***Warning*** Combined Parking Solutions/CPS Lurking ***Warning***

[Geronimoman]

Your post here is bizarre. Where in the piece you have quoted from me have I attacked you? I have merely given my opinion of perky's behaviour. For some reason (which it is all to easy to guess) you seem to think this is getting at you. Clearly you view an unfavourable opinion of perky/CPS as an attack on you. In my opinion it does not take a genius to work out why.

[scottish_mark]

Apparently he is registered under his own name, as confirmed by his "Scottish" spokesman.

 

this one .. I not anyone spokesman, your childish comment earlier also seemed to be directed my way "it appears they can also change nationality"

 

Geronimoman please refrain from hurling accusations around even if they are thinly disguised as general comments.

[Hobbie]

Mark,

 

From how I understand the comments posted by Geronimoman, it was not directed at anyone, and I don't think anyone is either in fact disputing that fact if you are Scottish or not.

 

However it does appear to me and no doubt several others on this forum, that you question almost everything people post in relation to one particular PPC, and also appear to defend one particular PPC.

[scottish_mark]

where have I defended any ppc ?

[drw53]

In reply to lamma's post, the premises in King Street is Madame Clarke's Coffee House. Their website ( Cafe, Coffee Bar & Sandwich Shop - Madame Clarke's, Wolverhampton ) shows Michael Perkins to be one of the owners.

 

There is a CPS car park to the rear of the premises in Wheeler's Fold, off Princess Street.

 

I live in Wolverhampton and I will try to locate other CPS car parks.

 

Regards,

 

drw53

Edited May 11, 2008 by drw53
spelling

[scottish_mark]

drw53, unless I have missed something if you live in the same town and know where a car park is ... Why do you need to find another one ?

 

I smell something fishy here.. Please explain

[scottish_mark]

I also suspect the posts by member carly earlier in week were result of cps ticket ... So there's one

 

If the stethomas user updates then there's 2

 

How many do you want ?? Surely 1 is enough to show that all ppc tickets are unenforceable with a good defence!

[PPC Buster]

Because if there is suddenly a large amount of out of towners parking in CPS car parks getting invoices CPS will smell a rat and not pursue them knowing them to be pepipoo/CAG members.

[PPC Buster]

In reply to lamma's post, the premises in King Street is Madame Clarke's Coffee House. Their website ( Cafe, Coffee Bar & Sandwich Shop - Madame Clarke's, Wolverhampton ) shows Michael Perkins to be one of the owners.

 

There is a CPS car park to the rear of the premises in Wheeler's Fold, off Princess Street.

 

I live in Wolverhampton and I will try to locate other CPS car parks.

 

Regards,

 

drw53

We have suspected that for a long time over on pepipoo. Thanks for confirming our suspicions.

Why would a cafe need a DPA registration for private detective purposes?

[drw53]

Scottish Mark, various posters have asked for the addresses of CPS car parks, I am simply trying to assist.

 

Regards,

[scottish_mark]

you miss the point

 

Drw in their first post lives in Wolverhampton and he/she knows of a carpark run by cps so there is nothing suspicious in that .. Why would you want to find another when you seem to have a perfect one.

[Hobbie]

Mark,

 

Is it just me or do you sound concerned and worried that drw53 is locating CPS carparks?

[tiglet]

subbing

[scottish_mark]

I just find drw first post weird, doesn't mean anything to me just a little weird.

 

Anyway, as much as this has passed the time away this weekend I am getting bored now and real life is calling.

 

If anyone wants advice on Scottish then get back to me as thats what I joined originally for, I personally couldn't care less about parking in England.

 

Enjoy yourselves, if I come across any cps carparks north of the border i will let you know, so far I only know of central ticketing ones and from posts on here they dont sue in England so no chance in Scotland.

[green_and_mean]

Some people really do need to get out more!!

[Geronimoman]

Mark,

 

Is it just me or do you sound concerned and worried that drw53 is locating CPS carparks?

 

You're right - there is clear concern that CPS car parks are being outed. But then again someone who (1) kept ratttling on for ages about an Oldham case which was proved not to exist (but which if it did would no doubt involve CPS), (2) tries to resurrect a long dead thread about CPS, (3) defends the personal vendetta being conducted against a Pepipoo member on the CPS website, would have a problem with it, wouldn't they?

[Hobbie]

As it has been previously stated by someone here, that Combined Parking Solutions (CPS) is run from a Café, in which Mr Perkins is a Co-Proprietor along with Mrs Perkins, assumed to be his wife.

 

And in all the listed court cases that Mr Perkins has himself made publically available on the CPS website, it is indeed Mr Perkins himself whom appears at court as the claimant, surely a director of such a successful company would be far to busy to attend court in person, when he could quite easily pay and have a representative attend, or even a solicitor from his collections agency Daniels Siverman?

 

With the above in mind, would it be safe to assume that CPS is a one man operation?

[PPC Buster]

As stated before by Mr. Perkins, CPS is an unlimited liability partnership with some 8 members and 2 appeals staff. All I know is that Perkins is the front man of CPS.

[Hobbie]

Then in that case, forgive me for my assumption that Mr Perkins was a company director for Combined Parking Solutions, when it is clear that is not the case, but I would be correct in assuming he is a senior partner of the concern?

 

It must get real cramped in Madame Clarkes coffee house with all the staff

[Sidewinder]

In reply to lamma's post, the premises in King Street is Madame Clarke's Coffee House. Their website ( Cafe, Coffee Bar & Sandwich Shop - Madame Clarke's, Wolverhampton ) shows Michael Perkins to be one of the owners.

 

That's handy - I notice that there is a phone number on the site - that must be the geographical number for those not wishing to use the 0871 number listed on the CPS website.

[lamma]

In reply to lamma's post, the premises in King Street is Madame Clarke's Coffee House. Their website ( Cafe, Coffee Bar & Sandwich Shop - Madame Clarke's, Wolverhampton ) shows Michael Perkins to be one of the owners.

 

There is a CPS car park to the rear of the premises in Wheeler's Fold, off Princess Street.

 

I live in Wolverhampton and I will try to locate other CPS car parks.

 

Regards,

 

drw53

 

You wonderful person. Thanks - and keep looking !

Let the games begin folks ! Of course we will keep them off this board - we wouldn't want Perky knowing which invoices were likely to bite him in the ass now would we ?

Drivers with proper 'other driver' cover would be best.....

[PPC Buster]

Drivers with proper 'other driver' cover would be best.....

Any particular reason?

[Hobbie]

Drivers with proper 'other driver' cover would be best.....

 

I personally would of thought it best

 

Registered Keeps with proper 'other driver' cover would be best....

 

that way we're not encouraging anyone to lie, and if and that is a BIG if, Mr. Perkins took it to court, you couldn't lie in court, or you'll certinally get your collar felt.

 

But yes... if was private land managed by CPS near to where I live, I'd arrange by mass cars to park up.

[scottish_mark]

this is all a little sad and I feel goes against the principles of the forum and site mods are taking a selective blind eye.

 

This thread has seen people being named ( against rules ) and now seems, by its failure to moderate, condoning people to find carparks and trespass on the private land .. Not getting a charge/trespassing by mistake but on purpose.

 

Can you not all see, this very type of posting just plays into the ppc hands

 

Also, have you seriously got nothing better to do than waste time/money etc.. If not thats quite sad

 

I am off now, just food for thought though.. Life is too short

[Hobbie]

Welcome back again Mark,

 

Please refer to your previous post. A copy of which i've quoted below.

 

but welcome back to the discussion, where again you are getting twitchy when something regarding CPS pops up, but like you say your not a spokesperson for Mr Perkins, you may be right, because you could be Mr. Perkins him very self! then again I could be, we've no true way of finding out, its not as if CAG asks us for a copy of our passport when we sign up.

 

I just find drw first post weird, doesn't mean anything to me just a little weird.

 

Anyway, as much as this has passed the time away this weekend I am getting bored now and real life is calling.

 

If anyone wants advice on Scottish then get back to me as thats what I joined originally for, I personally couldn't care less about parking in England.

 

Enjoy yourselves, if I come across any cps carparks north of the border i will let you know, so far I only know of central ticketing ones and from posts on here they dont sue in England so no chance in Scotland.

 

If I can just include a copy of Trespass under Civil Law, as you say I am condoning trespass.

 

Common law - trespass - removal of unlawful occupiers.

 

Common law trespass at civil law is a wrong (or tort) for which an individual look to the Courts for a remedy. The most important types of trespass are 'trespass to property' (the civil equivalent of theft or criminal damage) and 'trespass to land' (unwanted visitors).

It is the eviction of trespassers onto land which causes the most problems for officers as there are plenty of criminal remedies for trespass to property. Section 61 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 does provide a criminal remedy for unlawful occupiers in larger groups or if damage has been caused, but there are no such provisions for a smaller groups if no nuisance has been caused.

For example, a company wishes to remove a small group of travellers from land which it is now to be built upon. The travellers have a couple of caravans and two other vehicles. They have not caused any damage. At common law can the company re-enter the land and evict the trespassers?

 

Actually, this course of action is lawful - the owner (or lawful occupier) of the land has a well established civil right of re-entry (e.g. Tullay v Reed (1823) 171 ER 1078). The owner of the property should make a prior request for repossession to a peaceable occupier. If the unlawful occupiers leave without 'further ado' then all is well.

 

HOWEVER IT IS NOT SO SIMPLE IF THEY DO NOT LEAVE. Whilst re-entry is valid in civil law, it is fraught with problems, including:

(1) The owner probably commits an offence under the Criminal Law Act 1977 section 6 by using or threatening violence for the purposes of securing entry to premises occupied by another. (Owners of commercial land are not displaced residential occupiers who would otherwise be exempt from section 6.) The owner becomes further liable if more force than necessary is used to remove the occupiers (Hemmings v Stoke Poges Golf Club [1920] 1 KB 720).

 

(2) If the crime in (1) above is being committed by the owner, the occupier could lawfully use reasonable force to resist him/her - Criminal Law Act 1967 section 3 which says 'a person may use such force as is reasonable in the circumstances in the prevention of crime'.

 

(3) An owner dumping property (i.e. caravans and other material from the site) onto the highway could commit an offence of obstruction of the highway or even littering in a public place. Putting what the owner views as "rubbish" from his property onto the highway is not a lawful use of the highway, even if the rubbish has been placed unlawfully on his property in the first place.

The unlawful occupier is essentially committing a civil wrong - it can be turned into a criminal wrong only by the owner obtaining a civil court order which is resisted. On the other hand, the owner is potentially initiating a number of criminal offences (albeit in pursuit of a valid civil right). The advice for officers (given by Leeds University) is that if the unlawful occupiers do not leave of their own accord, then the owners should be advised go through the normal channels for civil recovery of land.

 

If the owners proceed with forcible ejection, then they should be warned that they may be liable for the consequences. In the type of circumstances outlined, the police should not get involved in the physical removal of the unlawful occupants, because, as has been said in the previous paragraph, their transgression is a civil not a criminal matter and they are not breaching any criminal law by their simple presence on the land. At the scene of such an incident the police are there to prevent a breach of the peace and to investigate the commission of offences committed by either side.

 

Note

In Redmond-Bate v DPP 1999 the Court of Appeal made it clear that the police should act to prevent problems by dealing with the offenders, not by removing persons conducting themselves in a lawful manner. In order to prevent a disturbance officers had arrested a preacher (who had been preaching about Christianity) for obstructing the police. She had been getting an adverse reaction from the crowd, but had refused to stop preaching when asked. Her conviction was quashed.

Edited May 12, 2008 by Hobbie