Written by John Kruse, one of the leading experts on Bailiff Law, this consumer friendly guide is essential reading for anyone who comes into contact with a bailiff.
The book is easy to understand and clearly explains the rights
a bailiff has, and also what they cannot do when collecting debts and repossessing goods etc.
Threatened with Combined Parking Solutions Vs Mr Stephen Thomas
Help! I have followed steps from this site with the template letters etc and now being threatened with court because of the above case the parking company say they know my letters were from this site - is this the end of my fight? am I now going to court? was £80 now £120! worst thing is, the machine was broke!!!
Re: Threatened with Combined Parking Solutions Vs Mr Stephen Thomas
Regardless of the source of your letter, if you believe it to be a true representation of the facts as you see them and have freely signed a letter to that effect, then it's got b-gg-r all to do with those pressing for a payment.
If the Claimants case wholly surrounds a knee jerk misnomer that you can't choose the method of your own defence, then its difficult to see any court having any sympathy with them on that point.
If their current objections are based solely on trying to bully you into not making any representation for yourself, you really don't need advice on what you should do.
Re: Threatened with Combined Parking Solutions Vs Mr Stephen Thomas
so what if the letters were from this site ? which bearing in mind the size of the internet is unprovable. best that can be said was they may have been originally from this site. but again so what > please post up the exact content of these threats you have received - suitably washed of your personal details. the mentioned case does not set precedent - and I am told the defendant made follish admission in court. And of course in a civil action it is up the the claimant to prove everything. don't sweat the heavy handed tactics you are experiencing. post up the threatening text please. and look at the 'problems that PPCs face' thread on here and at FAQs - PPCs - fighting back. The forces are aligned as well as the FAQs on here. Do NOT make any public statement on this board (or any other) about who was driving at the time and do not mention it in any PM on this board. this waving a printout a thread in the air is in fact easily trounced - but I will not explain that publicly. remember that Perky had the gauntlet thrown and failed to pick it up. A pepipoo regular offered to park in one of Perkys car parks by appointment so that perky could take him on in court - he failed to pick up the gauntlet. I wonder why... or do I ? it is in a recent thread that started by boasting about the Thomas case and quickly changed to casting an very unflattering light of the CPS due to their failures to respond. you will see in that thread ny reason for saying put no details about the event in any PM.
Re: Threatened with Combined Parking Solutions Vs Mr Stephen Thomas
What next?? This is the wording:
We note your use of the template letters found on certain consumer advice forums including the Consumer Action Group. we must inform you that their advice is not strictly accurate and in no way constitutes legal advice.
As it is clear you have relied on the template letters during your appeals process, we must ask you that you approach your appeal in a more appropriate manner. It would be irresponsible to base your position on the information forwarded by the consumer advice forums. This is especially true in light of a recent case heard in Oldham county court where the Defendant relied on the advise posted on said forums (Combined Parking Solutions Vs Mr Stephen Thomas). District Judge Ackroyd described those who used the aforementioned forum website as "disingenuous".
District Judge Ackroyd also held that a contract is entered into where there are prominent signs displayed detailing the terms and conditions applicable. As you have failed to abide by the prescribed Ts & Cs to parking the Notice was issued correctly.
Further to this we must advise that a purported ‘technical fault’ with the Pay and Display Machine does not entitle a motorist to park in contravention of the rules and regulation. The Car Park is private property and those motorists who fail to abide by the conditions set by the landowner are committing a trespass for which they are liable.
The above cited case also decided that the charge for which the motorist is liable for does not constitute a penalty clause – rather is is an agreed charge accepted by the motorist on parking their vehicle.
The payment has increased to £120 which must be received by 4th November. We are obliged to inform you that failure to settle the amount owed may result in the issue of court proceedings whereby further cists may be incurred in efforts to retrieve the amount due.
Whilst we are unable to revoke the Notice we do hope this explains the matter and adequately addresses the issues.
Re: Threatened with Combined Parking Solutions Vs Mr Stephen Thomas
It's disingenuous of a PPC to present judgements in a county court as if they are stated cases, which clearly they are not. They have quoted comments from the district judges concerned which have absolutely no bearing whatsoever on your individual case should it go to court. I think a judge would be very interested to see this letter as an indication of the apparantly dubious tactics being employed by this PPC.
Re: Threatened with Combined Parking Solutions Vs Mr Stephen Thomas
Interestingly, they are trying to save you from the 'disingenuous' advice here - good samaritans aren't they? So here's the definition: Not straightforward or candid; insincere or calculating 2. Pretending to be unaware or unsophisticated; faux-naïf. 3. Usage Problem Unaware or uninformed; naive.
Well, we can ponder on that. Could you say the letters in red describe the ways of the PPC's? Those who run them are afraid of people power which is what CAG is about...isn't it.
Re: Threatened with Combined Parking Solutions Vs Mr Stephen Thomas
Ignore the clown. Do not respond any further. You've made your point (so what if your letters are 'templated'? His letters to you are templated!)
Perky's had his day in court and had his 15 minutes of fame. He can't afford to travel to courts around the country to try and make a pittance from fighting every ticket. His chances of failure are just as high as before his adventurous day out - ie. extremely high, and he knows it.
Re: Threatened with Combined Parking Solutions Vs Mr Stephen Thomas
Originally Posted by Strawplace1
District Judge Ackroyd described those who used the aforementioned forum website as "disingenuous"
This does not seem right. We are asked to believe that a county court judge says that all users of an internet forum who seek advice on parking tickets are being "disingenuous". I cannot believe that would ever happen. What may have happened (according to the newspaper account) is that the judge did not believe the defendant's account in that case and so believed HE was being disingenuous. If that is the case the letter from the PPC is seriously misleading in that it attempts to mislead as to the court's decision. Nothing strange in that you may think but it is a measure of the desperation of the PPCs that they are forced to adopt these tactics. The simple fact is that the Oldham case is not a precedent in any way, in the same way as no other county court case sets a precedent, and is based on its own rather peculiar facts (which appear to include an admission by the defendant in an online forum to being the driver).
Re: Threatened with Combined Parking Solutions Vs Mr Stephen Thomas
Lamma, Once again you are takking without the actual knowledge....
Perky has had more than his 15mins of fame in court, I can see 2 cases on here ... Milner and Thomas that were defended by the great experts and both failed ... I seem to remember you did an FOI request on his company and you actually posted that he has lots of defended wins and 0 losses as reported by HMCS.
Get your facts straight before you send more people down the Thomas line .. £60 to start ... £250 and a CCJ in the end .... mmmmmm
Re: Threatened with Combined Parking Solutions Vs Mr Stephen Thomas
Originally Posted by cononsense
troll ... maybe not ... someone talking sense in the reak world then YES !!!
And kiptower ... your contribution to the PPC topic has been what ??? As I Thought by looking at your previous posts ZERO !!!
and your contribution (of 5 posts all today) has been what?
1) can I shout Perky won
2) I'd like to shout it a bit more please
3) does everyone know Perky has lifted his success rate from zero
4) in case someone has missed it, can I say a PPC got lucky on a case
5) I hope it now sounds like PPCs win loads of cases coz I said it lots
Re: Threatened with Combined Parking Solutions Vs Mr Stephen Thomas
Originally Posted by cononsense
Get your facts straight before you send more people down the Thomas line .. £60 to start ... £250 and a CCJ in the end .... mmmmmm
Talking of getting facts straight a CCJ is only entered on a credit file if the recipient does not pay.
The fact that you and fellow PPC operators keep registering on this site under different names indicates that you are running scared. If you really had a cast iron, completely enforceable business plan you would not waste your time posting on here.
Re: Threatened with Combined Parking Solutions Vs Mr Stephen Thomas
Originally Posted by cononsense
Lamma, Once again you are takking without the actual knowledge....
Perky has had more than his 15mins of fame in court, I can see 2 cases on here ... Milner and Thomas that were defended by the great experts and both failed ... I seem to remember you did an Freedom of Information Act request on his company and you actually posted that he has lots of defended wins and 0 losses as reported by HMCS.
Get your facts straight before you send more people down the Thomas line .. £60 to start ... £250 and a CCJ in the end .... mmmmmm
Milner. Hmm. Defendant did not even turn up. Even you could not lose that one eh Perky?Thomas. Only evidence apparently a posting on this site. If the defendant did not come here Perky would have lost. Surely he should encourage people to come on here - it seems this is his only chance. But then Perky never did let the facts get in the way of a bit of misleading propagada.
Threatened with Combined Parking Solutions Vs Mr Stephen Thomas
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by Strawplace1
