FMOTL payments?

[Nicky Boy]

Just do it!

[Billy Williams]

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?

[BazzaS]

Stop the trash talking.

If you really believe you are correct, “put your money where your mouth is”, otherwise it is all just talk (and just going round in circles, too).

Simples.

But, chances are you won’t (based on how things have gone to date), because talking about it validates it in your head, and actually doing it might bring the delusion crashing down around you.

[Nicky Boy]

38 minutes ago, Billy Williams said:

I wonder

 

[dx100uk]

just type no need to keep hitting quote every rime

dx

 

 

[Billy Williams]

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!

[dx100uk]

[Nicky Boy]

Just Do It!

For goodness sake, just do it...

(Do I sound like Nike yet?)

[BazzaS]

Go for it! Sounds foolproof!!

 

(Except, of course,  for the offer of payment being late enough that the court won’t see it as reasonable …. And you either get the CCJ if it hasn’t been paid in full by when the court hears it (given you want to offer part payments!) or you still get hammered for costs, or even BOTH!)

Do please:

a) stop just talking about it, and get on and do it. Do what you feel is right, and

b) let us know how you get on. It’ll be an education! (What remains to be seen is who gets the education!)

[Billy Williams]

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?

[Nicky Boy]

"so court is unlikely......"

"it's probably best"

"if that's refused"

"if the judge"

 

ZZZZZZZZZZ,

Goodnight all and wake me when it's over.

[BazzaS]

As repeatedly stated: go for it!. Until then, it’s all hot air.

you have “a cunning plan”. You KNOW it is foolproof, and all the idiots (myself included)  here just can’t accept your brilliance.

So off you pop, do your own thing, then let us know the outcome (& if it gets listed, for when & where : POPCORN!!)

[Billy Williams]

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!

 

[BazzaS]

Yawn. More verbiage.

Do it or don’t. Stop posting expecting validation.

[FTMDave]

On your other thread you wrote

5 hours ago, Billy Williams said:

I have decided to pay the £170 and will be sending the payment in cash.

but now the strategy has morphed into

5 hours ago, Billy Williams said:

Not going to do a single thing unless its going to court.

So which is it?  Your fans, of which there will be many. who are following these threads, would really like to know.

Arer you going to pay the PPC the £170 in cash now, or are you going to do nothing until a claim form appears (it it does) and then offer to pay the approx £300 in cash?

(£170 + £35 claim form fee + £25 hearing fee + £50 legal costs + £20 interest, approx).

[Billy Williams]

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......................................

 

[Nicky Boy]

1 hour ago, Billy Williams said:

If one of the 2% where court action is taken (generally only for multiple matters, involving sums of £1000+)

Although you profess to be an expert in the way CAG handles PPC's, this ridiculous statement alone shows that you quite obviously have not read other threads around the forum!

I'm not going back to sleep.

I'm gone.

[Billy Williams]

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....................

[honeybee13]

We're going round in circles again...

[BazzaS]

1 hour ago, Billy Williams said:

I will leave it up to those who are legally qualified to outline what happens next......................................

 

You (absolutely) can go off and pay for advice from those legally qualified.

I don’t think it is a reasonable expectation to want advice only

a) from those legally qualified, but also

b) free / gratis.

(unless you go to a free representation / legal advice clinic)

 

on the basis that you only want legally qualified to reply, and “going round in circles”  : time to close this thread?

[Billy Williams]

1 hour ago, honeybee13 said:

We're going round in circles again...

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? 

[honeybee13]

That's already been explained, you just don't happen to agree with how we do things.

[Billy Williams]

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.

[BazzaS]

6 minutes ago, Billy Williams said:

fall down dead in the street, if they got the flu? 

It happened (1918 H1N1 pandemic).

young, fit people : well in the morning, stopped and died in the street in the afternoon.

[Billy Williams]

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..........................