Putting the record straight

[Rooster-UK]

[legaladviser]

I have sent legaladvisor (questionable title) a PM.

I look forward to your reply via PM.

 

As for "legally unenforceable" ... Your reply via PM will help your argument, but at this stage all we have is hot air from yourself with nothing to back it up, where as I have posted hard evidence that they are enforceable ..

 

I dont wish to enter into a debate, as you are perfectly entitled to your PERSONAL opinion, I was asked (if you take the time to look through previous posts) to prove that we do take people to court and do win - All I have done is that ... nothing more, nothing less.

 

I look forward to your reply via PM.

I am a lawyer of 20 years standing.

 

What is your qualification? Oh nothing, thought not. Who's supplying the hot air now?

 

I am happy to debate with you any time any place. I reiterate that any properly defended action will comfortable be won by the motorist.

 

You should have a look at Pepipoo where your myriad cafe/parking company business interests are being exposed for all to see. Funny that, the location of the parking ticket in your "successful" case was a cafe.

[Muggerbee]

In view of the lack of response to a list of managed locations, i'm going to go and have a cuppa at that quaint little place in w/hampton unless theres anywhere better over bilston way

[Muggerbee]

I think thats what they call a Mr Mannering moment, obviously Jones was quite correct when he surmised that they don't like it up 'em , still saves me digging up published accounts and records of 2 directorships in disolved companies

[legaladviser]

I see it now....

 

"What was that, sir, a capuccino and a bacon roll? Sorry, excuse me, while I go and clamp that car out front."

[Bookworm]

I was looking at that picture higher up, the yellow notice one with black checks. (#14)

 

DCAs/bailiffs can get in trouble for trying to pretend they are court officials or for their correspondence to imitate court papers, etc... Is it legal for private parking companies to imitate an official PCN in such a manner that most people will think it is council/police issued? :-?

[Muggerbee]

Bookworm

 

it's a grey area , the appropriate statute is :

 

Administration of Justice Act 1970 (c.31)

 

Part V

Miscellaneous Provisions

 

— (1) A person commits an offence if, with the object of coercing another person to pay money claimed from the other as a debt due under a contract, he—

(a)

harasses the other with demands for payment which, in respect of their frequency or the manner or occasion of making any such demand, or of any threat or publicity by which any demand is accompanied, are calculated to subject him or members of his family or household to alarm, distress or humiliation;

(b)

falsely represents, in relation to the money claimed, that criminal proceedings lie for failure to pay it;

©

falsely represents himself to be authorised in some official capacity to claim or enforce payment; or

(d)

utters a document falsely represented by him to have some official character or purporting to have some official character which he knows it has not.

But these people rely on the guardians of justice to be too busy signing NIPs for speeding offences to go chasing after conmen

[Zamzara]

I do have some respect for Perky for putting his case across, and for operating what looks like a more ethical procedure than the likes of Excel etc.

 

That said, I still think there are fundamental problems with the whole system. The OFT examples of unfair contract terms (pages 42-47) should shoot down once and for all this idea that a charge for breaching terms is not a penalty, just because it's called by a different name.

 

I still accept the principle that a simple price displayed, in return for the service of parking, is acceptable and is a core term, but Perky's website text and his signs contradict this interpretation, as do the often complex rules. It also opens up other problems like planning permission etc.

[MARTIN3030]

Grey area ?

Looks pretty clear to me,when we are taking about in the instances above.

[Zamzara]

I was looking at that picture higher up, the yellow notice one with black checks. (#14)

 

Yeah, it's not cool is it. There seems to be this overwhelming temptation in the parking industry to go down this 'pretend official' route. I guess it's because it makes more people pay up, which of course, makes it worse.

[Muggerbee]

I do have some respect for Perky for putting his case across, and for operating what looks like a more ethical procedure than the likes of Excel etc.

 

That said, I still think there are fundamental problems with the whole system. The OFT examples of unfair contract terms (pages 42-47) should shoot down once and for all this idea that a charge for breaching terms is not a penalty, just because it's called by a different name.

 

I still accept the principle that a simple price displayed, in return for the service of parking, is acceptable and is a core term, but Perky's website text and his signs contradict this interpretation, as do the often complex rules. It also opens up other problems like planning permission etc.

 

Zam

 

don't be fooled by ethical, this is a one man band with a john bull printing kit. Read between the lines on his website, it's a cottage industry con, he saw other shysters making money out of it so now he's doing it!!

 

If and when he gets the capital or the experience then he'll be the same as any other bully boy with a set of sticky envelopes, most of them are smart enough to protect their home addresses and limit their liability though.

 

Remember Excel was 1 man at one point, don't even try and legitimise what these parasites are up to!!

[ScarletPimpernel]

I must also confess to having some respect for Perky in that at least he/she presents a view from the other side of the fence, but whenever asked an awkward question behaves like a Labour minister on 'Today' - either fails to answer, or waffles on about his dubious successes.

 

Anyway, I ask Perky again - in relation to the above image from your website, which statute law do you rely upon to say that 'unauthorised interference' is an offence? Secondly, which crime have 'offending' vehicles or their drivers committed?

[electron99]

When the original post appeared,I knew exactly what the response would be.Glad to see I was right

The internet is notorious for the propagation of urban myths, and parking has its fair share.Perky posted a transcript of a case he won where the motorist claimed he didn't see the signs.What I would like to see now is a transcript of a case where the motorist WON using this, or some of the many other arguments that declare the PPC invoices are unenforceable.Until then I will sit on the fence keeping an open mind as to who is right or wrong.

[Guest interesting]

I agree with electron99, I think this is getting a free for all and not progressing much.

I too would like to see a case of a motorist who has won, if there is one out there but as it appears there may not be any as it seems from reading other posts they all stop before sending people to court.

[Muggerbee]

Off the top of my head ...

 

Help please - another private parking query / TPS - FightBack Forums

 

Although I'm sure people with better memories than mine

can help you out

[legaladviser]

It is not true that there are no counter-examples of motorist winning defended cases. I have assisted on a couple of cases recently where the motorist has won. The private parking companies in question did not show up. The cases are available on the Pepipoo forums. Had the companies shown up they would still have been beaten hands down. The fact is that very few cases come to court because the private parking companies know the odds are stacked against them and in any event many people pay up without realising these tickets are legally unenforcable.

 

For the Vine case which established that for a contract to be enforcable the motorist needs to actually see the warning signage see here:

 

http://www.thepeoplesnocampaign.co.uk/a/no/assets/VINE%20CLAMPING%20CASE.pdf

 

This is a clamping case but the principles are the same. It is Court of Appeal so binding on lower courts. When used Vine makes is almost impossible for the private parking company to succeed.

 

Despite what the purveyors of these private parking scams would like us to believe, they are merely "invoices", which many thousands of people have chosen to ignore with no ill effects.

[Guest interesting]

Thanks for this, but that was a case where the PPC failed to attend. I think electron99 and myself wanted one where they did turn up and a full hearing took place.

[johno1066]

Thanks for this, but that was a case where the PPC failed to attend. I think electron99 and myself wanted one where they did turn up and a full hearing took place.

 

How yer doing Perky? Back again I see!

[Guest interesting]

If there are no examples of cases being defended and being won, but according to perky there are many examples he can show of cases being taken to court and being sucsessfully won by the PPC, how can someone state 100% they are non enforceable ?

The Vine case has been on here before and I think the underlying factor was the person was Ill, the judgement actually states this was not a case of a person pulling in to a seperate entrance/exit but just off road, but they keep mentioning her being illl and I would think it I was about to vomit the last thing I would be doing is looking at signs.

[Guest interesting]

sorry johno, am I perky, is electron99 perky or is anyone who comments perky ?

[legaladviser]

Here's another case for the doubters (post #134)

 

Private Parking Court Win. - FightBack Forums

 

The companies invariably do not turn up when properly defended. I can well understand why they would stay well away.

 

You will have to address your queries to the private parking companies as to why they have been absent when a case has been properly defended.

[legaladviser]

If there are no examples of cases being defended and being won, but according to perky there are many examples he can show of cases being taken to court and being sucsessfully won by the PPC, how can someone state 100% they are non enforceable ?

The Vine case has been on here before and I think the underlying factor was the person was Ill, the judgement actually states this was not a case of a person pulling in to a seperate entrance/exit but just off road, but they keep mentioning her being illl and I would think it I was about to vomit the last thing I would be doing is looking at signs.

Plain wrong. Vine's illness has nothing to do with it. The principle is that the motorist must have objective notice of the signs (ie actually see and understand them). I do not accuse you of being connected to a private parking company, you are entitled to your opinion.

[Muggerbee]

I on the other hand would just like to point out that certain people have very few posts and those that they do have seem to be in support of people pushing through the myth that PPC's ,even one bloke sitting in a coffee shop in wolverhampton ( 2 sugars alex) ,are valued members of the community

providing a needed service and behaving so altruistically that it's excusable to lie, cheat and steal. IMHO

 

BTW

 

if you look here, you'll see the same info that the mods see :

 

[electron99]

How yer doing Perky? Back again I see!

 

It is comments like these that attack the credibility of this site.If you can't contribute something sensible to a discussion, stay away.

To clarify my original post.I would like to read the transcript of cases where the PPC and motorist turned up, and the reasons given by the judge as to why he found in favour of the defendant.It is this sort of information that will help us all formulate more sophisticated defences, should it come to court.Generally, not all owners of PPC's are stupid, and they will continue to refine their actions in the light of judgements given in cases that do go to court.Knowledge is power.

[Muggerbee]

Electron,Perky et al

 

there is a very simple way to see mine or the defence of anyone

suitably knowledgeable to show you up for what you are.

 

You take me to court !! That means that when you get a letter back

that shows you that we mean business, you actually follow through

with your threats. Then when you lose, you appeal to a higher court,

then when you lose again you discover that you have no mates left

at the BPA because they're all signing on.