Jump to content

  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Tell your electrician that they won't have to attend court. A simple statement accompanied by a statement of truth will be more than adequate and they won't hear anything more of it. Tell them that you will have to referred to in court anyway but a written statement will help a lot
    • Claimant: Lowell Portfolio I Limited Our Client: Walker Love Walker Love Ref: Original Lender: Balance:   We have been instructed by our client that you have failed to repay the sums due in respect of the above account. Your Agreement with our client is terminated, which means the balance outstanding is due and our client requires your proposals for payment. Please treat this letter as notice that, unless an agreement is reached within 7 days of the date of this letter, we are instructed by our client to commence court proceedings against you for recovery of the sums outstanding. This means that you may have a Court Decree registered against you. Any Court Decree registered against you may affect your ability to obtain credit in the future. If court action proceeds, we are also instructed to seek legal costs in addition to the sum outstanding from you in order to cover any outlays by our client in having to raise court proceedings If a Decree is obtained then we may be instructed to enforce that Decree which may include an application for an Inhibition against you. This will have the effect of preventing you from selling or granting any further securities against your house, or any land that you may own in Scotland. Rather than issue court proceedings our client would prefer to find a suitable solution to enable you to repay the sums outstanding to it.   To discuss how best these outstanding sums can be repaid please contact Walker Love within the next 7 days by telephone on 0330 678 0335 or by email at contact@walkerlove.com Proposals   Our client may be able to agree to accept less than the sum outstanding in settlement of the sums due from you or, if this is not an option for you, to agree regular payment instalments with you, based on a review of your financial circumstances.   If you need to seek advice then you may wish to contact one or more of the organisations listed below who are able to provide independent advice to you. Yours faithfully   +44 (0)3700 863 000 | www.shoosmiths.com
    • Received another letter today  from shoosmiths    saying they have been instructed to act etc 
    • Answers to Stu's questions: 1) I live in a communal building and so therefore I originally assumed that it was a communal dish for the entire building, although I have not heard anyone else complain about this. I am probably the only person who lives here that actually has Sky and so the only person who uses the dish in question. There is another dish on the same side of the building which is a bit below that one towards the corner of the building, but I know which dish serves my flat as it was directlyt above where the scaffolding originally was. When I saw the blue screen on my front room TV I immediately telephoned my local Housing Association, although since then it has mostly been email contact in the past six weeks. 2) I don't personally own the dish myself as it was already there when I moved in here back in 2014 - as a matter of fact, I didn't even know which dish served my flat when it came to receiving satellite TV channels on my Digibox. I believe by implication that Sky must have installed it instead. At my old place which was a council house before I moved here, I had a Sky dish installed which was my own (a bloke came one Sunday morning back in 2005 to do the honours) , although I left it behind when I moved so that the next people could use satellite TV,  and also due to the fact that there would already be a satellite dish at the back of the building at my new place as well as a satellite socket on the wall at the back of the TV and so therefore I didn't need to take my old one with me. My Digibox and my account came with me when I moved to my present address. I would also like to say that the workman who was working on putting the satellite dish right will be returning on tomorrow - Wednesday 26th June 2024 to finally correct the dish via a cherry picker and so for the first time in six weeks, I will have proper TV again in my front room! I will post again once more on this thread to let you know that it has officially been done. Meanwhile, I have everything crossed for tomorrow that the satellite TV will be back on again, because he had been let down twice already. Wednesday is Day 44 of this charade, and hopefully the final day of it as well.             
    • Thank you for all of your consideration and time on my case The revised letter is fine and approved at this stage. As far as I kno neither the toilet or basin were replaced, the holw referred to by the calimant was an access point to a stop tap that couldnt be moved due to the location at below floor level in the garage A few minutes ago i gothome to a posted hard copy of the claim the original respond date was 4pm 9thJuly  In the same post delivery I recieved a further letter showing an additional 14 days for response to 4pm 23rd July I altered my copy of the claim form posted  earlier so that we were all ware of the revised date Spoke to my electrician earlier and she is considerring whether to put it in writing in a statement of truth She doesnt like confrontation and may not.  Follows from email 20th may   The door frames, where it’s all not fitting correctly with gaps and warped timber used.  A relatively simple fix  £25 . Skirting boards on the curved parts where it’s been filled with a filla and not even been smoothed out.  as above £25 . The architrave isn’t joining correctly with one piece with a cutting taken out of it. ive not seen this so cant comment but a simple fix . Sliding door, no stopper was used to stop it going all the way back and isn’t aligned to the floor. a door stopper was fitted The door slides fully into the pocket to maximise a very tight access witha 2ft 3" door . The extractor going into the boiler where a round tubes been used to an oblong pipe. It’s also held on by gaffer tape.   not a good standard and an easy fix £25 . The window hasn’t been packed correctly and one opening window isn’t aligned. an easy fix it took 1 minutes on my return from holiday . One piece of flooring isn’t sitting flush so will damage very quickly. I hadnt seen this,  the flooring supplied by the c,aimant was apoor quality Bnq with click systme that didnt lock weel so a boad may have risen up again an easy fix to replace one board £25 The toilet is far too close to the radiator and you can’t get up if sitting down. The defendant showed the claimant the size of the room right at the beginning and had discussions about it being a tight space I supplied a short reach pan to maximise space. Difficult to change probable cost £2-300 or more dependong on the final position . The stop tap I cannot get my hand in to be able switch the tap off.  I cut  a hole in the bottom of the basin vanity unit I wsnt particulalry pretty but I have large hands and could turn off the stop top it was below floor level as mentioned earlier  £25 to make hole even bigger . The window you are aware of that’s cracked and you are replacing.  this was carried out by the defendant, appointment on 10th June on return from holiday    The claimants email of 10th june shows an extended list of items that his builder carried out in claimants absense while I was on holiday and without my consent  Quality of skirting board that was fitted around the curved wall inside the bathroom and also in the lounge.  see above . Toilet fitted too close to the radiator where you could potentially burn your leg Claimant shown this at outset I cant  comment too much as I have no measurments see above . Hardly no space for you to get off the toilet when sat down, especially if you are tall.  This was pointed out prior to fitting the floor . The hot and cold feed were incorrectly placed to the wrong connection on the sink  Easy 5 minute flexible pipe swap over £10 . The vanity unit isn’t suitable due to the position of the stop tap. Small hole cut in the vanity unit base to try and switch the tap off  see above . No caulk used around the door frames  easy fix £15 . The extractor fan, where you used a plastic round tube, going to a square tube that was held on by gaffer tape. The square tube then went into a round hole on the outside, this was then filled with foam gap.  Easy fix £25 . The pocket door felt like it wasn’t fixed well, the door at the bottom wasn’t sliding on to the runner very well and you had to help it onto the run. Also no lock on the door.  a relatively easy fix £25 . The boiler door frame had to be replaced due to the timber that was used. The door also was replaced due to the door being fitted to fix into the twisted door frame wood. The door had been shaved so it would fit into door frame that was twisted.  I wasnt aware of this prior to my holiday The architrave used inside the boiler room was short, had a piece taken out of it. The architrave in the toilet wasn’t fitted well.this is subjective . You used two single sockets for the bathroom and boiler room. Where I only needed to have I double switch. I fitted a 2 gang light light switch . The door frame going into the garage you left gaps between the wood and the wall.  maybe required a little filler of quadrant bead£10 . Door handle not fixed correctly and is stiff  easy fix £5 . The window, one opening window doesn’t look level, the other you can’t open it and leave it slightly open in a lock position  fixed by me on my return . Skirting by the radiator, the hole had been cut too big and had just been filled with filler.  ?? £10 to make good? . One plank of flooring wasn’t fitted flush and my toe caught it sitting upwards. poor quality flooring supplied by claimant an easy fix £25   All pricing is subjective as I didnt have the chance to  look at the complaints   Except for moving toilet and replacing pcoket door all snags are relatively minor items That could have been easliy remedied Interestingly he doesnt mention taking out the pocket door wall, lifting up the floor to move the toilet replacing drains and making new wall      
  • 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

Parking Fee Paid But Input Incorrect VRN - Discussion thread

Recommended Posts

Regarding a driver, that HAS paid for parking but input an incorrect Vehicle Registration Number.


This is an easy mistake to make, especially if a driver has access to more than one vehicle.

First of all, upon receiving an NTK/PCN it is important to check that the Notice fully complies with PoFA 2012 Schedule 4 before deciding how to respond of course.

The general advice is NOT to appeal to the Private Parking Company as, for example, you may identify yourself as driver and in certain circumstances that could harm your defence at a later stage.

However, after following a recent thread on this subject, I have come to the conclusion that, in the case of inputting an incorrect Vehicle Registration Number, which is covered by “de minimis” it may actually HARM your defence at a later stage if you have not appealed to the PPC at the first appeal stage and explained that you DID pay for parking and CAN provide proof of parking, it was just that an incorrect VRN was input in error.

Now, we all know that the BPA Code of Practice are guidelines from one bunch of charlatans for another bunch of charlatans to follow, but my thoughts are that there could be problems in court if a judge decides that a motorist has not followed these guidelines and has not made an appeal at the first appeal stage, therefore attempting to resolve the situation before it reaches court.

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
• 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).

It is appreciated that in issuing a PCN in these instances, the operator will have incurred charges including but not limited to the DVLA fee and other processing costs therefore 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 for a 14-day period from when the keying error was identified before reverting to the charge amount at the point of appeal.

Now, we know that the "modest charge" is unenforceable in law, however, it would be up to the individual if they wanted to pay and make the problem go away or in fact if they wanted to contest the issue in court.

If the motorist DOES appeal to the PPC explaining the error and the PPC rejects the appeal and the appeal fails, the motorist can use that in his favour at court.


Defence: "I entered the wrong VRN by mistake Judge, I explained this and I also submitted proof of payment for the relevant parking period in my appeal but the PPC wouldn't accept that"


If the motorist DOES NOT appeal to the PPC in the first instance the judge may well use that as a reason to dismiss the case in the claimant's favour because they may decide that they had the opportunity to resolve the matter at a much earlier stage in the proceedings.

It is my humble opinion that a motorist, having paid and having proof of payment but entering the wrong VRN, should make an appeal at the first appeal stage in order to prevent problems at a later stage.

In this instance, I think there is nothing to be gained by concealing the identity of the driver, especially if at a later stage, perhaps in court, it is said: “I (the driver) entered the wrong VRN.”

Whether you agree or not, it is up to the individual to decide …. but worth thinking about.

Any feedback, especially if you can prove to the contrary, gratefully received.

Link to post
Share on other sites

you can have your humble opinion....

You are very new to all this private parking speculative invoice game

you have very quickly taken it upon yourself to be all over this forum,

now to the extent of moving away from your initial thread with your own issue that you knew little about handling to littering the forum and posting on numerous established and existing threads, where advice has already been given or a conclusion has already resulted, with your theories conclusions and observations which of course are very welcomed.


in some instances, like this one...you dont quite match the advice that the forum and it's members have gathered over a very long consensual period given in a tried and trusted consistent mannered thoughtful approach.

one could even call it forum hi-jacking and that is becoming somewhat worrying .


  • Like 1

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)

Thank-you dx for your feedback.

That is the reason I posted my opinion, because I am trying to learn more and this is one of the ways to learn, by posting my opinions and if I am incorrect then being advised of the reasons I am incorrect.

I am not sure if you have educated me on the points in my post that would be incorrect.

However, you are correct on one point, I shall refrain from posting on any other thread other than my own going forward and if you think my post here is unhelpful, misleading or in any other way inappropriate, then please do feel obliged to delete it but educate me on the reason why.

To help my learning process, it would be helpful to know what I got wrong other than it goes against established advice considering the outcome of a recent court case on this topic that seemed to suggest it was dismissed due to an appeal not being made at the first stage.



EDIT:  Just to be clear, I am not intending to go against established advice by suggesting that appeals should ALWAYS be made, just my thoughts on the particular case of paying for parking and entering an incorrect VRN. Should this ever happen to me, I will make an appeal at the first stage to avoid any problems that may occur at a later stage. Although, any individual in a similar position should decide for themselves what they think is an appropriate course of action.

Also, I continue to be grateful for any advice you give on my own particular case.


Edited by anotheruser0000
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • honeybee13 changed the title to Parking Fee Paid But Input Incorrect VRN - Discussion thread

Point taken that we should inform new Caggers that the £20 option is there in wrong registration cases.  Well, supposedly there, who knows what the PPCs would do in practice.  Anyway, the option is allegedly there with both the BPA as you say, but also the IPC (I've just checked).

However, there's a danger here of baby, bathwater.

The two easiest types of cases to win are (a) residential - due to Supremacy of Contract and (b) wrong registration - due to "de minimis".  Indeed until recently we has been boasting that no Caggers, over two years, who had sent a PPC the wrong registration snotty letter, had even been taken to court, let alone lost a court hearing.

We simply can do nothing about a terrible judge.  The judge seems - I say seems because we haven't had all the details - to have ignored "de minimis",. got fixated on a sign and awarded unreasonable behaviour costs.  A totally bizarre judgement.

  • Like 1

We could do with some help from you.


 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

if i remember rightly, long ago in one of the first drafts of the old proposed gov't overhauls, there was a listing of recommended 'charges' that inc wrong reg = £20. some PPC's implemented such changes in advance.

then later as it looked increasing likely the new code was never going to be implemented after it's 1st review and another set of codes was to be debated they all quietly revert back ..........


  • Like 1

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

Thank-you FTMDave for your feedback.

May I take this opportunity to say that after reading numerous threads to which you are a contributor, I have great admiration for you. You really do go above and beyond in your efforts to help other people. The time you put in to help, in particular with witness statements is incredible. I am also impressed by the way in which you will defer to others with more experience should there be a particular point that you are not 100% clear on and return with answers or advice that you have sought. I wish I had the ability to help others as you do.

There is another forum expert that I must also thank for his time and patience answering my questions and allowing me to come to a “penny drops” moment on one particular issue. I believe he has helped me immensely to understand and to strengthen my own case. I shall not mention who it is here at the moment just in case he would rather I didn't but I greatly appreciate the time he took working through that issue with me.

I spent 20+ years of working in an industry that rules and regulations had to be strictly adhered to, indeed, exams had to be taken in order that one had to become qualified in those rules and regulations in order to carry out the duties of the post. In a way, such things as PoFA 2012 are rules and regulations that are not completely alien to me. It has been very enjoyable for me to learn these regulations and the law surrounding them. I wish I had found this forum years ago. I admit that perhaps I had been too keen to express my opinions given that I am still in the learning process.

After a suitable period in this industry I became Qualified to teach the rules and regulations and I always said to those I taught that there is no such thing as a stupid question. If opinions, theories and observations are put forward, discussion can take place and as long as the result is that the student is able to clearly see where they went wrong and got to that moment where the penny drops then that is a valuable learning experience.

No matter how experienced one is, there is always something to learn and if I did not know the answer to a question, I would say, I don't know the answer to that question but I will go and find out what the answer is.

In any posts I have made, I have stated, “unless I am wrong” or “as far as I can see” awaiting a response telling me what I got wrong, if it was wrong. If I am wrong I am only too happy to admit it and take it as a valuable learning experience. I take the point that perhaps I should not post on other peoples threads and I shall refrain from doing so going forward. 🤐

As alluded to, circumstances can change, FTMDave made the following point that it had been boasted that no Caggers, over two years, who had sent a PPC the wrong registration snotty letter, had even been taken to court, let alone lost a court hearing .... but now they have.

I too used the word "seemed" because it is true, we haven't had all the details.

After perusing this forum I believe certain advice changed here after the Beavis case, I could be wrong but that is what I seem to remember reading.

Could it be that after winning the above case in question, a claimant could refer back to this case and claim that a defendant had not made use of the appeal process, therefore allowing the claimant to win?

Again, in this instance only, I do not know what is to be gained by not making an appeal or concealing the identity of the driver, especially if it is later admitted that the defendant was the driver and was the one to input the incorrect VRN in error. So far no one has educated me as to the reason why. But, of course, when making an appeal, it should be worded carefully so that an error in the appeal process cannot be referred back to.

I thought long and hard about whether or not to post here but I wanted to bring up this point for discussion. Yes, I admit I have limited knowledge, but does that mean I should have kept silent?

After I posted that I moved away from this forum slightly to find other avenues to increase my knowledge. I bought a law book and am now following certain lawyers on Youtube in the hope of arming myself with enough ammunition to use in my own case.

In one video titled “7 Reasons You Will LOSE Your Court Case (and how to avoid them)” by Black Belt Barrister I believe he makes my point by saying the following, and I quote:

“If you ignore the complaint in the first instance and it does eventually end up in court then it's going to look bad that you didn't co-operate in the first place. The court is not going to look kindly on you simply ignoring the company and not, let's say, availing yourself of any kind of appeal opportunities, particularly if we are talking about parking charge notices and things like that.”

This point makes me think that, it is not such a bizarre judgement in the end.

Only in the case of having proof of payment and inputting an incorrect VRN .... could it be worthwhile making a carefully worded appeal in the first instance? .... If the appeal fails, depending on the reason, surely this could only help if it went to court?

As always, any feedback gratefully received.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Well barristers would say that in the hope that motorists would go to them for advice -obviously paid advice.  The problem with appealing is at least twofold.

1] there is a real danger that some part of the appeal will point out that the person appealing [the keeper ] is also the driver.  And in a lot of cases the last thing the keeper wants when they are also the driver is that the parking company knows that. It makes it so much easier for them as the majority  of Judges do not accept that the keeper and the driver are the same person for obvious reasons. Often they are not the same person especially when it is a family car where the husband, wife and children are all insured to drive the same car. On top of that  just about every person who has a valid insurance policy is able to drive another person's vehicle. So there are many possibilities and it should be up to the parking company to prove it to some extent. 

Most parking company's do not accept appeals under virtually any circumstances. But insist that you carry on and appeal to their so called impartial jury who are often anything but impartial. By turning down that second appeal, many motorists pay up because they don't know enough about PoFA to argue with those decisions which brings us to the second problem.

2] the major parking companies are mostly unscrupulous, lying cheating scrotes. So when you appeal and your reasons look as if they would have merit in Court, they then go about  concocting a Witness Statement to debunk that challenge. We feel that by leaving what we think are the strongest arguments to our Member's Witness Statements, it leaves insufficient time to be thwarted with their lies etc. And when the motorists defence is good enough to win, it should win regardless of when it is first produced. 


  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)


Your knowledge in this area is greater than I could possibly hope to have and as such I appreciate your feedback.

I'm not sure that I agree the reason why a barrister would say that, only to get new customers, I'm sure he must have had professional experience in this area that qualifies him to make that point. 🙂

In your point 1 you mention:

1] there is a real danger that some part of the appeal will point out that the person appealing [the keeper ] is also the driver.

I understand the point you are making but I was referring to when the keeper is also the driver and admits it later and only in this circumstance, but I understand what you are saying.

I take on board the issues you raise in point 2.

Is it possible that a PPC (claimant) could refer back to the case above as proof that the motorist should have appealed, like they refer back to other cases?

Thanks once again for the feedback.

Edited by anotheruser0000
Link to post
Share on other sites

the claimant in their WS can refer to whatever previous CC judgements they like, as we do in our WS's, but CC judgements do not set a legal precedence.

however, they do often refer to judgements like Bevis, those cases do created a precedence as they were court of appeal rulings.

as for if the defendant, prior to the raising of a claim, dobbed themselves in as the driver in writing during any appeal to the PPC, i don't think we've seen one case whereby the claimant referred to such in their WS.. ?? but they certainly typically include said appeal letters in their exhibits.

i certainly dont think it's a good idea to 'remind' them of such at the defence stage, even if the defendant did admit such in a written appeal.

i would further go as far to say, that could be even more damaging to the whole case than a judge admonishing a defendant for not appealing to the PPC in the 1st place. it sort of blows the defendant out the water before the judge reads anything else.



  • Like 1

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)

Thank-you dx,

What you have written is certainly helpful to my understanding.

The only thing I would say, what I found to be most worrying and led me to start this discussion is, I believe the judge did not merely admonish the defendant in the case in question, but used that point to dismiss the case in the claimants favour. To me, and I don't have your experience or knowledge, that is somewhat troubling.

Again, the caveat being that we don't know exactly what went on but I think we can infer the reason for the judgement.

Thank-you for your feedback.

EDIT: I guess that the case I refer to is only one case and it may never happen again and the strategy not to appeal is still the best strategy even in this event, but I really did find the outcome of that case, not only extremely annoying but also worrying.

Let's hope other judges are not quite so narrow minded and don't get fixated on one particular issue as FTMDave alluded to.

Edited by anotheruser0000
Link to post
Share on other sites

i dont think the reason why the defendant lost the case means anything at all in that case.

it was a classic judge lottery example.

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

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...