Today I got a letter from a past energy provider, suggesting that due to the time it had taken them to draft cleansed SARs requests from myself, and difficulties with processing payments I had been sending them in cash, in accord with the requirements of a court order suggesting I should make monthly payments, that they feel it is now appropriate to write off the amount outstanding, which is some £4000! I have had several emails from them, demanding that I should phone them, and provide details of the further applications I have made relating to the matter. I understand that making false submissions to the high court to obtain a writ of control, is something that might be seen in a relatively dim light, and wonder if that has actually taken place, what the consequences for those involved with the spurious application, might actually be?

I was curious as to why the "site team" on here are all so dead set against, a very simple and effective tactic, that would make things much more difficult for parking companies, and why they seem to strongly promote the idea that they are VERY likely to take court action, to recover money they claim to be owed? It wasn't very difficult to find out that CAG has a working relationship with Marstons, that well known sub-epsilon bailiff concern, and general threats and intimidation merchants................all is now clear!

Maybe better to be a troll, than someone who works hard to promote the interests of ultra dodgy parking companies, through telling lies about the likelihood of going to court?

According to MSM reports based on state/corporate propaganda, dropping dead in the street was also a thing during the recent scamdemic! The idea that hospitals were full to bursting point, seemed a bit sketchy bearing in mind the majority had so little to do, many staff members had the time to rehearse and post almost daily dance routines on Tik Tok........................lol Like the nonsense appearing on here, in respect of dealing with parking companies, all this stuff is saying very loud that we are living in a post truth era, and anyone who does not concur, with the official narratives, will be singled out for special attention..........................

Not been explained at all! If members of the "site team" are actually working for the parking companies, in spuriously promoting the idea that court action, is to be expected, I can see the reason for the ridiculous posturing about posting the pro forma threat letters, and maybe 20 completely different responses to the same question, but other than that I cannot see any useful purpose in the repeated claims that court action is to be expected? Seems a bit like pushing the idea that all those who didn't opt for an untested injectable, would fall down dead in the street, if they got the flu? The socially engineered version of reality, is getting further and further away from actual reality, it would appear! Over the last 3 years, I have had 5 or 6 threats from parking companies, and up to now there has been nothing to suggest any of them is anything other than a rather hollow threat. I would guess if the same scammer racks up more than £1000 in relation to the same reg number, over a 6 month period say, there is a vague possibility of court action, but that's only going to take place if the vehicle, suggests the owner is likely to adversely affected by a CCJ. Anyone driving a cheap old banger, who hasn't got more than £1000 outstanding, is completely safe, and can bin the threat letters.

Why not explain the reasons for the "advice" given on here, in relation to parking companies, being of much more benefit to them, than those seeking advice?

The way you "handle" questions about parking companies, is very clear! Promoting ignorance, fear, confusion, and obfuscation of the facts, is very visible! Should I be wrong on that point, I wonder why you refuse to acknowledge the fact that they only take court action, against a tiny number of miscreants, which makes all your mumbo-jumbo about posting pro forma threat letters, etc, etc, look preposterous....................

Thought they were already ignoring shoplifting in the same way as they ignore organised crime? Hurty words or protecting the rights of men to use womens toilets and changing rooms, are pretty much the only things that seem to get the Keystone Kops moving............lol

From the reactions to my posts on here mainly from the "site team", it seems that the main purpose of this forum and others along similar lines, is to convince those having difficulties with parking companies, that these matters are almost certainly going to end up in court? Should they be taking more than a tiny (2% or less) number of those targeted to court, the business model, which relies purely on threat and intimidation, would quickly fail. Those uncomfortable (or unable!) to satisfy their demands, are likely to look online for help or advice. Some will end up on forums such as this. From the wildly different responses to questions about being scammed, which are essentially all pretty much the same, it is very difficult to work out the best course of action? However, the common thing that is very visible in all the PS threads, is the very strong possibility of court action, for anyone who does not post up a pro-forma threat letter, which will mean maybe 20 very different responses. Spending many hours promoting the idea of imminent court action, and that posting the pro forma is the only means of salvation, must have some sort of purpose for those involved......................just not quite sure what it might be? The parking company threats should be ignored, which in 98% of cases will mean NFA. If one of the 2% where court action is taken (generally only for multiple matters, involving sums of £1000+), then offering staged payments, which will be provided in cash, will in most cases, result in the debt being written off. Should the scammer decide to proceed with court anyway, in advance of the hearing they should be served with an N266, asking for full disclosure of any contractual agreement between, them and target, whose terms and conditions suggests that payment must be made in a certain manner. Obviously they cannot provide that, as there is nothing within their T & Cs, which relates to method of payment. I will leave it up to those who are legally qualified to outline what happens next......................................

A court judgement earlier this month, confirms that it's perfectly acceptable to pay using cash, if there is no contract between the parties, which requires payments must be made in a certain way. Thats simply a point of law, and has got nothing to do with FMOTL nonsense, or my "brilliance"................lol Maybe looking toward the law for a way to address the parking companies in the very rare instances where they take these matters to court, would be far more productive, that the very vigorous promotion of the idea, that many of these matters do end up in courtrooms, and there is a need to post up the pro forma threat letters, to somehow prevent that occurring? Without the widespread belief in the fact that they are likely to take court action, very few would pay these charges and the they would be out of business! The reason they are only likely to take court action in around 2% of cases, is that it's simply not viable for them to go to court at a cost of approximately £1000, when in 90% of cases, they can only hope to recover half of that, or less. Anyone reading many of the parking related posts on here, who maybe doesnt know a lot about how the courts work, or isnt aware of how much it costs a them to get a victim into a courtroom, probably ends up truly believing they might end up with a court judgement against them? The Parking Eye v Beavis judgement, further supports the idiot notion, that they favour court action!

Not going to do a single thing unless its going to court. Less than 2% of the parking companies pro forma threats result in court action, so court is unlikely.................... All in all, it's probably best to ignore the threats, and if it does come to court action, offer staged payments in cash, close to the hearing date, and if that's refused, go along to court, and if the judge confirms that payment in cash is acceptable, make a claim for compensation. Seems a FAR better idea, than posting the threat letters on here?

I have already proved there is nothing in law to prevent me paying in cash, if I choose to do so! There is no way on earth I will be offering them ANYTHING, unless they choose to take it to court. I will then get it relisted to my local court, and make them an offer of payment 2 days before the hearing. If they then choose to proceed with due process, I will be making a claim for compensation against them! Needless to say the claim for compensation will be substantially more, than the amount they are trying for!

Back on the FMOTL gibberish again now, I see! I wonder do those on here, who seem to detest cash, feel that CBDC is a positive thing, and will mean that tyranny is less likely?

I would have thought the fact I am now in a position to seek compensation from an energy provider, and a high court bailiff operation, was a relatively good result?

I have already screwed the energy providers and the high court bailiffs.................lol. Seems a bit more effective than posting the pro forma threat letters on here?