Jump to content

Fair-Parking

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Posts

    1,171
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Fair-Parking

  1. Sorry should have read 'thanks for admitting your deceit'. Unfortunately getting my eyes tested is longer an option.
  2. Now there's an odd reply from Neckbeard - a 'freshman' whose membership commenced less than a month ago and yet he passes an opinion which given that I haven't posted on this thread or any other for weeks, suggests that he already knew of me. A 'freshman' with a unique insight indeed. If one did not know that this idiot was hiding under a name with its misogamistic linkings and insults aimed at TomTubby, you could be forgiven for thinking that he was psychic rather than stupid enough not to realise that he and his cronies have been rumbled and that it is they that nobody is listening to. Two up - one to go is fact and not an opinion As I say if only insults were intelligence Still when you are obsessed, you become blind to reality.
  3. Spot on Bailiff Advice. They usually come in threes - bit like Larry, Curly and Mo and then delude themselves that they are the clever ones by confusing insults and monotony with intelligence.
  4. This seems to be an odd case, so it would help to know exactly what the fine was for. The DVLA is merely a registration agency for the government. It isn't involved with motor insurance and as far as I am aware it has neither powers nor training to officiate in that area. One thing is for sure, if you have disposed of a vehicle and have no further interest in it, then insurance laws prevent any company from covering you for liability attached to it. It is called insurable interest and when there is none as appears in this case (ie any damage to it or by is not going to cause you any financial suffering), then you cannot take out a policy on that vehicle.
  5. Sorry should have said 'sycophant'. No wonder I dropped a dolly caught and bowled yesterday. From their latest replies, the reading and correct interpretation of English isn't one of their strengths.
  6. The cancer spreads as the cat's chorus joins in on that 'forum' which despite the orchestrated denial by its owner, I am unable to reply as i have been 'moderated' (that is a euphemism for being denied permission to post) for quite some time. Now if Mark 1960 and other syncopates would like to debate here or phone me, then we will have level playing field.
  7. Thanks RT - All I am trying to do is to stop ungrateful idiots from spreading untruths about those who assisted them. I've now managed to uncover a 'Glenn Q' who is a character in Family Guy known as 'Glenn Quagmire' so called because he gets himself into situations he finds difficult get out of. He is also a fictional commercial airline pilot. Such obtuse characters are the hallmark of one person posting on forums other than the well known small mouthpiece - and such as 'Panaka' and 'Pote Snitkin' - obtuse Star Wars characters few people would know about - vbut which might well include one who claims to play science fiction themes on his organ. No I am not going to correct that.
  8. It would be if she didn't try to sully the reputation of those who helped her
  9. Kari Anderson had a friend until the point she abused my trust and decided to post deceitful comments behind my back on another site whose owner is currently engaged in sending my private emails to him to Kari Anderson. However in aligning herself with a lying fantasist at the expense of those who tried to help her and who cared enough to ask her how she got on she chose to bite the hand that was held out in friendship, so no I won't be congratulating her and if that is considered to be a failing on my part, then so be it - because it ain't gonna change my opinion one iota. GlennQ - who is that I wonder? Yet another new one dimensional poster concerned only with trying to stir trouble. Bears a resemblance to methods used by Panaka, Petamaine (how appropriate) and names that contaminated this forum
  10. When people come on with dishonest accounts and try to cause unnecessary trouble for others, then it isn't the reputation of the forum that suffers.
  11. I can confirm what TT says. This woman phoned and engaged me in several long phone calls last summer before I referred her to Baliff Advice on Line as this was not a parking issue. In thanks she now tries to discredit me simply for having the patience for listening to her repeated stories including the one whereby she clearly and distinctly told me that a person from the south attended Manchester County Court with her and begged her not to reveal his true identity to the court. advising her instead to say that he was a relative. Seems she would rather now support liars than give an decent and honest account and say thank you to those she contacted and who gave her plenty of free advice over several days.
  12. Message to Kari Anderson If you don't want to receive a confidential communication from me then don't come to me looking for help. It is a normal practice of Fair Parking to write to all old cases at around a year or more to ask how they got on. It's called service and care. You seem to have forgotten that you phoned me several times last summer about your woes, but do not seem to have either the capacity or decency to appreciate a courtesy email which simply said. Kari - Now a year or more has passed, can you advise me how you got on with all this? Ron pp FP If you want to play petty politics don't involve me in your games. All you had to do was to simply answer me in the the same confidence I expect from you - rather than run off and blab to that pathetic little object who dominates the most obnoxious and unhelpful alleged of all 'forums'. Now b.gg.r off out of my life
  13. Sorry to say, but the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 does NOT include parking enforcement. Bailiff companies would have us believe differently, but then they would have us believe that their self employed bounty hunters are 'enforcement officers' and that incorrect evalution of status is too readily requoted on forums.
  14. Sorry to add a note of controversial discontent, but far from there being no 'presumption of guilt' in English law - this is precisely how parking enforcement is administered. It couldn't work any other way. This presumption of guilt was confirmed by a senior employee of the MoJ in a face to face conversation with me back in 2011. The irony that the MoJ was prepared to allow the back door destruction of 800 years of English law remains invisible to the MoJ.
  15. Oh they understand it all right, but they live in world where they have been able to get away with anything they wanted to for years. That includes lying in court at the drop of a hat even after being caught out by a judge. So they think that they are invincible, just like all the other arrogant idiots who could not historically differentiate between enough and too far and then who paid the price. Arrogance? - who in their right mind would put the name of David Smith to a statement of innocence when he was named in HHJ Platt's judgment as a liar and in contempt of court? Just the man to convince the plebs. You would be right too in thinking that these statements were almost certainly composed by lawyers. The phraseology of Newlyn's solicitor - 'persistent evaders' and everybody is a criminal permeates throughout this pathetic attempt to hold up the Titanic with sticking plaster. Maybe they should remember the confused look on Nicolae Ceausescu's face in his last public appearance when he too failed to convince the audience of ordinary people.
  16. The statements from Whyte & Co & Newlyn make no distinction between offences, criminal behaviour and alleged civil debt and yet they are openly trying to take credit for their supposed part in helping to clear up the first two. Disingenuously trying to link in the third so as to gain some undeserved kudos when the first two are nowt to do wi' them and for which they weren't there for either, does nothing but make them look even more fraudulent. Keep scoring the own goals boys...........
  17. The standard element of ‘Wot me Gov?’ is bad enough, but both turn this into some crusade where ordinary motorists are the biggest criminals in the world and deserve everything they get. If wasn’t for these bailiffs there be a major crime wave…… Aren’t we lucky? Perhaps that is why there is not a hint of remorse or acknowledgement that any of them might just have acted illegally and quite enthusiastically so. Given the opportunity to clarify the situation, Newlyn’s failure to deny they have paid anything to the police is interesting. These idiots actually think this rubbish is convincing without realising (after many years experience in the industry) that either they knew that this was illegal or they didn't, both of which exposes them as not being fit for purpose. Just how many own goals do you score before the penny drops that the game can't be won?
  18. I can hear rumblings from under the ground that when released under pressure might just make Versuvious look like a firework
  19. I know. Its the establishment presumption that these allegations are debts that I was addressing with my tongue in my cheek. There is a bloke down the road who I'm sure still owes me a tenner from 1978. The police ought to be able to sort that out for me
  20. Pay their debts? These are no more than allegations based on an official presumption of guilt. Now could somebody remind me when our judicial courts made a ruling that a presumption of guilt was sufficient in itself and that a court order could be made to enforce it? When joined, the words 'parking' and 'debt' is a classic oxymoron
  21. Oh dear - once again the police have got it wrong and after dabbling in matters they know little or nothing about, they suddenly consider themselves to be 'experts' on motor insurance. SD& P (Social, domestic and pleasure) cover most certainly does include commuting. However unless your cover is Class 1 then you cannot use the vehicle for business or for work in connection with your business or occupation. If a bailiff with just SD & P was using the car to go bailiffing then he wasn't covered unless he had Class 1 cover. If this happenedthen why didn't his clever, clever employees who profess to know every rule check his insurance certificate before he drove off to represent them? Maybe their brains were too highly tuned to consider that simple procedure. Years ago Class 1 cover was the standard minimum. Why some insurance companies have restricted this is worrying, especially those who fail to advise their clients of this silent restriction. Class 1 is a reasonable expectation for every motorist. Most people who purchase cars do so to commute to work. If cover is restricted from the norm then it should be the duty of the insurance company to advise the policyholder and then get them to sign a note saying that they understand what they have just been sold. Companies who try to silently restrict their liabilities shouldn't be allowed to trade. Maybe their next step is to include a policy endorsement in very small print that states that this document excludes all claims. Never mind just look how competive the premium is However the point here is that like joint bailiff operations the police have got into a habit where effectively they follow each other into bad practice that then becomes 'normal' to them.
×
×
  • Create New...