the Spartans had an answer for that back in the day "IF"
However, I wouldnt waste that word on Ashley Cohen's crooked outfit.
stop trying to reason with them, they are not reasonable. you are also wasting your money by doing so, let them do their worst
Well done for you.
Interestng that Gladdys coughed up.
This seems to reinforce the opinion held by some that they are pursuing these claims by way of Champerty and Maintenance rather than acting solely on the clients instruction.
I think that stooping this this low might get them barred from the golf course they use as their registered office. It is not illegal to use someone else's address as your registered office without permission as long as you pick the post up. The same applies to registering a vehicle but try insuring it fro the wrong address with the wrong person's name and you will be in bother. Still, this is why they are the parking worlds greatest lawyers, they know evey underhand scheme by heart but remain the model of propiety.
Ownership was changed because of the response I received from medway council. Confirming for them to deal with me I needed to be the registered owner of the vehicle.
Change of ownership was not done to avoid any enforcement action.
The owner at the time the tickets were issued could have sent the notice to owner back to medway council transfering liability to me as I was the driver at the time. However he works away and has a "care of address".
I understand people will assume this was done to avoid enforcement action , but this is not the case.
ZZPS dont own the debt so cant instruct anyone and havent. You need to understand a little about agency as that also covers the rights of the parking co to dole out tickets in the first place. ak yourslef why would a solicitors need to pass it on to their litigation dept, that is all they do all day surely? What it says is "if you dot pay up we will shuffle the paper from our left hand to our right hand and then do nothing else"
We are trying to get you to read things properly rather than just seeing what they want you to see and then leaping to the conclusion that they want you to reach rather than actually getting to the truth.
the truth si it is anothe begging letter that has wasted more tree
so ignore this
get your friend to demand £250 for the bother, citing VCS v Phillip, Liverpool CC dec 2016.
Thye might not pay up but they will ow be worried that he will sue them and they dont ahve a leg to stand on as far as a defence goes.
Admin error? tough, it is still unlawful