Jump to content


Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Al27 last won the day on March 11 2011

Al27 had the most liked content!


529 Excellent

1 Follower

  1. Since you are looking to set aside and you have a fiesty judge, I would enclose an affidavit with your application: http://www.uk-psa.org/GenAff.pdf It's free to get it sworn at the court and just puts another obstacle in front of GW. Everything is accompanied with a statement of truth, yes, but it's the strongest way of refuting their accusation that your 'refuse' to name the driver.
  2. As contractual breaches potentially go, it sounds like a de minimis case anyway.
  3. VERY interesting. I was wondering why HMRC hadn't taken a closer look at the whole 'industry'. Maybe an investigation similar to the current interest in football clubs is on the horizon once it has all been sorted. VCS are between a rock and a hard place. Ironically they're attempting to argue the 'truth' - that it's all a big con and that they're not entitled to the money. Yet how can they persuade the taxman that all that lovely income that magically end up in their accounts shouldn't be there so therefore somehow isn't VATable? HMRC want their money and the PPC's have done all the groundwork for them in their attempts to legitimise the practice. It's a shame in one regard that the judge came to the conclusions that he did, because they are completely erroneous. But considering the alternative is business as usual AND no VAT (since nobody has any powers to close every PPC down for doing what they are doing), I'm all for the taxman waking up and taking his share.
  4. Basically, you can only attempt to 'put the clock back' as it were. Whether or not a penalty is owed is not the issue at the moment. You will only be appealing the lack of paperwork - the magistrate will not rule on your reasons for appealing the PCN.
  5. Can't you just talk to them and point out the land is actually yours? They might have made an innocent mistake when looking at the plans.
  6. No offence/contravention is committed unless the car is stationery in any case. You could enter the box when the exit is blocked and U-turn or weave the vehicle the car at 1mph and not be committing the particular offence we're talking about. The bold highlighted statement should have so that the vehicle has to stop within the box also in black and underlined.
  7. OPC used to have punts on court, but I haven't seen anything new for months and months. They lost the vast majority anyway.
  8. The purpose of the phoney appeals procedure is to a) give the ticket the impression it has some credence, and b) keep tabs on which victims have made contact. Some PPC's use the latter to choose who to keep persuing. Some don't really care and everybody gets the same treatment whether or not they've responded.
  9. Oh dear. You're falling for it. There is no 'appeals process'. Why on earth would a private company, issuing speculative, unenforceable invoices then turn down the money by allowing 'appeals'? It's a trick to a) make you think it's a proper parking ticket and b) to make you contact them. Same with the 'CCTV'. Completely irrelevant and just another trick to scare you. Simply ignore them. You do not owe them any money. It's a massive [EDIT] which all started when the previous government started letting the DVLA sell addresses to anybody in exchange for £2.50. No you will have a letter chain of templated, computer generated threats to look forward to. These will come from Excel, Roxburghe and Graham White 'Solicitors' (really Roxburghe in disguise). Just ignore the lot. Visit here to see the junk mail you'll be getting: http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=2214803 By the way, they want your address so that it will save them the £2.50 they'll have to pay to the DVLA. It's a [EDIT]. 40% of people fall for it and send a cheque. Be in the wise 60% and don't pay a penny. As for the moron in the high vis jacket, if you acted 'illegally', ask him to make a citizen's arrest next time! Prat.
  10. That'll be it. You've contacted them once, so you might as well write back and just tell them to cease any further contact or issue a court claim, otherwise you will be issuing a £100 claim against them for harassment.
  11. Well, they'll actually say the keeper is 'liable'. At which point we'll just be telling them to carry on ignoring, and looking forward to the first RK county court case.
  12. And who creates this 'need'? PPC's aren't going to get contracts if they tell potential clients they won't do much and they're not really needed. As for Tesco - I think you give them too much credit. They don't have a clue about any of it and just get a company in 'to look after the car park' as a matter of course. Customer services is the front line, designed to swat off any grumbling customers.
  13. Yes, at this stage you are seeking to set aside because of procedural impropriety - your dad never got any original claim. The basis, or otherwise, of the claim is secondary at the moment, although the judge may or may not bring it up. Either way, it's well worth complaining about the particulars. Trethowan's 5 words is usual and we've seen judges order them to get their act together. If they are making a claim under contract, what is the precise wording of the contract they are relying on? If your dad is too ill to attend, you need to write to the judge no later than 7 days before and ask for you to represent him instead. Don't worry about the court hearing - it's all very informal. You'll just be sat around a table.
  14. This whole thread is a bit unnecessary. Direct your vitriol against the real villains! Private parking companies that torment the elderly when their blue badge slips off the dash, or mothers who get harassed when they're in parent bays if a 'child seat isn't on display'.
  • Create New...