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

[Geronimoman]

It is a great tribute to this site (and Pepipoo) that perky and cronies take time out from hammering hard working motorists and/or setting "landmark" legal precedents to troll around. It means the site is hurting their business. It also means they are worrying that the tide is beginning to turn and that drivers are finally getting it - you should not pay. The laughable thing is that perky has started this himself with his challenge to all and sundry to come and take him on. So not necessarily a negative thing and fully endorse your please for posters not to reveal anything that might identify them. Why make it easy for them?

[Geronimoman]

Prove a point against members of this site, members of Pepipoo and anyone else who dares challenge them. You only have to look at the personal attacks on the website against a Pepipoo member (including weirdly publishing his photo) to realise these people live up to all the finest PPC traditions. Although other PPCs seem to get on with it while CPS trolls and bleats on about mythical court victories. Why is that I wonder? Maybe the business model needs addressing as you say if staff are spending large amounts of time trolling consumer websites in an attempt to stoke up arguments.

[Geronimoman]

This is getting really boring now. There is no Oldham case, other than in perky's fertile imagination. Yet scottish mark appears to be hell bent on proving there is. Far too much of this forum is being devoted to a very unimportant and peripheral PPC so can I suggest we leave it at that and get back to helping people out.

[Geronimoman]

I have to say with people digging up months old threads, in some weird attempt to get them back to life, and more PPC trolls than you can shake a stick at I'm not surprised people don't post any more. Is it just me or does the behaviour of "scottish mark" become stranger by the minute? Earlier he said he would leave it at that. If only he would. It's like a bad case of Groundhog Day (set in Oldham).There appears to be some kind of attempt ongoing to discredit members of this site and Pepipoo, which appears to be orchestrated by CPS. Why does a PPC which is sure of its legal position need so badly to discredit its opponents? It is a pity that it has come to this on CAG. With so many trolls about no-one can be sure who is who any more. Or perhaps that is what the PPCs want.

[Geronimoman]

sorry duplicate

[Geronimoman]

Sidewinder, you are far from alone with that view. But then someone who by his own admission goes out of his way to get someone fired from their job(apparently rather then taking the case to court as he so often brags) clearly has some fairly major people issues. Nothing would surprise me about that outfit. And he wonders why people ignore him and his associates when he comes on here. Anything this lot say should be given the total lack of attention it deserves.

Edited May 11, 2008 by Geronimoman

[Geronimoman]

Is Combined Parking Solutions registered with the Information Commissioners Office? - Reason I ask is that I have searched at Information Commissioners - Data Protection Public Register but it returned no results, just curious thats all.

 

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

[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.

[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?

[Geronimoman]

To be invited to park you must have read the signs therefore its breach of contract.

If you are invited to park and refuse to pay or do not provide proof of payment such as a permit then its theft of services.

If you park where it is prohibited except for authorised persons its trespass.

 

There seems to be some confusion over the use of the term unenforceable as regards PPCs. The tickets are generally unenforceable because it is impossible to trace the driver. This does NOT mean its legal or OK to trespass or park in private car parks with the intention of defrauding the owner anyone encouraging others to do so could be found guilty of incitement.

 

With the greatest of respect g&m, this is a load of old codswallop and it doesn't do your reputation any favours. You can only defraud someone out of something to which they are entitled if they are entitled to it. What constitutes that entitlement? - proving that a contract exists with the driver whereby the driver has agreed to pay a charge. It is not like a case of fraud where you are depriving someone of something they already have, but rather something they might possibly have in the extremely unlikely event that they can first prove a contract exists. Proving that contract is a civil matter for the courts. The police would have absolutely no interest in such a matter.