URGENT Parking firm taking me to court and demanding my insurance docs? WHAT!?????

[Genepool1]

or.......& I'm not claiming this has happened, get a mate to accept their details being put forward to the courts as a parking debtor then win the judgment, as the 'defendant' doesn't actually defend........... the 'defendant' pays up within 1 month (or at least the court is told that) so no harm done then claim it as a victory;) wot u tink

 

Does seem possible given the scams this lot have tried to pull in the past (posing as Scottish, female, PPC victims and a hundred other stupid IDs). They are looking more and more like a knock off watch salesman: "It's a genuine Rolex, honest guv". You just have to substitute: "Pepipoo were involved in the case, honest guv". Yet it has to be admitted CPS are one of the more entertaining PPCs, even if most of us laugh at them, not with them.

[Genepool1]

Hmm in a nutshell all right. From what our CPS troll now says it appears that there was no defence at all submitted by the defendant. All that is mentioned is letters saying take it up with the defendant. If there was in fact a defence then the troll has been requested on numerous occasions to post it so that we can judge for ourselves whether it was a pukka one. He has refused to do so and I for one read into that that there is either no formal defence, only template letters which surprisingly enough did not succeed, or that the defence is not a a properly drafted one at all. As for the rest of the facts as related by our very biased friend, I would not believe a word of it, he has already posted a succession of untruths and shown himself to be far from credible.

[Genepool1]

Genepool (obv an old member with a new name) ...

 

Oh dear the old CPS paranioa returns.Let me put it in capital letters as there is clearly some fluff between the ears of this latest CPS troll: PLEASE POST THE DEFENCE. Posting random case references proves NOTHING. If ther is an obstacle to you posting the defence please tell us what it is.

[Genepool1]

hah they're SO sensitive these CPSers. Note no sign of the defence being posted. Must be at least six times he has been asked now. You're not the only one bored lamma.

[Genepool1]

Yawn. Really, really boring now. Clearly an ongoing [problem]/attempt to deceive people into believing a set of troublesome consumer affairs sites is involved. The silence/ridiculous innuendo of the latest posting says it all.Regards being banned on pepipoo, the mod probably has a low boredom/bull****ter threshhold and more power to him. The only cowards on here are CPS trolls who lurk on this site (because they have nothing better to do) trying to deceive others into paying unenforcable invoices. Regards questioning people, this troll has not answered any of the questions that have been put to him. Fairly clear to me who should be ashamed but some people have no shame it seems.

[Genepool1]

Not the first time personal vendettas have been launched by these characters. You only have to look at their website (and the latest pathetic additions) to see a mad vendetta in action.

[Genepool1]

More [edit] . Judgment (which will include reference to defence) can be posted at anytime appeal or not

 

Indeed. But when you don't know your arse from your elbow you are unlikely to know that either.

Edited September 3, 2008 by GuidoT
Should know by now

[Genepool1]

It's been entertaining anyway. The more courtupdater posts, the less we know. I'm sure we now know less than we did yesterday and tomorrow we will know nothing at all of the case.

[Genepool1]

Always ends up the same on these threads - [CPS troll] the following has happened... [Rest of us]: prove it. [CPS troll]: sorry I cannot, trust me [i'm a PPC [EDIT]]. And on the game goes.

[Genepool1]

Because the case is ONGOING ..... no one lost anything - a new hearing has been set .. after that I am sure it will be posted on here.

 

No a filed defence is NOT a public document in a small claims hearing, where you get this from I do not know !!!

 

If a person, not party to the claim wishes to see the documentation they need to make an application (and pay the fee) to the court stating the reasons why and a judge will decide.

 

What is this person going on about? We asked to see the defence in the Portsmouth case he referred to yesterday. Who mentioned the Oldham case? I am getting the impression that some of the law book pages have fallen out with this one.

[Genepool1]

If they ignore it, it goes to court .. some will win, some will lose

 

That's new for me anyway. I have never before heard a PPC admit that they lose cases. Are you sure you are connected with Perky/Scotty at all? Because you have just departed from his hymn sheet (we win every case, bluster, bluster, bluster).Answer me this one simple question if you would: did the defendant turn up in person at the hearing? Or is there some reason preventing you from revealing that as well?

[Genepool1]

The court looked at the revised particulars of claim, the amended defence and a hearing date has been set .. so still ongoing.

 

When is the hearing date? I wouldn't mind going along to that. Or are you prevented from telling us that as well?

[Genepool1]

Courtupdater will not despite repeated requests confirm that the defendant turned up in person to this case CPS supposedly won against the might of pepipoo/CAG. Nor will he release the defence in that case when there is no impediment to him doing so. I am smelling a fairly big rat now. Nor will he confirm the date of the Oldham hearing. I will contact the court and get that and post it here. Might be a nice day out.

[Genepool1]

so why ask me.

 

We had come to that conclusion ourselves. It's a bit like a re-run of Michael Howard on Newsnight. "Did the defendant turn up?" ... "the case was well argued"... "yes but did the defendant turn up" ... "the judge considered all the points", "did the defendant turn up?" "the sandwiches and cordial were very good indeed". etc. etc.

[Genepool1]

It's looking more and more like either the case is a total set up entirely or more likely the defendant did not show up at all to the hearing. I will be able to confirm one way or the other tomorrow. If it is the case that it was a no show and perky is crowing about a "victory" then there are no words to describe how deranged and removed from normal society these individuals are. Clearly pepipoo/CAG are hurting Perky's Trollers badly if they have to stoop to this level of fantasy to sustain their disreputable business.

Edited September 3, 2008 by Genepool1

[Genepool1]

Just wanted to clarify that by "they", you mean the PPCs, NOT CAG/Pepipoo?

 

have now amended it but boy you're sharp Bookworm!

[Genepool1]

It is very weird how Perky and his successor Scotty are so obsessed with this board and pepipoo and the "experts" they claim are out to get them. It is their unsavoury actions over many months that have placed them in the firing line in the first place. Clearly there is not a cool (or wise) head in the place. And running around the country winning un/poorly defended defended cases (where I guess it would help if the defendant happened not to put in an appearance) to try to prove a point to consumer affairs sites is a laughable business. I don't think the PPC community in general will be too worried about competition from these jokers as long as the obsessions continue.