private parking tickets

[Guest susancole9390]

no such thing as landmark case in the county court - nor is it even binding.

Seems the in-house legal dept may need to brush up a bit !

 

I would agree with you lamma, that is what the newspaper article posted seems to be saying about the case that is why I am very sceptical what I read in the newspapers as they have a tendancy to over hype things to put across a story.

[Guest susancole9390]

Not binding but persuasive certainly. And it is the first case as far as I am aware that a PPC turned up to a properly defended case. In the past they ran a mile when confronted with a decent defence, despite what CPS would have you believe. The fact that they lost when faced with a decent defence says it all really.

 

Is there anywhere where the full story rather than that of a local rag shows the case, I would like to see what the points of the case were (as it might be the same as mine and that would give me some hope) ?

The newspaper article seems to state a person received 3 tickets but did not get them, mine was attached to the vehicle.

I also see the sign in the newspaper did not say anything about how much it would be etc, Daniels Silverman advise the signs in my case do but this is another thing the postman will be bringing me.

The newspaper article is also a little outdated as in the banks OFT test case it was decided that charges were not penalties but clearly defined charges and I suspect they might state the same.

[Guest susancole9390]

What do you mean? Who is this person?

 

I dont know who this southpaw or leegomery is, sorry.

[Guest susancole9390]

Does anyone else know who southpaw or leegomery is ?

[lamma]

CPS identified him on their website. Not something I am prepared to repeat here as I have no wish to promulgate what looks to me like things the ICO will be interested in. Really seems to me that CPS have 'lost it big time'. Anyone know who runs this 'business' ?

[Guest susancole9390]

The letter I received about a month afterwards were sent by Paul Scott, if thats any help, The daniels silverman ones were sent by Daniels Silverman himself.

[lamma]

the CPS person - daniels silverman seem to be just leeching on leeches as it were.

[Geronimoman]

CPS identified him on their website. Not something I am prepared to repeat here as I have no wish to promulgate what looks to me like things the Information Commissioners Office will be interested in. Really seems to me that CPS have 'lost it big time'. Anyone know who runs this 'business' ?

 

From previous posts it appears to be a character called Mike Perkins who runs a cafe, presumably when he is not handing out tickets. Appears to be known as "perky" and seems to be well known here for claiming victories when the defendant fails to turn up.I agree the internet posting on the CPS website is bizarre - an accuastion of dishonesty like this is not something a rational person would make without very convincing evidence. I also hope for "perky's" sake that is not the chaps real name. If it is then I think perky would be sensible to get a good defamation lawyer sharpish.

[Guest susancole9390]

the CPS person - daniels silverman seem to be just leeching on leeches as it were.

 

I have a name of Paul Scott from CPS

[Guest susancole9390]

Not binding but persuasive certainly. And it is the first case as far as I am aware that a PPC turned up to a properly defended case. In the past they ran a mile when confronted with a decent defence, despite what CPS would have you believe. The fact that they lost when faced with a decent defence says it all really.

 

Just looking at the dates of the 7 judgements on the website that all seem to be defended actions, 6 of them seem to be dated before the newspaper article about Excel.

I presume people don't adverise the fact they lose a case and that's why we never hear from them.

I must admit the de brunner case seemed like it was argued well with relevant points and he still lost, that concerns me as I was parked next to the sign, if they have photos which they claim to have but I have not seen.

In light of reading the de brunner case I do not see how I can claim its a penalty as that judge states it was a charge and not a penalty, plus with the bank charges supporting the fact if a charge is clear then its not a penalty.

Time will tell in my case

[Geronimoman]

On the contrary the de brunner case was woefully argued. It was not a defence at all. There are at least five vital points which were not put to the judge. The same is true of the other cases. A proper defence will in my experience always see off these [problematic]. Perky's summation of the legal issues is a joke but then he is an rank amateur lawyer (and a very bad one) of the type he despises.But as perky and his cronies regularly scan these pages I would not advise you to discuss detailed legal issues or any other specific aspect of your case further here.

[Guest susancole9390]

On the contrary the de brunner case was woefully argued. It was not a defence at all. There are at least five vital points which were not put to the judge. The same is true of the other cases. A proper defence will in my experience always see off these [problematic]. Perky's summation of the legal issues is a joke but then he is an rank amateur lawyer (and a very bad one) of the type he despises.But as perky and his cronies regularly scan these pages I would not advise you to discuss detailed legal issues or any other specific aspect of your case further here.

 

I have not come across perky but you seem to know lots about him for someone who only joined yesterday ??

 

Thanks for your advice regards posting, the postman came and went with nothing for me, until I receive their evidence I have no further info to post, will see what Tuesday brings.

[lamma]

previous perky cases are of no relevance to yours. They are not precedent nor binding. Do not forget that cases concern Facts and Law.

And those case were woefully argued.

Geronimoman speaks straight.

 

don't fall for the hogwash on the CPS site - unless your roses need it !

[green_and_mean]

I have not come across perky but you seem to know lots about him for someone who only joined yesterday ??

 

 

Looks like Perky is not the only one with something to hide!

[Conniff]

no such thing as landmark case in the county court - nor is it even binding.

Seems the in-house legal dept may need to brush up a bit !

 

Landmark can also mean 'a development' so may have been used in this case to distinguish from 'precedence'.

[lamma]

'development' - for a non binding county court case that by its nature can not develop anything.

its just the usual bogus claim by a PPC - to go with all their other bogus statements.

Find just one PPC that has been open and honest it its statements - you won't. any and every statement from a PPC should be treated with the respect it deserves i.e none at all.

[Conniff]

It is a development - a step further forward. It may have been county, but that's better than the back room of a pub.

[unlucky67]

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...

[lamma]

unenforceable. ignore and keep all their letters. or use the standard replies.

Lidl car parks well known....

[lamma]

It is a development - a step further forward. It may have been county, but that's better than the back room of a pub.

its not a step anywhere...

[pin1onu]

Contract law is based on the similiar principles whether you are in Scotland or England. You as the registered keeper cannot be made privy to a contract without you knowledge or consent. Any contract therefore is with your Husband. With your RK hat on you could deny liability and get them to persue the matter with the driver. You don't have to name the driver that is for them to find out and prove.

 

If they know your husband was the driver and have his address then your defense will be on the Penalty Charges issue and the unfair terms in consumer contracts act.

 

They will have to prove that your husband agreed to a contract prior to parking. Just having a sign on display is not necessarily enough to prove the contract.

 

They also have to show that the amounts claimed are actual damages arising from a breach of contract and not a penalty charge.

 

Also they have to prove that the terms of the alleged contract do not breach The Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 which apply nationwide.

 

1. Terms which have the object or effect of-

 

(e) requiring any consumer who fails to fulfil his obligation to pay a disproportionately high sum in compensation;

 

The template letters in the stickies section do not quote any law and are therefore usable in Scotland and the rest of the UK.

 

If you haven't done so already have a read of the Private Parking Charges Guide in stickies section as the principles are valid even if some of the cases quoted are in English courts. (There will be Scottish equivalents).

[Geronimoman]

Looks like Perky is not the only one with something to hide!

 

You're right but not in the way you expect. This poster susancole or someone purporting to be "her" has just posted on Pepipoo a bizarre message and has been outed there as a PPC troll. Didn't know the PPCs had this level of subtlety in them. Usually all they are able to do is sign up under some stupid name like Justin Piddlepot and make pointless popsts telling people to pay up.Regards me and Perky I know of him. Who doesn't? You only need to read the historic postings made by him and his skivvies like "interesting" if you fancy a good laugh.

[Barnsley Boy]

I have not come across perky but you seem to know lots about him for someone who only joined yesterday ??

 

Thanks for your advice regards posting, the postman came and went with nothing for me, until I receive their evidence I have no further info to post, will see what Tuesday brings.

 

I SMELLS TROLL!

[Geronimoman]

Yes I did note the sarcasm. It was certainly worthy of Perky. In fact now I look at "Susan's" earlier posts hairy little characters who hide under bridges and threaten little goats call out to me.

[Barnsley Boy]

Easy to say it now, but I did start to suspect, even before the stuff got really personal.

 

The answer to this PPC thing really is easy. We should all, without exception, refuse to pay. Even if the PPCs could win every time in court, which they emphatically can't, the business model simply falls over if there is so much resistance. The PPCs depend upon misinformation and fear to continue their dishonourable "profession".