Jump to content

legaladviser

Banned
  • Content Count

    98
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

55 Excellent

1 Follower

About legaladviser

  • Rank
    Banned
  1. EDIT. Clearly you are aware of the case as you have just confirmed it. So it has been discussed with you. EDIT.
  2. The matter was before the court. A hearing date had been fixed. The PPC has pulled out before they were humiliated in court. This is a win in a court case, despite what PPC troll "interesting" says. Yet another example of cowardly PPCs failing to live up to the hype (lies). Wonder what excuse Perky will come up with when he is beaten? The dog ate my legal argument?
  3. Over on Pepipoo a member is reporting that another PPC, UKPAO, have chickened out of a court hearing with a motorist (hearing was due in a month). The laughable excuse is that a vital witness cannot be located. Yeah right! Of course I can in no way confirm that I was involved in preparing the defence which caused the PPC to yet again run for the hills.
  4. Ha ha, here we go again. Interesting the well known lackey of private parking boss Perky (owner of CPS) and who has told us he loves to clamp drivers after 30 seconds is warning about taking on the company he represents. Yet he makes no reference to the fact that he is a stooge for CPS. Stethomas will no doubt wish to take anything this biased [Edited] says with a very large amount of salt. Clearly interesting or his best mate must have seen a defence that has rattled them a bit. Obviously I cannot confirm if I have had a hand in that. Hence the rather desperate and pathetic (but ent
  5. [edited] Regards defamation by "interesting" to be honest I know my qualifications and experience and I know that I try to help people out on Pepipoo and on here because I like doing that. [edited] I know of at least 5 cases that have been won by a motorist in a properly defended case. Because the [edited] PPCs did not turn up does not make it any less a victory. [edited] There are no doubt many more of the same vein (Pete certainly mentioned a few others where the PPCs had done a dispappearing act).
  6. You don't necessarily need a lawyer but you should take advice as to which are the key points to raise on the defence and how to prepare for and present your case. This support is readily available from myself and others. There are 5 or so key points to include in a typical defence to a private parking claim. The quoted cases raised one point and even that was not properly raised as it did not mention the key case, which would have assisted the defendant.
  7. They could have committed an offence if they have tried to trick you into believing that this is a genuine claim form. Section 40 of the Administration of Justice Act: 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-utters a document falsely represented by him to have some official character, or purporting to have some official character which he know it has not.
  8. If it is a parking PCN based on CCTV, it is invalid as it states the wrong timescale for payment as you say. This is a known problem with TfL CCTV based parking PCNs. The adjudicator would definitely rule Fn your favour on this - see the Pulp Faction case on the Pepipoo site.
  9. Clearly "interesting" cannot maintain any perspective on this as he has an admitted financial interest in the activities of a PPC. He has also told us that he enjoys seeing people in distress after being clamped after 30 seconds on his land. Naturally, knowing these facts, many will want to take anything he says with a very large dose of salt. Interesting, despite your typical sarcasm (which is funny for someone who apparently eschews personal attacks), I make a very fine living in the real legal world. I do this as a personal interest. I may come on here more as it irks you so much. Anyw
  10. When a PPC faces a proper defence it does not show up. It is as simple as that. That includes Perky, the apparent Perry Mason of private parking. [EDIT] You should direct your question to the PPCs as to why they go shopping when faced with a fair fight. Incidentally I am aware of a person who received a ticket from Perky and who has not been taken to court. Why? Because Perky is aware that I am on the case (and the recipient is also a qualified lawyer). [EDIT] Winning a case against a 80 year old granny, which is probably the category he selects, is very different from winning a p
  11. Will these pro PPC toadies ever let up? Clearly they are worried that they are losing the battle. This is why they must continually post irrelevant material like this that we have seen before and which tells us precisely nothing. The defendants here did not mount any kind of proper defence. their argument seems to consist of I didn't see the signs without even mentioning the Vine case which would have assisted them and without raising any of the other available defences - no contract was formed as no acceptance by conduct occurred, I was not the driver, the amount claimed is a penalty and not
  12. Are we supposed to take this person seriously? Or is he the "entertainment"?
  13. Interesting has by his own admission a financial interest in a private parking company. Ignore anything he advises because he is clearly biased and self-serving. There have been very, very few cases filed by parking companies and even less won when a proper defence is put forward.
  14. Interesting has said in the past he has no connection with Perky. Earlier this afternoon he said he is just an interested observer, with no axe to grind. Liar, liar, pants on fire! Now he admits he uses Perky's company to police his premises (ie. he is a business associate who directly profits from Perky issuing tickets). No wonder he is so anxious to spread the private parking agenda and lies. You cannot trust a word this character says.
  15. I think you might be talking about me (again). It's becoming a bit of an obsession for you - next you will be stalking me. For the record I am professionally legally qualified for many years, unlike you and your mate Perky with your quack legal theories. I do not need to prove myself to a stooge for a private parking boss like you. And your name is not only misleading it is a breach of the Trade Descriptions Act. A fly travelling up a windowpane is more interesting.
×
×
  • Create New...