Combined Parking Solutions vs Mr Stephen Thomas

[jimbob19]

Hi all.

 

Got a fine and it wasn't me driving, and told them as much. They've cited the above case saying that if I don't tell them who was driving then it's likely that the Judge would rule that I was the driver.

 

Does anyone know anything about the above case? Not much on web.

 

Cheers, Jim.

[DBC]

For a start it's not a "fine", and secondly this is a well-known case which many people suspect was a "fix" by the parking company and one of their employees. To counter that there are many instances where parking companies have lost in court. To give further reassurance, many parking companies don't do court because they know they won't win.

 

As this is a civil case you are under no obligation to tell the PPC who was driving. It's for them to find out (if they can) and not for you to tell them.

[Michael Browne]

Hi all.

 

Got a fine and it wasn't me driving, and told them as much. They've cited the above case saying that if I don't tell them who was driving then it's likely that the Judge would rule that I was the driver.

 

Does anyone know anything about the above case? Not much on web.

 

.

 

Full Judgement is in post #106 here:

 

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=34095&st=100

[mightymouse_69]

It was a real case - whether it was a set up involving employees? Who knows.

 

One has to consider that the Thomas case involved an area of land where there was an effective permit scheme in force. The judge appeared to refer to this while considering if the claim was proportionate.

 

Anyway, It is a first instance decision. It may be persuasive in another court, but it is not binding.

 

It is a real shame that an appeal was not arranged.

[jimbob19]

Thank you. Very interesting reading. As you say, irrespective of whether it was a set-up, the Judge's ruling (eg on charges not being punitive etc) is quite a surprise.

 

I'm also surprised that there are lots of instances of parking companies losing court cases.... I thought it was extremely rare for these ever to go to court.

 

Interesting - thanks again Jim.

[jimbob19]

Thank you GCR. I will try to track down the full judgement, rather than the edited highlights!!!

[Al27]

Very odd that the press were there. The only other times we've seen this since was when CPS took a 'mystery woman' to court and found against her because she 'didn't see the signs', yet CPS very conveniently had some CCTV footage.

[Steve Picton]

Ah yes, the case that everyone thinks is a fake.

 

Shame the court service doesn't think so.

[mightymouse_69]

Ah yes, the case that everyone thinks is a fake.

 

Shame the court service doesn't think so.

 

I don't think that the case per se is fake. However the situation surrounding it is odd - the press do not normally attend county court hearings for example.

 

It would be nice to read the full unedited judgement.

[PPC $ cambuster]

Ah yes, the case that everyone thinks is a fake.

 

Shame the court service doesn't think so.

 

Dear Mr PPC Troll

How do you manage to keep a straight face trying to pretend your put up job was a properly defended case rather than the charade it actually was ??

[Al27]

if I don't tell them who was driving then it's likely that the Judge would rule that I was the driver

 

No.

 

If there is any evidence you were the driver, then the judge will decide you were the driver.

 

If there is no evidence at all and you deny you were driving, he will deem that you were not driving.

 

It's all about the balance of probabilities. PPCs like to use the phrase, but conveniently forget that if there is no evidence you were driving and you say you weren't, on the balance of probabilities, it will be decided that you weren't driving.