Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Feedback from your employees is invaluable. Encourage honest feedback in a variety of ways with these 6 steps.View the full article
    • The announcement comes as the Euros football tournament is due to kick off in Germany next month.View the full article
    • Household budgets have come under pressure as prices soared in the wake of the pandemic.View the full article
    • Please see my witness statement below.  Please let me know what modifications I need to apply.  I haven't included anything related to "administrative charge while paying by credit or debit card" as I wasn't sure if I should include since sign says "it may apply"   Background  1.1 Defendant received the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) on the 06th of November 2020 following the vehicle being parked at Arla Old Dairy, South Ruislip on the 05th of December 2019.    Contract  2.1 No Locus Standi, I do not believe a contract exists with the landowner that gives MET Parking Services a right to bring claims in their own name. Definition of “Relevant contract” From PoFA (Protection of Freedoms Act) 2 [1] means a contract Including a contract arising only when the vehicle was parked on the relevant land between the driver and a person who is-  (a) the owner or occupier of the land; or  (b) Authorised, under or by virtue of arrangements made by the owner or occupier of the land, to enter into a contract with the driver requiring the payment of parking charges in respect of the parking of the vehicle on the land. According to https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/46/section/44  For a contract to be valid, it requires a director from each company to sign and then two independent witnesses must confirm those signatures.  The fact that no contract has been produced with the witness signatures present means the contract has not been validly executed. Therefore, there can be no contract established between MET Parking Services and the motorist. Even if “Parking in Electric Bay” could form a contract (which it cannot), it is immaterial. There is no valid contract.    Illegal Conduct – No Contract Formed  3.1 At the time of writing, the Claimant has failed to provide the following, in response to the CPR request from myself.  3.2        The legal contract between the Claimant and the landowner (which in this case is Standard Life Investments UK) to provide evidence that there is an agreement in place with landowner with the necessary authority to issue parking charge notices and to pursue payment by means of litigation.  3.3 Proof of planning permission granted for signage etc under the Town and country Planning Act 1990. Lack of planning permission is a criminal offence under this Act and no contract can be formed where criminality is involved.  3.4        I also do not believe the claimant possesses these documents.    Unfair PCN  4.1         As stipulated in Exhibit 1 (Pages 7-13) sent by DCB Legal following the defendant’s CPR request the signage displayed in their evidence clearly shows £60.00 parking charge notice and will be reduced to £30 if paid within 14 days of issue. The defendant puts it to the claimant a request for strict proof when the signage changed to show £100.00 parking charge as the evidence provided by DCB Legal stipulated £60.00 parking charge was indeed the parking charge at the time defendant parked and included in Exhibit 1   4.3        The Claimant did not respect PAPLOC   4.4        It is also unfair to delay litigation for so long and claim nearly four years' interest.    No Keeper Liability  5.1        The defendant was not the driver at the time and date mentioned in the PCN and the claimant has not established keeper liability under schedule 4 of the PoFA 2012. In this matter, the defendant puts it to the claimant to produce strict proof as to who was driving at the time.  5.2 The claimant in their Notice To Keeper also failed to comply with PoFA 2012 Schedule 4 section 9[2][f] while mentioning “the right to recover from the keeper so much of that parking charge as remains unpaid” where they did not include statement “(if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met)”.    5.3        The claimant did not mention parking period instead only mentioned time 20:25 which is not sufficient to qualify as a parking period.   Protection of Freedoms Act 2012  The notice must -  (a) specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates;      No Breach of Contract  6.1      No breach of contract occurred because the PCN and contract provided as part of the defendant’s CPR request shows different post code, PCN shows HA4 0EY while contract shows HA4 0FY.  6.2        The wording “Electric Bay Abuse” is not listed on their signs nor there is any mention on the contract of any electric charging points at all let alone who can park there or use them.    Double Recovery  7.1        As well as the original £100 parking charge and £50 allowed court/legal costs, the Claimant seeks recovery of an additional £70.  7.2        PoFA Schedule 4, paragraph 4(5) states that “the maximum sum which may be recovered from the keeper is the amount specified in the notice to keeper”. Which in this case is £100.  7.3        The Parking (Code of Practice) Act 2019 is also quite clear that the maximum amount recoverable is £100.  Government ministers and government web pages explaining the Act refer to extra charges as "a rip off".  7.4        Unless the Claimant can clearly demonstrate how these alleged additional costs have been incurred this would appear to be an attempt at double recovery.  7.5        Previous parking charge cases have found that the parking charge itself is at a level to include the costs of recovery i.e. Parking Eye Ltd vs Beavis (2015) UKSC 67 which is the authority for recovery of the parking charge itself and no more, since the sum £85 was held to already incorporate the costs of an automated private parking business model and the Supreme Court Judges held that a parking firm not in possession cannot plead any part of their case in damages. It is indisputable that an alleged “parking charge” penalty is a sum which the Supreme Court found is already inflated to more than comfortably cover all costs. The case provides a finding of fact by way of precedent, that the £85 (or up to a Trade Body ceiling of £100 depending on the parking firm) covers the costs of all the letters. Since 2019, many County Courts have considered claims in excess of £100 to be an abuse of process leading to them being struck out ab initio. An example, in the Caernarfon Court in VCS v Davies, case No. FTQZ4W28 on 4th September 2019, District Judge Jones-Evans stated “Upon it being recorded that District Judge Jones- Evans has over a very significant period of time warned advocates (...) in many cases of this nature before this court that their claim for £60 is unenforceable in law and is an abuse of process and is nothing more than a poor attempt to go behind the decision of the Supreme Court V Beavis which inter alia decided that a figure of £160 as a global sum claimed in this case would be a penalty and not a genuine pre-estimate of loss and therefore unenforceable in law and if the practise continued, he would treat all cases as a claim for £160 and therefore a penalty and unenforceable in law it is hereby declared (...) the claim is struck out and declared to be wholly without merit and an abuse of process.”  7.6        In Claim numbers F0DP806M and F0DP201T, Britannia vs Crosby the courts went further in a landmark judgement in November 2019 which followed several parking charge claims being struck out in the area overseen by His Honour Judge Iain Hamilton-Douglas Hughes GC, the Designated Civil Judge for Dorset, Hampshire, Isle of Wight & Wiltshire. District Judge Taylor echoed earlier General Judgement or Orders of District Judge Grand, stating “It is ordered that the claim is struck out as an abuse of process. The claim contains a substantial charge additional to the parking charge which it is alleged the Defendant contracted to pay. This additional charge is not recoverable under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4 nor with reference to the judgement in Parking Eye v Beavis. It is an abuse of process from the Claimant to issue a knowingly inflated claim for a addi8onal sum which it is not entitled to recover. This order has been made by the court of its own initiative without a hearing pursuant to CPR Rule 3.3(4) of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998.  7.7        The addition of costs not previously specified on signage are also in breach of the Consumer Rights Act 2015, Schedule 2, specifically paras 6, 10 and 14.  7.8        It is the Defendant’s position that the Claimant in this case has knowingly submitted inflated costs and thus the entire claim should be similarly struck out in accordance with Civil Procedure Rule 3.3(4).  7.9        The Defendant is of the view that the Claimant knew, or should have known, that to claim in excess of £100 for a parking charge on private lands is disallowed under the CPRs, the Beavis case, the PoFA AND THE CRA 2015, and that relief from sanctions should be refused.    In Conclusion  8.1        I believe the Claimant has got use to intimidation tactics and has got greedy. I believe the truth of the manor is the Claimant has used bullying tactics successfully for too long and is therefore assured that innocent drivers will fall into the trap of paying rather than going through the hours it takes to defend themselves. In the process, wasting the time of the Court, the time of the Defendant and everyone else who has advised the Defendant, out of sheer decency to help have a fair hearing and see justice delivered.  8.2        I am still in disbelief that I am being heard in this court, defending myself nearly 4 years after receiving a charge through my door. I have had to spend weeks’ worth of my life studying the letter of the law in order to defend myself from this ridiculous attempt at a swindle.  8.3        I believe that the facts stated in this witness statement are true. I understand that proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against anyone who makes, or causes to be made, a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth. 
    • 'I thought why don’t we give it a try?' said student Swapnil Shrivastav, after inspiration struck during water rations.View the full article
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like
  • Recommended Topics

TPS ANPR PCN PAPLOC Now Claimform - Wrong Reg - boddingtons Gt Ducie Street, Francis Street, Manchester, M3 1PQ


Recommended Posts

It's no problem to have left some small bits out, your WS is excellent anyway.

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Dave all thanks to yourself and the rest of the team.

It's nice to have a bit ammunition on the day when I get. my chance to speak.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

just had this email received today…

We thank you for your recent email.

We take the confidentiality of our matters very seriously and as a result, we ask you to answer the following security questions in full before we can correspond with you via email.

Please could you confirm:

  • Your full name 
  • First line of your address
  • Postcode 

By responding to this email, you consent for us to use this email address for communication in relation to your case, this may contain information that is personal to you. When communicating by email, please remember that it may be ‘unsecure’. If at any time, you no longer wish for your personal information to be communicated by email, or you no longer have access to this mailbox, please notify us immediately.

 Should you prefer to discuss this matter on the telephone, please do not hesitate to contact us on 0203 434 0437.

Kind Regards,   

Alex Keogh  

Case Manager 

DCB Legal Ltd  

Edited by Dave962
Link to post
Share on other sites

Ignore.

It's effectively a receipt for your WS, which is good!

Also, you don't want to give them the opportunity to send more rubbish just before any deadlines, by confirming anything and allowing them to "correspond with you by email", which is bad!

  • Like 1

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group The National Consumer Service

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
Posted (edited)

Thanks everyone for all your help, but unfortunately my case was dismissed.

This is the 2nd time I've had this happen now so I doubt ill be taking on any parking firms in future sadly.

The judge said I lost it on the grounds that the sign said I had 28 days to declare who the owner of the vehicle was, and said I should have complied with this. 

My costs are

Judgment for the claimant £133.33

Issue fee

Hearing fee

Solicitors costs - total £265

grand total £398.33

Do those costs look about right?

Im sure I only paid c.£250 last time so these figures seem highly inflated!

Edited by Dave962
Link to post
Share on other sites

Rereading it won't be £265 solicitors' costs.

It will be £35 claim fee + £25 hearing fee + £205 solicitors' costs.

Solicitors costs are supposed to be capped at £50, the only way they can be more is if you were found to have acted unreasonably.

If that is how the case has panned out then you have been very, very unlucky and the judgement is truly horrific.

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

@lookinforinfo  ....  Is there grounds to appeal or challenge the judgement in that case LIFI?

EDIT:  After reading through this again, I'm amazed at this judgement given all the information.

"The judge said I lost it on the grounds that the sign said I had 28 days to declare who the owner of the vehicle was, and said I should have complied with this."

Do you mean  he said the driver  of the vehicle?

They know you are the owner/keeper of the vehicle .... DVLA told them.

I have looked at the signs, where does it say this on the signage? .... The sign in the exhibits says:

Parking Charge Notice Enforcement Procedure:

Registered keeper details may be requested from the DVLA and a parking charge notice will be issued to the registered keeper by post. Non payment within the 28 days of the date of issue may incur further costs for debt recovery.

Where does it say you have 28 days to tell them who the owner/driver is on the signage?

Or do you mean on the PCN?
Hang on, just rereading the PCN will come back to this.

I read it and under the heading Protection of Freedoms act they state:

You are advised that if, after the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that
on which this Parking Charge Notice to Keeper is given (a notice sent by post IS to be presumed, unless the
contrary is proved, to have been delivered on the second working day after the day on which it is posted), the parking
charge has not been paid in full or we do not know both the name and current address for service of the driver we have
the right to recover any unpaid part of the parking charge from you.

Notice is given to you under Paragraph 9(2)(f) of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act2012 and Is subject to our complying with the applicable conditions under Schedule 4 of that act.

OK, so they are telling you that they have the right to recover any unpaid part from you, the keeper but under S9 [2][e] they MUST -

(e) state that the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver and INVITE the keeper —

(i) to pay the unpaid parking charges; OR     (which I don't think they have done)

(ii) if the keeper was not the driver of the vehicle, to notify the creditor of the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver and to pass the notice on to the driver;

So, the question I have is, does the following statement on the PCN satisfy S9 [2][e][ii] even though they don't quote the specific section?

As we do not know the driver's name or current postal address, if you we're not the driver at the time , you should tell us the name and current postal address of the driver and pass this notice to them.

I'm a newbie at this so just my take on it but is this the point the Judge is referring to?

I'm further confused, because in your defence you stated:

1.  The Defendant is the recorded keeper of [motor vehicle]

Ok, this was later than 28 days but the owner of the vehicle was not in question because it was confirmed by DVLA, unless I'm missing something?

2. The Defendant paid the full fee £14.20 for 24 hours parking to Parkology from 29/09/22 1700 to
30/09/2022 1700, 24 hours (1440 minutes).

DE MINIMIS
The Defendant paid. The Claimant therefore suffered no loss. EXHIBIT X
The defendant informed the Claimant during PAPLOC about the wrong reg being incorrectly entered.

So, this started out as you putting the wrong registration number in, you PAID for the parking, you just made an error putting the wrong reg in? ... de minimis?

That was the crux of the matter, not who the owner/driver was, what did the judge say about that?

Edited by anotheruser0000
Link to post
Share on other sites

be careful under law...the RK is not necessarily the owner of a vehicle...

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah, Ok, .... Noted.

I guess I am referring to Owner/RK interchangeably.

I will have to read this thread again, I've missed something.

I was so annoyed and frustrated about the fact this case was lost it's been floating around my head all night.

Dave962, are you sure that's what the Judge said? .... It doesn't make sense.

Did the judge in fact dismiss the case on the grounds that the defendant did not make an appeal within 28 days?

Effectively telling the PPC about the error entering the registration number and providing proof of payment at that time?

To me, that's an important point.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

bear in mind that not all Judges are equally versed in the PoFA regulations.

Fortunately now most of them are but sometimes a Judge from a higher Court sits in who is well experienced in Law but not PoFA

and so they sometimes go "offkey" because their knowledge can raise a different set of arguments and solutions.

It does seem particularly unfair when the decision is so  bad .

it can also be that in some situations the motorist being a lay person is not sufficiently knowledgeable to be able to counter a Judge's decisions in a way that a barrister could.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Hmmm, interesting point.

In my career, that I am retired from now, there were an immense amount of rules and regulations that one had to adhere to by law.

The qualification process is rigorous with on going assessments throughout your career and re-certification every 12 months.

If you were shown to be not competent in those rules and regulations you could not hold the position and the operational consequences of that could potentially be dire.

In the same respect, perhaps a judge who is not conversant in the rules of POFA should not sit in on cases that requires proficiency in that area?

I also bow to your considerable knowledge in this area, perhaps I shouldn't be commenting but by doing so I find it helps the learning process.

Your last point has just reminded me of something that may help my case, thank you.

Edited by anotheruser0000
Link to post
Share on other sites

That's such a perverse judgment its almost unbelievable Looks like totally ignored everything and just gave judgement on something that's not compulsory as in name a driver or appeal did judge confuse having to name a driver in a motoring offence case like speeding with the civil?

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

The bailiff: A 12th Century solution re-branded as Enforcement Agents for the 21st Century to seize and sell debtors goods as before Oh so Dickensian!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I would have to read the whole thread again to make sure but, as far as I can see the judge ruled on something that was not in dispute.

The dispute was that he HAD paid BUT that he mistakenly entered the wrong reg ....

Not who the owner driver or keeper was.

Perhaps Dave962 meant the judge said he 28 days to appeal to make that point otherwise it doesn't make sense to me.

My understanding is it's two cars from the same household so what would be the point in declaring the owner be?

Unless the car is owned by someone else in the household or something, and that has some bearing on it, I don't know ....

🤷‍♂️

Personally, I think I would appeal that, unless the judge dismissed because the judge is saying Dave962 should have appealed to the PPC with the circumstances in the first place, then no point appealing.

And that would be a case where the advice not to appeal has harmed his defence?

Dave962 would have to clarify.

 

 

Edited by anotheruser0000
Link to post
Share on other sites

i would seriously forget the word owner ever exists in any court claim.

i would suspect as you do, the judge said registered keeper and DE MINIMIS does apply,

bit.....its called judge lottery...

 

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I'm still confused?

I was using the word owner because Dave962 used that word in his explanation.

Replace owner with registered keeper ....

"The judge said I lost it on the grounds that the sign said I had 28 days to declare who the  Registered Keeper  of the vehicle was, and said I should have complied with this."

I didn't see this on the pictures of the signs, in what context does the signage require that? .... When registering to pay?

I've parked in that car park, I don't recall having to declare myself as RK to park there?

If Dave962 is not the registered keeper, how did he get the PCN?

He had to declare the Registered Keeper in 28 days? 🤷‍♂️

If Dave962 is the Registered Keeper (which he is confirmed in his defence) and that's how he got the PCN the judge dismissed the case because he didn't declare himself as the Registered Keeper within 28 days as directed to by the signage??

Eh?

That's not judge lottery, that's judge senility.

I think I'm going senile trying to work this out ....

Edited by anotheruser0000
Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it will make more sense if you read that the Judge meant the 28 day sentence was on the PCN not the sign.

He lost because in the Judge's opinion the registered keeper has the option to declare who was driving on the day. Dave didn't do that so he takes the blame for not making the declaration. A totally wrong decision which can be challenged at a price.

There is no guarantee that another Judge will want to say that the original judgement was majorly wrong so may not change it. On the other hand another Judge may say the decision was an absolute load of pollux and reverse the decision and add punitive additions on to TPS for bringing such a hopeless case to Court.  That's why we call it Judge Lottery.

To be fair, Judges tend to get it right more often than not. Doesn't make things any easier for Dave.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I agree with you LFI, a totally wrong decision, I may be wrong but IMO who was driving is irrelevant ....

So what if he declared himself as the driver within 28 days? .... I may be wrong but it's my understanding that that just makes him liable for the charge as driver.

The fact is, the driver, declared or not, only made the error of entering the wrong vehicle registration number ....

The parking was paid for.

I think it more likely the judge dismissed because he didn't appeal to the PPC and tell them about the error and confirm he paid giving the chance of rectifying the situation before it got to court.

But we can only know if Dave962 clarifies.

Pollux, is that a fish like Cod? 😁

From BPA Code of Practice

Section 17:  Keying Errors

B) Major Keying Errors
Examples of a major keying error could include:
Motorist entered their spouse’s car registration - if it was his spouse's car
Motorist entered something completely unrelated to their registration
• Motorist made multiple keying errors (beyond one character being entered incorrectly)
• Motorist has only entered a small part of their VRM, for example the first three digits


In these instances we would expect that such errors are dealt with appropriately at the first appeal stage, especially if it can be proven that the motorist has paid for the parking event or that the motorist attempted to enter their VRM or were a legitimate user of the car park (eg a hospital patient or a patron of a restaurant).

I suspect this had something to do with it .... if so I guess he has to take it on the chin!  🙁

Edited by anotheruser0000
Link to post
Share on other sites

Their COP also says further on... "we believe that it is reasonable to seek to recover some of these costs by making a modest charge to the motorist of no more than £20"

PAH!

"What they believe" carries no weight in law... It's just their own idiotic, self serving, made up rules!

 

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group The National Consumer Service

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, Nicky Boy,  You, LFI, FTMDave, dx .... all know far more about this subject than I ever could.

I was just wondering if that (BPA CoP) argument persuaded the judge to come to his decision?

If that is what it was, I don't understand Dave962's explanation so I don't know.

I was just trying to work out what it could have been because it annoys the hell out of me that these companies can pursue people through the courts and be awarded substantial amounts of money from hard working individuals, for what? ....

The Major Crime of overstaying for a few minutes or entering a wrong reg in error or something .... it stinks!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...