PPC Court Case - Transcript here

[interesting]

OK - As you all know, perky is not allowed to post as he upset a mod .. so I have been asked to post the following judgement on his behalf.

Before I start, please can certain individuals refrain from making personal attacks - this is a judgement transcript given for a PPC when both the company and defendant turned up.

Many of the arguments used appear in the 'stickys' here (penalty/unfair contract terms etc..) and yet again, the court found that the PPC ticket was lawful, legal and not a penalty but a valid charge for parking.

I am sure that certain individuals will again say that no parking charge is enforceable if defended right ... But as those people are unable to show a case they have won against a PPC when both parties have turned up we have to disregard that statement.

The fact remains that Perky has posted 3 transcripts of cases won and the judgement orders of others in an attempt to show that the advice given on here that "all PPC tickets are unenforceable" is just utter crap and bad advice.

Some are valid and will be backed by the courts, some are not - but thats like everything in life, not just PPC tickets.

ImageShack - Hosting :: p1nq9.jpg
ImageShack - Hosting :: p2fy9.jpg
ImageShack - Hosting :: p3ve5.jpg
ImageShack - Hosting :: p4na2.jpg
ImageShack - Hosting :: p5ap0.jpg
ImageShack - Hosting :: p6el8.jpg

I know its only the county court and non binding - but it does show, and not even the hardened sceptic can argue - cases are taken to court by a PPC and cases are won.

Each ticket should be taken on its own merit, "all tickets are unenforeabcle" is utter rubbish and the transcripts posted/judgements posted when both parties have rutned up proves this without question.

Anyway ... happy reading - no personal insults/comments please - open debate is good - having both sides of the argument aired is good.

[jonni2bad]

I have no particular interest in these cases and have not read the arguments placed in the past by opposing sides, however....

You seem to be claiming that the Judgement dismisses claims that the parking tickets are unenforceable under UTCCR and similar arguments on penalty charges.

I have just read it and there is no reference to the UTCCR and no specific references to any other claims by the Defendant.

There is an inference that the Defendant claimed the charge to be a penalty, and this was denied. However, since we do not know to what extent the penalty charge argument was used, it might easily have just been a rather simple "This charge was a penalty".

We also cannot see any documents submitted by that Defendant, so we can't know to what extent it was defended - nor can we see the claim itself or any evidence etc.

On that basis, and given the wild results of Judges in County Courts over the last 2 years, I really don't know what this might prove, other than to be sure of a well prepared defence...

I am not suggesting that those who use the argument of penalty charges and UTCCR are thus correct, simply that this Judgement on its own is not really of use.

[interesting]

The defence was posted a few weeks ago on one of the threads, just he did not get the actual transcript until today and I cant find the thread in amongst all the others

But I am sure the people who have an interest in these types of cases will remember it and link it up.

The PPC would argue that UTCCR do not apply to parking charges as the charges are clearly marked out before the person parks (these cases are only for parking in a private carpark where a permit is needed for example and the landowner will give you the option of having a permit or if you donot have a permit the charge for parking is £60 or similar - not overstaying 5mins in a free carpark which is a seperate argument all together).

Also, just something comes to mind - If the defence is that a contract was not formed due to whatever reasons, the argument about unfair contract terms cannot be used - as by using that defence would indicate you accept a contract was formed but was unfair !! .. anyway thats something for another thread.

As for what I am claiming/not claiming ... actually all I am stating is advice that "All PPC tickets are unenforceable" is bad advice as clearly some are as had been shown on a number of occasions and people need to judge each ticket on a case by case basis - rather than 'ignore it, its worthless'.

[battyboomboom]

Is it just me, or does anyone else notice the lack of an actual defence quoting the law or case law?

[gwc1000]

Originally Posted by battyboomboom

Is it just me, or does anyone else notice the lack of an actual defence quoting the law or case law?

No, it's not just you. The main thrust seems "I didn't see the signs, guv"

[interesting]

Originally Posted by battyboomboom

Is it just me, or does anyone else notice the lack of an actual defence quoting the law or case law?

Lets just take a moment to reflect....

This is a transcript of the JUDGEMENT ... This found in favour of the PPC.

If you take the time to 'read betwen the lines' you can sort of work out what the defendant relied on ie. No contract can be formed as I didnt see the signs (take that with the VINE case.... If the signs are placed in positions that they are able to be seen then a driver CAN NOT use the reason he did not see them as a defence - 'legalpete' says the signs must be seen, but time after time when PPCs take cases to court if the signs are there for the driver to be seen, they cannot argue they didnt see them and expect to get off with it with that excuse .... any questions abou this please see the judgement transcript from couty of appeal page 4 ... here it is : " the question whether a person voluntarily assumes a risk or consents to trespass to his or her property is to be judge objectively and not subjectively. Once it is established that sufficient and adequate warning notices were in place, a car driver cannot be heard to say that he or she did not see the notice. Were that to be the law, it would be too easy for car drivers who trespass with their cars to evade the only method land owners have of stopping the unauthorised parking of cars in parking spaces or parking areas on their property.).

The full case is here: http://www.thepeoplesnocampaign.co.u...ING%20CASE.pdf

The judgement transcript also went into some detail about 'was a contract created' ... and the judge found it was ... by a persons actions they can create a contract.

The transcript also went into detail about was it a penalty or a charge .. the judge found not a penalty but a charge - even the extra charges was found to be a reasonable charge and NOT a penalty.

The transcript also went on about going from £85 to £135 - and found it was a reasonable charge for 'admin' and granted it !!!

As for the defence .. I'm sure I addressed this to start with in the initial post - various ... the UCCTR and other related acts .. even the old Dunlop case (irrelevant in these cases but advice posted seemed to think it relevant )

Anyway, without resorting to insults or anything else ... the facts remain - NO PERSON HAS EVER WON A CASE AGAINST A PPC WHEN BOTH PARTIES HAVE TURNED UP FOR A COURT HEARING.

If they have .. please post details here with a copy opf the JUDGEMENT TRANSCRIPT .... No excuses/reasons ... post it or not .. simple

People winning/losing by default (ie. when no person responds and/or turns up in court DOES NOT COUNT)

[Rob S]

Originally Posted by interesting

Anyway, without resorting to insults or anything else ... the facts remain - NO PERSON HAS EVER WON A CASE AGAINST A PPC WHEN BOTH PARTIES HAVE TURNED UP FOR A COURT HEARING.

So you make a bold statement as you did above and then ask people to prove otherwise? It doesn't work like that. It's up to you to prove that your statement is correct.

Over to you.

[Michael Browne]

Originally Posted by Rob S

So you make a bold statement as you did above and then ask people to prove otherwise? It doesn't work like that. It's up to you to prove that your statement is correct.

Actually that's how it does work. Interesting has given an example supporting his view that where both parties appear in court the PPC has always won. It is up to someone to disprove that by producing evidence of a similar case where the oppposite has happened.

[Rob S]

Not at all Michael, Interesting said the following:-

"the facts remain - NO PERSON HAS EVER WON A CASE AGAINST A PPC WHEN BOTH PARTIES HAVE TURNED UP FOR A COURT HEARING"

He has made it quite clear that it is a fact that no one has ever won a case against a PPC when both parties have turned up. He needs to support that statement with the facts that he presumably has at his disposal. It is not up to others to disprove his facts, it is up to him to reveal the source of his "facts".

If he had said "the facts remain-no person has ever won a case against Perkies PPC when both parties have turned up for a court hearing" then he would probably be standing in a position of strength, but I fail to see how he has knowledge of every single case in the UK where a PPC and a defendant have contested a case and both parties have turned up.

[Michael Browne]

but I fail to see how he has knowledge of every single case in the UK where a PPC and a defendant have contested a case and both parties have turned up.

I agree. It's unlikely that he knows of every single instance where this has occurred or the result.

But all it will take is for someone to show even just one case where a PPC has lost to completely disprove his statement.

[interesting]

I have searched this site and others and can not find any evidence of a case where a PPC has lost when both parties have turned up.
I have seen cases where 1 party has failed to appear and judgement given by default, I have seen many cases threatened by the PPC and never taken to court.
There was 1 case on the forums that stated case at Manchester Airport was won, but no one has ever proved the authenticity of this report and until it is proved by a judgement transcript we have to presume it is untrue.
In the same way as people on this site stated to Perky "you have never won a case which has been defended, prove it etc..." (the rules of proof have to be the same for both sides of the debate).
I am pretty sure that the legal people on here who keep harping on about no cases ever being won etc... would, if they had any evidence, of produced the case.
I am more than happy to stand corrected, this is NOT a personal crusade just I am hoping it will stop bad advice about "all tickets are unenforceable" and more advice given along the lines of the council tickets (ie. scan the notice, any signs etc..) before advice is given.

[legaladviser]

Now we know why perky/interesting was so reluctant to post the transcript. There was little or no defence adduced at all, as I suspected. This is not a victory in any sense, as there was no contest. As for there being no win for a motorist when the PPC turns up, the clue is in the proposition. The PPC invariably does not turn up when a proper defence is put forward. It's a bit like saying I've never been beaten at a sport when you never turn up to meet a decent opponent. But PPCs will frequently deceive themselves (and try to deceive others) in this way.

The defendant in this case could have had my assistance to produce a proper defence. This was denied by the coward perky. Now he has the gall to trumpet his amazing "victory". What a loser.

The case is not the same as that mentioned before Christmas. It appears some kind of scam is being pulled here. The case before Christmas was in Swindon and the defendant was not called de Brunner. I think we have seen this transcript before and it has not improved with age (nor have the non-arguments of the defendant). Perky thinks he can pull the wool over our eyes that it is the same case mentioned before Christmas.

Interesting I hope perky is paying you handsomely for all the support you give him.

[vortex]

legal adviser, YOU can blow interesting out of the water by providing a transcript of a winning case where both claimant and a ppc have turned up and the ppc has lost. Regardless of the motives of interesting/perky they have provided evidence and so when you do the same then you can shut him up. The challenge has now been set by interesting, are you up for it?

[legaladviser]

Originally Posted by vortex

legal adviser, YOU can blow interesting out of the water by providing a transcript of a winning case where both claimant and a ppc have turned up and the ppc has lost. Regardless of the motives of interesting/perky they have provided evidence and so when you do the same then you can shut him up. The challenge has now been set by interesting, are you up for it?

I am well up for it. Unfortunately the private parking scammers are not. Whenever I get involved, they go shopping. Hence perky ducking my challenge. If they are happy to stand and be counted, I will post the transcript when I wipe the floor with them.

Regards their evidence, it is of no value. The defendant in this case clearly did not have a clue. We were told this was a case where all the popularly cited defences were deployed. This is a blatant lie. It is nothing of the sort.

[gwc1000]

Originally Posted by legaladviser

We were told this was a case where all the popularly cited defences were deployed. This is a blatant lie. It is nothing of the sort.

Couldn't agree more.

[Zamzara]

NO PERSON HAS EVER WON A CASE AGAINST A PPC WHEN BOTH PARTIES HAVE TURNED UP FOR A COURT HEARING

Why keep saying this? The PPCs always fold rather than go to court. What does that tell us? How is that supposed to prove they have a good case?

[interesting]

Legaladviser .. There are literally hundreds of examples on this site and PePiPoo of people being given unenforceable PPC tickets.
You could always take an action against a PPC for issuing an illegal invoice / sending letters to RK.
It will cost £25 in the county court to issue proceedings, a small price to pay for you to prove your point.
As for the judgement, this is NOT one seen before - one seen before was for "Blackburn"- please try and get your basic facts correct

This is the judgement transcript - NOT A TRANSCRIPT OF THE FULL HEARING (clue is in the title) and as you would know if you were actually qualified in the real world, rather than a degree issued from the university of PePiPOO only gives the reasons for the judge awarding or rejecting the claim.

The defendant used the 'its a penalty' - and this was addressed : the defendant used the 'I did not see the signs and therefore a contract cannot be entered' - the judge addressed this : the defendant used the "The terms of the contract were unfair" - the judge addressed this.

You have the case details now for 3 that perkys company has taken to court.

Threre is nothing stopping you or anyone else applying to the court and getting a tape transcript of the full hearing (EXCEPT THE JUDGEMENT AS YOU ALREADY HAVE THIS).

The form you need is EX107 from the county court, pick a transcriber company and they will do it - the turn around time for a hearing transcript is approx 2 weeks (as it does not need approval from judge).

The one with De Brunner lasted for approx 30mins (exc judgement) so will cost approx £50-£60 ...

Anyway legaladviser .. Other people on this thread (who I am sure are against PPC tickets also - or at least sitting on the fence) have said perky has provided his evidence that cases are won ... now its upto you to show a case where your advice has won against a PPC in a court.

Or, as I said before you take a PPC to court for issuing illegal invoices/harrasment - then the PPC counter claim will be for the ticket and then you get the day in court !!!- So simple even people holding PePiPOO degrees can understand it.

Anyway, I dont think there is anything else CONSTRUCTIVE to be added to this thread and will ask the mods to lock it before it gets into a silly debate.

I await details of the case(s) where the driver wins a correctly (see the word correctly) issued ticket when both parties are present .. until then - nothing more to be added