimidating than a job interview. Post up a draft of your WS, and the experts will be pleased to help you retweak it. CEL and the other PPCs are not interested in the law and what is legal, they're interested in using the threat of court (and actual court in your case) to intimidate motorists into coughing up monies they don't owe. You can't be sure, but if you put in a good WS it's perfectly possible the fleecers will drop the case or not show up in court. Go for it, they're there to be beaten!
  • Create New...