Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • The important thing to know is that MET - although they will send you threat after threat about how they will divert a drone from Ukraine and make it fall on your home - hardly ever do court. Even in the very small number of cases where they send court papers, if the Cagger defends, they drop the matter before the hearing.  They have no real intention of putting their rubbish claim before a judge.  The aim is to find motorists who are terrified of the idea of going to court and who will give in when the court papers arrive. Thanks for doing the sticky and well done on finding F18's thread.  Do what they did.  On the first page - I think post 19 - there is the address of the CEO of BP.  Write to them, lay it on thick about being genuine customers in the various premises, mention the small kids, the very short stay time, attach any proof of purchase - and request that they get the invoice cancelled.
    • Thank you for that, I have obviously already been convicted so I think the appeal lodged is for the previous offence? Sorry if that doesn’t make sense. I suppose my only concern is that weds I go there and they don’t let a stat dec happen. If they do then as you say and solicitor says it’s highly likely I’ll be happy with the outcome. But I’m being told there’s no guarantee for the stat dec to be hard Weds as that’s not what the hearing is proposed for. Solicitor has stated that you can put a stat dec before a magistrates at any time so it shouldn’t be a problem.   
    • I re-read the extract from your  solicitor's letter this morning and think I might understand what they have in mind. I believe (and it’s only a guess) their strategy is this: 1.    You will make your SD 2.    You will enter fresh pleas to the four charges (not guilty) but will offer to plead guilty to speeding on the understanding that the FtP charges are dropped. 3.    If this is accepted they will attempt to argue that the two offences were committed “on the same occasion” 4.    You will be sentenced for those two offences (the sentence depending on whether the “same occasion” argument succeeds). They also have a plan in the event that your offer at (2) is unsuccessful and you are convicted again of the 2xFtP charges (and so face disqualification under “totting up”): 5.    They will make an “exceptional hardship” argument to avoid a ban. 6.    If that is unsuccessful they have already lodged an appeal in the Crown Court against that decision. (This is the only “appeal” I can think of). 7.    They plan to ask the court to suspend your ban pending that appeal. If I’m correct, I’m surprised the Crown Court has agreed to accept a speculative appeal (against something that hasn’t happened). The solicitor says this is to lodge it within the normal timescales. But you will have 21 days from the date of your conviction (which will be next Wednesday) to lodge an appeal with the Crown Court, so there is no need for a speculative appeal. I have to say that an application to have your ban suspended pending an appeal is unlikely to succeed. The Magistrates Court is unlikely to agree to it for one very good reason: if they make such an order (suspending your ban until your appeal is heard), all you need to do is not to pursue the appeal and the Magistrates order suspending your ban will remain in place. Hey Presto! No ban and no need for you to trouble with an appeal. Perhaps he will ask for your ban to be suspended for (say) three months or until your appeal is heard (whichever occurs first). This potentially creates a problem because if your appeal is not heard in that time either your ban will kick in or you will have o go back to court to get the suspension extended. But the solicitor obviously knows more about these things than I do. I would want to be very clear about this solicitor’s fees and what he proposes to charge you for. As I said, there is absolutely no need to lodge an appeal with the Crown Court. That can be done if and when it becomes required. But I am still firmly of the opinion that it is overwhelmingly likely that you will not need to progress beyond point 2 above. Point 3 is optional and I don’t know whether he solicitor has made It clear to you that the only thing you will avoid in the event of success is three penalty points. You will still be fined for the second offence and your driving record will still be endorsed with the details, but no penalty points will be imposed. Do let us know how it goes.  
    • I'm really trying, but worst case I can't find what are my options?
    • John Lewis' Privacy Notice states that their CCTV Systems does not use facial recognition or collect biometric data - so I assume it should be fine?    Thank you a lot for your reply. I've scheduled my first therapy session ne t week. Really the time to turn my life around..
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like
  • Recommended Topics

private parking tickets


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5765 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

Thanks to lamma and pin1onu... I am going down the I wasn't driving path...for now. Do you guys think I need to treat each charge individually or do one letter to cover all? ...and should I even do the letters?....I think mine is a bit like the newspaper article about the woman who won in court against Excel...does anyone know exactly what she did? The 14 days for the first one is up on the 8th May ...

 

Barnsley boy and Geronimoman..I hope you don't think I'm a troll (I'm guessing this means someone pretending to be something they are not) I was a bit worried to repost but I kind of need all the support this site can offer....the only reason I said I thought my partner should pay up for the first one is because I warned him to be careful...and he annoyed me by telling me I was being stupid ...I did think he might get one and that would teach him a lesson but not four. We don't share our money - so I wouldn't be putting myself out to contest one for him in the circumstances (but probably would if it was my money!) - but I object to the way they have been really sneaky...

And he was in my car -he has his own but the baby seat is in mine- in fact I think it is time to invest in an extra seat (he has also put a dent in my car and he is using all my petrol at the moment grrrrrrr...)

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 98
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Unlucky67,

 

Sorry to hear of your problems. The word troll is used to describe a Private Parking Company owner / employee who posts here, pretending to be a misgruntled punter like the rest of us. I can assure that I don't just throw such accusations about. In that particular case there was ample evidence, including a malicious posting by the same person on another forum.

 

Is the company "Parking Eye"? they are usually associated with Lidl. I've not heard of any court cases with this company. Many people have cheerfully ignored these demands and, contrary to the threats, the world has not fallen about their ears and their children have not been sold off into slavery.

 

I concur wholeheartedly with Pin1onu's advice. It is sound. The template letters are absolutely fine, however you may wish to consider the letter below. It rushes things along a bit but, given that you are going to receive correspondance x 4, maybe that is no bad thing.

 

To enable me to consider matters appropriately in connection with your claim, please advise me of the following:

 

1 What evidence do you hold that shows my car was parked in your car park without a valid permit? If you hold documentary evidence please provide me with copies of the same. As a private car park, any claim you have lies in contract and not in Statute. I could only be contractually liable if I personally parked a car in the car park. Mere evidence that a car registered to me was parked in your car park does not prove that it was the case that I parked it.

2 What are your charges for parking in your car park? If there are no charges then what are the contractual terms that you (your client) apply in relation to this car park.

 

3 Please provide me with a copy of the ticket you claim to have attached to the car.

 

4 Please advise me as to how I am alleged to have breached any purported contract. What are the alleged terms and conditions of the car park? Are these terms and conditions displayed prominently at the entrance to the car park? Is this evidenced?

 

In anticipation of receiving the documents requested above I would make the following comments:

 

1. As your claim lies in contract it represents a claim for damages for breach of that contract. Your penalty charge of £XXX bears no correlation to the damages you have allegedly incurred.

 

2. In light of the damages you have claimed, your claim represents a penalty charge and is consequently not recoverable in contract law.

 

3. It is my view that any contractual terms you rely upon to claim your penalty charge are unfair and consequently unenforceable pursuant to the Unfair Terms and Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 and the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977.

4. Notwithstanding 1 – 3 above, any conceivable claim you may have would be with the driver and not the Registered Keeper.

Before I can consider your claim further I must have satisfactory answers and substantiation in respect of the matters raised above. If full substantiation of your claim is not forthcoming, I regret that I will be unable to help you further in this matter.

Regards

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Barnsley Boy ...I'm glad you don't think I'm a troll - I don't think I'd have the courage to carry on with this without support...

I am just going to send one letter (more or less cut and paste of yours!) for all four charges and see what happens ...

The company involved is TPS parking Solutions Ltd (not Parking eye) and I will send the letter tomorrow...unless anyone has any more advice...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi - I've read all the posts here and on other sites with interest...but I'm not sure where I stand -feeling a bit daunted.

My partner has just received 4 parking charge notices from a PPC on a Lidl carpark in Scotland. I should explain that he was driving my car so the notices have been sent to me as the registered keeper.

If he pays within 14 days the charge per ticket will be £45 otherwise it will be £70 with an addition charge of £40 for administration if payment isn't received within 28days (yep that's a minimum of £180 and a possible £440).

Until recently he had a small restaurant and used to shop at LIdl a couple of times a day. He was under the impression that they wouldn’t ticket him or would withdraw the tickets because he was such a good customer…not realizing it was a separate company handing out the tickets…He started parking there and taking our baby into the town and then shopping at Lidl for dinner (or maybe it was withdrawal!!) before coming home… I know it was ‘wrong’ but he has literally spent thousands with them….

They don’t give out tickets but use reg plate recognition of the car driving in and then out… so it was a week before we got the first one and knew he had a problem…and by then he had parked there 3 more times…(and they came much more quickly!)

He phoned them when he got the first one – he can’t remember exactly what was said or if the call was recorded –basically he told them he spent a fortune with Lidl. In reply he got sent copies of the CCTV image of the car driving in and out.

If it was one and it was instant (a ticket) I would feel like it served him right and he would pay but the way they have done this is like a deliberate way of trying to make as much money as possible…

So my questions are…I’m in Scotland –so is anyone sure yet if the law is the same? Do I treat each ticket individually or pool them all together? I get the impression that the parking comps are more likely to take people to court to stop people trying to get out of paying. Will they be more likely to try and take me to court because there is more money at stake? I can quite honestly tell them I wasn’t driving...

 

The manager of the Arbroath Lidl shop got the cameras swiched off after doubts about the tickets that were being issued.

 

CAMERAS ARE TURNED OFF IN LIDL CAR PARK - Arbroath Today

 

 

Ever since my dad got a ticket at that shop i have been reading up on these companies on the internet just incase i get caught out.

Link to post
Share on other sites

laguna - sorry I should have asked how your dad got on? Did he pay or contest?

 

I sent more or less Barnsley boy's letter by registered delivery earlier this week...I'll repost when/if I get a reply..

Link to post
Share on other sites

laguna - sorry I should have asked how your dad got on? Did he pay or contest?

 

I sent more or less Barnsley boy's letter by registered delivery earlier this week...I'll repost when/if I get a reply..

 

He paid at the time but only because he didnt know what he knows now. We assumed these were real parking fines so he paid up straight away but if any of us got one now then they would sing for the money.

Neither of us stay in Arbroath so didnt know it was limited stay in their car park and hadn't noticed the signs so he just got caught out. It's just a pity he paid up so quick before i had time to browse the Internet for information.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Is this newspaper acticle genuine?

 

'Susancole9390! Geral Spencer! Penelope Pitstop! Interesting! Perky! - can you hear me, Perky! Your boys took one hell of a beating! Your boys took one hell of a beating

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, suzan9390 has been outed as Perky over on pepipoo.

 

This "perky" person must be someone special as it appears that lots of people are accused of being him/her and anyone who knows him/her and posts on here or pepipoo are immediately banned.

 

More importantly even people who have other names and post are accused of being him and barred, I wonder on what basis they are barred ?

I am most certain that I am not perky, I dont think that anyone could accuse me of being a brummy or even English.

 

Does anyone know if perky does still post ? I would imagine not but he probably reads.

 

Is censorship in forums right ? People have differences of view but to silence a person with a different view (I feel) is wrong, free speech and dialogue Is surely what the Internet is about.

 

I also think its better to know your enemy, I have counted 9 people who have been accused of perky and 4 calling themselves perky, 1 is definatly perky but who knows who else is.

 

Just my comment as I have a view that Scottish parking is legal, so I presume I will be barred or even be a Scottish perky

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think 'perky' has become the generic name for a PPC troll such is the fame (or infamy) of the original. Is the original Perky the guy who was severely berated in the House of Commons ? ?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am convinced perky comes here all the time, along with his associates. This susan character has just posted about some bogus upcoming case on Pepipoo on some ridiculous pretext involving a journalist and alleging pepipoo members had been involved. It is laughable that onyone would think that such a post would be taken seriously. The thread has been closed there. This is the second time this susan character posted on pepipoo. The first was to attack a member who has been attacked by perky, even to the extent of putting the person's photo on his website. IP addresses can easily identify the PPC trolls, as they don't appear to have the wit to avoid leaving tracks. Free speech is all very well but when you have been banned for threatening another member, which I gather is the case here, why should you be allowed back? And if all the PPC trolls have to offer is signing up in ridiculous names and saying "pay up" and other such comments which add nothing to the debate then they cannot surely expect anyone to take them seriously.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I saw that post on pepipoo, i have looked up oldham county court but as with the lower courts in Scotland the cases are not showing anywhere.

I have found a site called courtserve that claims to list county court cases but you need to be a member, surely someone on here is and they can check ?

 

I must say that you're taking a very keen interest in a fantasy case involving a PPC (wouldn't be involving Perky's outfit by any chance) for someone who claims to be from Scotland and have no axe to grind. It is almost as if you and others like "susan" are trying to get some information out. Seems that way to me anyway. I hope you can understand the suspicion with the level of PPC trolling that has gone on in the past few months. Most resaonable people will be able to spot an "agenda" a long way off.

Link to post
Share on other sites

perky possibly issued threats ?? even if that possibility is false at the moment it also logically may be true (as it is unrefuted).

So who is this Perky and what PPC (or PPCs/clampers etc) is he involved with ?

Edited by lamma
Link to post
Share on other sites

That's what I read in one of the threads anyway, I have no idea of whether it is true or not. I guess only perky and the mods know what went on when he was banned. From old threads it appears that the original "perky" is Mike Perkins of Combined Parking Solutions.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Geronimoman, I am not taking an overlykeen interest just asking.

I dont know what company the pepipoo post was about, it didnt say.

 

My post was about trolling/perkying which seems to be PPC companies or suspected of and they are all accused of being perky but the response from lamma would answer my question that they may not be accused of being the perky himself but a generic term.

 

I think all parties have a right to reply to any posting, regardless of their viewpoint and if PPC are honest about their sidings then I dont see the issue and would stop trolls or silly ids, or maybe my simplistic view is wrong.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Just my comment as I have a view that Scottish parking is legal, so I presume I will be barred or even be a Scottish perky

 

:eek: A Scottish Perky.

 

What do you mean parking is legal?

Edited by laguna
missed text
Link to post
Share on other sites

having just googled the keywords

perky pepipoo

I am not so sure..

However it does reveal that whoever perky is he spends a lot of time on boards arguing about the infallibility of his 'cases'. It strikes me that if they were infallible he would instead spend his time pursuing his actual 'infallible' cases and so making money instead of trolling.

that speaks volumes to me.

 

Is there a positive ID out there that anyone has found ? If this perky has threatened he bears watching...

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I meant to say private parking enforcement being legal, I posted a case for someone in Scotland on another post so I am not a ppc but I see how in Scotland with the case I have read could mean someone issued a ticket on private land could be liable to pay.

that's on another topic on this site so we can debate in that topic not here if you feel my personal interpretation of that is wrong.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...