PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

HX Car park management con artists PCN
parkingcompanies...
post Mon, 2 Oct 2017 - 20:22
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 45
Joined: 2 Oct 2017
Member No.: 94,308



Evening all. I've received a PCN from the above company. A driver was photographed (he thinks by a little man in a dark silver BMW 3 series touring) in a "No stopping area" on a Shell garage forecourt. The length of the stop according to the photographs is 7 minutes! The amount payable is for £60 rising to £100 after 14 days

Initial thoughts are;

1) Ignore

2) Send them a letter telling them I wont be naming the driver but they can pay me a £100 administration fee to find out who the driver was along with a fee schedule for dealing with the matter.


Thoughts?

TIA

ETA The stop was actually 7 minutes according to the photo time stamps.

This post has been edited by parkingcompaniesFOAD: Mon, 2 Oct 2017 - 21:04
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
6 Pages V  « < 4 5 6  
Start new topic
Replies (100 - 111)
Advertisement
post Mon, 2 Oct 2017 - 20:22
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
parkingcompanies...
post Thu, 19 Jul 2018 - 22:16
Post #101


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 45
Joined: 2 Oct 2017
Member No.: 94,308



All good to send?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Fri, 20 Jul 2018 - 07:35
Post #102


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 16,876
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



No need for a statement of truth
You can only claim a half days loss of leave. However you can add the OTHER half day into you unreasonable costs side - or just charge it at £19 per hour.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
parkingcompanies...
post Fri, 20 Jul 2018 - 10:18
Post #103


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 45
Joined: 2 Oct 2017
Member No.: 94,308



Ok. I’ve sent the costs sheet in to court and the Claimant, May just take the skeleton along for my own reference.

Any other Do’s and Don’ts in the big day? Any advice?

The letter I sent in reply at first may not go down too well I suppose...
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rosturra
post Fri, 20 Jul 2018 - 11:32
Post #104


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 100
Joined: 19 Jul 2017
Member No.: 93,086



I don't know if this is too late but...

I am not a lawyer. But as a lurker I'm sure I've read that you can charge £19 per hour or part thereof. So your half hours can be rounded up.
e.g. 7.5 Hours - £142.50
sb 7.5 Hours - £152

etc

Perhaps someone with knowledge of this can confirm, in case I'm raving.

"enfore" should be "enforce".

As for grammar; Far too many capital letters and too few apostrophes!

e.g."Due to the Nature of the Defendants Business and the Time of The Court appearance they have Lost A full Mornings and Afternoons work at £80 Per Half Day."



This post has been edited by rosturra: Fri, 20 Jul 2018 - 11:38
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ManxRed
post Fri, 20 Jul 2018 - 11:40
Post #105


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 9,007
Joined: 20 Aug 2008
Member No.: 21,992



QUOTE (parkingcompaniesFOAD @ Fri, 20 Jul 2018 - 11:18) *
Any other Do’s and Don’ts in the big day? Any advice?


Be early, suit, tie, be polite, don't interrupt the judge if you can help it.

Oh, and when the PPC's legal lackey is talking, no standing up and shouting 'OBJECTION, YOUR HONOUR!'


--------------------
Sometimes I use big words I don't understand in an effort to make myself sound more photosynthesis.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
parkingcompanies...
post Yesterday, 07:37
Post #106


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 45
Joined: 2 Oct 2017
Member No.: 94,308



QUOTE (rosturra @ Fri, 20 Jul 2018 - 12:32) *
I don't know if this is too late but...

I am not a lawyer. But as a lurker I'm sure I've read that you can charge £19 per hour or part thereof. So your half hours can be rounded up.
e.g. 7.5 Hours - £142.50
sb 7.5 Hours - £152

etc

Perhaps someone with knowledge of this can confirm, in case I'm raving.

"enfore" should be "enforce".

As for grammar; Far too many capital letters and too few apostrophes!

e.g."Due to the Nature of the Defendants Business and the Time of The Court appearance they have Lost A full Mornings and Afternoons work at £80 Per Half Day."


Well spotted, I must’ve been tired. Some daft errors there. Hopefully won’t impact things too much!

Suit and tie really necessary?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Umkomaas
post Yesterday, 08:24
Post #107


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,636
Joined: 8 Feb 2013
Member No.: 59,842



QUOTE
Suit and tie really necessary?

Not essential, but smartly dressed is, in my view.

Give your Primark jogging pants and your Rab C Nesbitt string vest a day off! smile.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
parkingcompanies...
post Yesterday, 16:51
Post #108


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 45
Joined: 2 Oct 2017
Member No.: 94,308



I’ll be sure to leave them at home thanks biggrin.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The Rookie
post Yesterday, 17:02
Post #109


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 38,895
Joined: 9 Sep 2003
From: Warwickshire
Member No.: 317



QUOTE (ostell @ Fri, 13 Jul 2018 - 08:42) *
Elliot v Loake was determined on the presence of forensic evidence and other linking the car and the driver.

Again, no there wasn’t, please understand EvL as you continually misquote it.

In that case the keeper swore blind the car wasn’t involved in the accident and that he had it at the time. The Forensic evidence put the car at the scene and therefore buy his own admission he had to be the driver. There was NO forensic evidence linking driver to car or driver (directly) to the event.


--------------------
There is no such thing as a law abiding motorist, just those who have been scammed and those yet to be scammed!

S172's
Rookies 1-0 Kent

Council PCN's
Rookies 1-0 Warwick
Rookies 1-0 Birmingham

PPC PCN's
Rookies 8-0 PPC's
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ostell
post Yesterday, 21:47
Post #110


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 7,525
Joined: 8 Mar 2013
Member No.: 60,457



OK the there was forensic evidence available and this was used to show that he was the driver. Play on words.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Sheffield Dave
post Yesterday, 23:01
Post #111


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 29
Joined: 20 May 2013
Member No.: 62,052



QUOTE (ostell @ Sat, 21 Jul 2018 - 22:47) *
OK the there was forensic evidence available and this was used to show that he was the driver. Play on words.

The forensic evidence was used to tie the accident to a particular car. The RK of that car made unwise admissions, including that no one else had driven the car. The judge concluded that the RK was the driver at the time of the accident. At no point did forensic evidence link the RK to the driver.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ostell
post Today, 06:56
Post #112


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 7,525
Joined: 8 Mar 2013
Member No.: 60,457



It was the combination of the forensic and the other evidence that permitted the link and the finding that the keeper was the driver. I did not say that it was all due to forensics but forensics had their part to play by identifying the car. Let's just usee "forensic" to rattle the PPC's cage.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

6 Pages V  « < 4 5 6
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



Advertisement

Advertise here!

RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: Sunday, 22nd July 2018 - 07:09
Pepipoo uses cookies. You can find details of the cookies we use here along with links to information on how to manage them.
Please click the button to accept our cookies and hide this message. We’ll also assume that you’re happy to accept them if you continue to use the site.