VCS Spycar PCN PAPLOC, now default judgement - Hire Car - me named - no stopping - Southend Airport

[northmonk]

Yeah I deliberately put that in to be specific as to the letter from Pressdram as opposed to the letter from Arkell to private eye demanding a retraction

[ericsbrother]

the quote of Arkell v Pressdram has been used thousands of times in the last 50 years, it is well known so why on earth do you think it needs explaining in such a way as to lose its effect altogether?

 

When we draft somehting we choose our words carefuly even though it doesnt look that way

 

terms such as unicorn food tax are now common parlance, the parking co's will ahve received many letters referring to their unlawful charges as such and they undersatnd the source material is here. That is what we want, we want them to know that the sender has read up on things and is now fully aware of their unlawful and sometimes criminal ways and isnt afraid to take them on. By changing a well knwon quote you show that you knowledge on such matters is limited and they will then be more likely to chance their arms than not.

 

there is a saying that goes it is better to keep silent and to be thought a fool than to open you mouth and prove it.

 

i also believ that you should smile in adversity as that way no one knows what you are really thinking. My army unarmed combat instructor used to demonstrate the technique becasue by getting the opposition to smile in response gives you the perfect opportunity to then beat the cr*p out of them whilst they are off their guard

[brassnecked]

Simple knows his rubbish POC and cut & paste WS have no legs if a nasty enough letter telling him he is a knave and charlatan onto a kicking in court he might well move on to a more compliant victim.

 

Wonder if a letter written in nadsat would confuse him?

 

 

[northmonk]

Ok EB thanks for the comment. Having never had to fight anything legally before, I wasn't aware of A v P and it's common historical usage etc. I did invite comment on my letter before posting it, but didn't receive a reply on the day so went ahead and posted it anyway.

 

Sorry brassnecked, what's "nadsat"?

[brassnecked]

The language used in A Clockwork Orange Even better would be Unwinese. a particular form of gobbledegook spoken by the Late prof Stanley Unwin.

[northmonk]

I posted my shirty letter to simple on 29/5 with proof of postage. It's been 5 weeks now, do you think he got the message? 

[lookinforinfo]

Give them time-amoebas are a little short on brain power to work sarcasm out. I wrote a letter similar to yours to Parking Eye and they wrote back to confirm they had received my appeal! 

[ericsbrother]

like thier court claims, it is a matter of gambling odds. They know their claims are duff but generally the peopel htey chase arent as clued up as those who read  various forums so they will get a number of easy wins and hope that by using the shotgun approach to litigation  they hit more than they miss.

 

It would be sensible of them to stop suing people who are prepared to taken them on and have a good reason to expect to beat them so whetehr they sue or not will depend on a number of factors and that will include previous results and especially widely circulated cases like the Lewes one. they will be waiting to see who drags that up before they issue too many claims where it will play a major part like the airport no stopping cases.

 

They have dozens that are held up in the quagmire at the moment so wont want to be spending money of they are onto a dead cert loser. they have 6 years to try thier luck so may sit on it until a case elsewhere gives them hope. They also lobbied parliament and were told to get lost, they may try that route again

[northmonk]

Thanks EB, yeah that makes a lot of sense what you're saying. They're basically playing a numbers game, for the 1 person who bothers to find out their legal position etc and the ability to fight them, there'll be 10 who simply pay up because they're frightened off by their bullshit etc.

 

I'll go to the end of the line on basic principal of not giving in to these ruthless vultures preying on the general public and their lack of knowledge etc.

 

Thanks a lot folks

[northmonk]

5 hours ago, lookinforinfo said:

Give them time-amoebas are a little short on brain power to work sarcasm out. I wrote a letter similar to yours to Parking Eye and they wrote back to confirm they had received my appeal! 

Ha ha doesn't surprise me at all, these PPC idiots are simple routine cut-and-paste merchants, and like I said to EB just playing the numbers game because obviously with most folks, sadly, thats enough to keep them going. If everyone took this approach, they'd be out to grass pretty quickly, all of em!

[ericsbrother]

you are right but they issued 8.4 million tickets last year so nearly a billion quid at stake.

They are trying to get the law changed to create a keeper liability in all cases (inc Scotland, where the law damns them anyway but they still send out tickets) and other things but parliament wants a proper appeals scheme that is independent of the trade associatiosn and also wants minimum stanadards that would put all of the parking co's out of business  as they are at present so dont expect things to be on the statute books in a hurry.

 

Like Huawei, they have politicians in their pockets who will jump up and squeal if their vested interests get threatened too much.

Edited July 6, 2020 by ericsbrother

[northmonk]

Okay folks I'm back, as it seems after a few months hiatus Simple-Simon has now decided to recoup his costs by referring this speculative invoice to ELMS Legal for collection, and having another crack of the whip so to speak.

 

Advice greatly appreciated and I'll donate to the site as before. 

 

[brassnecked]

Snotty letter time

[northmonk]

Also can you advise on if I just send a letter back saying something to the effect of:

 

"this person no longer lives at this address, please remove this address from your database as I don't want any CCJ's registering against my address" - the current owner

 

Many thanks

[dx100uk]

repeat the same snotty letter as before.

 

CCJ's are not registered against an address but a person.

 

dx

 

[northmonk]

Ok I'll send the letter again.

 

Would a polite request to stop sending letters to a person who no longer lives at an address stop them sending these out as I know bad credit ratings do affect the address though?

 

Regards

[FTMDave]

You've left your registration number showing, you might want to remove that, best to keep the fleecers guessing.

 

Referred to as a "registration mark" (what that?) in Elms Legal's weird English.

[brassnecked]

They would likely ignore such a letter, the PPCs don't act fairly in any way.

[dx100uk]

7 minutes ago, northmonk said:

as I know bad credit ratings do affect the address though?

 

 

no they don't 

where are you getting these old wives tales from.?

 

debt and CCJ's are against a person, they can't affect anyone else in the household unless the file shows they are financially linked to the person with the CCJ., 

[northmonk]

13 minutes ago, brassnecked said:

They would likely ignore such a letter, the PPCs don't act fairly in any way.

Ok fair enough I'll just resort to the snotty letter then

10 minutes ago, dx100uk said:

 

no they don't 

where are you getting these old wives tales from.?

 

debt and CCJ's are against a person, they can't affect anyone else in the household unless the file shows they are financially linked to the person with the CCJ., 

Ok I've obviously got the wrong info on that then, maybe just the shirty letter then after all

[northmonk]

16 minutes ago, FTMDave said:

You've left your registration number showing, you might want to remove that, best to keep the fleecers guessing.

 

Referred to as a "registration mark" (what that?) in Elms Legal's weird English.

Oh yes I thought I'd removed all references but I see I left one in. Do the site mods need to remove my original PDF or can I do it myself?

[dx100uk]

done

[northmonk]

1 minute ago, dx100uk said:

done

Ta

[essexman77]

Even if a county court case is issued against you and you loose if you pay within 28 days it doesn't go on your credit file and also its cheaper to go to court because the £60 is never allowed so it would be £200 if you loose £230 if you don't go to court.

[northmonk]

Hi folks, I've now received the attached letter from ELMS Legal suggesting a CCJ will be issued because of my non response to their apparent LBA from the court which I don't ever recall seeing here.

Is this another desperate attempt to get me to cough up or can I take them at their word and assume a default judgment has been lodged against me etc. 

 

Thanks in advance

Elms legal.pdf