I will also add... With the Thomas case he also had someone from the forums with him (Stephen Large), now we all know hes not man enough to admit in open forum - as both defendant and 'adviser' have been SILENT since their massive loss. The Thomas case, when it was wrongly reported CPS had lost you all started moo'ing that you had won ... then the REAL case was before the court in all its 3+ hours of glory. The Forums sent their person to speak on behalf of Thomas .. It was all debated and YOU STILL LOST !!! Perky has won 2 PePiPoo cases, the proof is there ...3,4,10,100,1000 be honest with yourselves there will ALWAYS be an excuse. Caryl & Thomas need your help now (financially) to recover from the absolute CRAP advice they have been given and the even worse defences .. Instead of planning your next win/lose ... maybe help the people who have lost out as a result of the BAD advice on these forums.

With respect he has... He has taken on 2 cases that PePiPoo/CAG 'experts' have had a hand in. CAG/PePiPoo experts always stated a good defence WILL ALWAYS SEE OFF THE PPC In 2 out of 2 cases it has proved to be WRONG information. The facts speak for themselves, we can argue about 'what ifs' but lets face facts ... they said it could not be done and it has not once but twice.

Victim, hardly .. a person who parks in daylight in front of a big red sign stating "WARNING - PERMIT HOLDERS ONLY" is hardly a victim of the parking company ... now a victim of thinking the ticket was unenforceable and having a good defence supplied here and by PePiPoo members would mean she would not have to pay and has now cost her 4 times more that the original ticket ... then yes I agree she is a victim. The carpark was obviously not empty as it was a self managed site, therefore the owners of the units were around. Just because something is empty does not give others the right to park, regardless of the time or day of the week. The responsibility lies with the driver to ensure they are legally entitled to be there and need to ensure they have made reasonable efforts to establish conditions for parking. In this case, a bid red sign in front of the car in mid afternoon was enough to show that they did not make reasonable efforts (if the ticket was issued at 23:00 in total darkness then thats a different story)

You are starting to sound like a stuck record, so let this be the LAST post on the subject. When a ticket is issued, no one knows who it is issued to - so to assume only easy targets are issued with tickets is absurd. One day Perky will lose, the law of averages and the uncertainty of the county court system will make that a certainty .. then what ... was that a fluke ? What will it mean in legal terms .. nothing/didly squat. All these 2 cases have demonstrated is it is perfectly possible to have a parking charge, have a 'great defence' and the court find in favour of the parking company - something that sites like this (and you included lamma) have said said would never happen. I think this (and PePiPoo) would serve people better by asking the circumstances the ticket was issued in, the wording of the signage, the ticket and a photo of the vehicle at time of issue BEFORE giving advice. In both cases the court was not impressed with sending template letters and in the Thomas case called him 'Disingenuine' and in this case "evasive" .. something they could not have done if an open appeal was submitted when the ticket was issued and all facts shared.

The defence was dated 12th June 2008. There is nothing else to do then until the court date. I presume she contacted PePiPoo again yesterday for some last minute 'hints and tips' .. which I understand she got via PM from some members - There has also been some behind the scenes activity. As for taking on 'setup cases' .. PePiPoo have had 2 attempts at it, how many do they want ??? This is getting away from the issue of this case, start a new thread about setup cases if you want (I Know that hijacking a thread is useful to deflect the attention from what people consider to be another bad result for these forums, but it does not help the general public who come here for advice and a balanced approach)

The original post on pePiPoo was back in May .... To my knowledge Glacier2, Bama, Legaladviser (or one of his egos) and Southpaw82 were involved in the defence from there - Together with users on here. Most has been done via PM on PePiPoo. I think we can go around and around, You ask for 1 more case please to prove it, then another then another then another. Maybe, Just maybe these 'unenforceable invoices' as you all call them are, when issued correctly with the correct signage in place are enforceable after all.

My appologies, I must have you mixed up with someone else.

I understand Perky has spoken to the local papers down there, so maybe in there also tonight/tomorrow - I am sure the link will end up on here or PePiPoo.

I understand that you are on the 'inside' and have the relevant contacts to get the paperwork. Are you trying to say the case didnt happen ? Or the defence wasnt prepared by the 'experts' ?

Yes thats the one lamma.

Sorry .. forgot to post the report from the court ! The defence when submitted was a standard one by CAG/PePiPoo users (we now know exactly who offers to help and who is involved with the defences) .. The defendant was very nice and pleasant and I have to say a complete opposite of the last one they provided (Mr Thomas – who was arrogant and rude) .. She appreciated this was nothing personal but a business decision. The lady never admitted being the driver and in fact stated it could have been her mother or bother as they often used the car – The judge asked her the direct question “who was driving” and she stated she did not know. The other parts of the defence (ie, It’s a penalty) together with the case law they normally provide were heard by the court. Judgement was given to CPS as the judge found on the balance of probabilities the defendant was driving and that she had a very ‘selective memory’ and ‘evasive’ when answering questions. (this referred to the ID of the driver) The judge heavily criticised the defence used (provided by the so called experts at CAG/PePiPoo) .. He stated the selective use of case law references showed it was not professionally done, this was a reference and their total mis-understanding of the Vine case. So here it goes again, another case where the defendant did not admit to being the driver (even when asked by the judge), the normal things about it being a penalty and not enforceable were tested and found to be rubbish. This case AGAIN shows that tickets if issued correctly are 100% enforceable and they are a legally enforceable parking charge and that by parking the defendant consented to the conditions. So it goes CAG/PePiPoo 0 CPS 2 (100%) – I suspect they will say its another fluke of a result, how many do they need ??? Funny when they were misinformed about Thomas back in May they were all singing from the rooftops about the solid basis of their arguments. I did speak with the defendant afterwards and she admitted going onto the forums asking for advice and being railroaded into fighting it on promises it would fail etc.. The total payable by defendant is £263.30 (original charge £60.00) so more than 4 times the original amount. I doubt the helpers will be brave enough to stand up (they have all been silent since Thomas) … It just leaves another person who came to CAG/PePiPoo very disappointed and heavily out of pocket. The forums really should open up and allow both sides of the argument to be heard, this person went along for help to see everyone agreeing with each other and thought ‘they must be right’ … only to find out they were very very wrong.

Hi All, You will all be pleased to hear that this case today was heard in a FULL hearing at Southampton County Court. The case was heard before District Judge Grand under case reference 8QT50123 - The hearing lasted approx 90mins. This was the second case with a defence fully prepared by CAG/PePiPoo and submitted to the court by the defendant. Remember that CAG/PePiPoo defences would always see off a PPC and show their charges were unenforceable.