Perky DEFEATED in Oldham County Court 12 MAY 08 ***won on 2nd Hearing ***

[My Real Name]

I see others have already picked up on it, but:

 

landmark case

 

Hahaha.

 

Again:

 

landmark case

 

Ha.

[angry_driver]

Only as much as a landmark ruling as the excel case in mansfield was ... cant recall anyone criticising that comment (then again, you wouldnt expect them to !!!)

 

Its a landmark as its proved the comments "NO PROPERLY DEFENDED CASE CAN EVER WIN" and "ALL PPC TICKETS ARE UNENFORCEABLE" to be totally wrong.

 

This was a properly defended case, with the assistance of 'legal experts' on here and it lost on ALL 3 grounds.

 

The PPC wants this to goto appeal but so far nothing has been heard or seen from the defendant (despite him having been active on the site) .. he and his legaladviser are still licking their wounds.

[MrShed]

You are making a much bigger deal out of this than it is.

 

You are simply dissing comments that are not commonly made(but I agree not uncommonly made) that these are WHOLLY defendable.

 

I do hope that knocking down these comments(which are blatantly incorrect, due to the unpredictability of the courts) gives you some self satisfaction, but it does not change the root fact that these cases GENERALLY are defendable.

[johno1066]

Angry_Driver, So why aren't you taking up Andrew Foster's challenge then?

 

Incidently, just had a look at the valuation office website, would appear that St.Andrews now need to include the chargeable land as part of it's business rates, should cost them a packet.

[Al27]

Hi Perky

 

How much do you charge for a permit on said bit of land? Or are they freely given out by the church?

 

(Remember you said you'd freely answer all questions (although you still haven't actually answered any so far)).

[angry_driver]

It must also be remembered that if Mr Thomas had received the correct advice his ticket would have been £60.00

 

Now it is over £250 and (as he asked to pay in instalments in court as he couldnt afford it) he will have a CCJ on his credit file for 6 years.

 

If I was Mr Thomas I would be annoyed at the advice and possibly guarentees given (looking through all the posts/threads on this case, many of which have now been modified or deleted) that I would win.

 

I wonder if any of the people who gave him the bad advice etc.. will be contributing towards his total bill ?

[tiglet]

If you're so concerned, why not be magnanimous in victory and put the cost back down to £60?

[My Real Name]

Surely nobody is offering guarantees. Even practising counsel would not offer any guarantees.

 

Unless, of course, it's just a straw man that you have built to bolster your platform for gloating.

 

Anyone would be unwise to produce a cut and paste defence, based on what they have read on the internet, without a clear understanding of the underlying principles (although, that's just my view. Do you see how that works?).

 

The fact remains, however, that the business model of PPCs appears to rely on compliance with demands, as opposed to enforcement through the courts.

 

The fact remains that the various mooted defences are still sound, albeit without being tested in a higher court.

 

Given your crowing and confidence that this mystical "CAG / Pepipoo defence" is worthless, does that mean we can expect a torrent of success in the County Courts, where you have successfully made a claim, no doubt in yet more "landmark" cases.

 

I'm on tenterhooks.

[Steve__M]

Hmmm...part of "the correct advice" is to avoid posting anything here that will allow the PPC to identify you or understand the exact circumstances. Had Mr Thomas done that then he would have paid nothing.

 

If everyone followed Mr Angry's advice, Perky would now be sunning himself on some tropical island that he owns.

 

Instead Perky has won £135 (of which a proportion is paid to the carpark owner) for an outlay of spending two days in court plus one set of fees for a hearing that he lost, plus solicitor's costs that would mostly be non-recoverable. That's less than the minimum wage. As they say on Dragon's Den "This is NOT a serious business proposition. And for that reason I'm OUT!".

[Al27]

If I was Mr Thomas I would be annoyed at the advice and possibly guarentees given (looking through all the posts/threads on this case, many of which have now been modified or deleted) that I would win.

 

LOL. If I was Mr Thomas I'd want to beat *you* to a pulp, not the people giving advice for free!

 

Anyway, I like the way you're still avoiding actually answering any question about the case. What a surprise.

[pin1onu]

Now it is over £250 and (as he asked to pay in instalments in court as he couldnt afford it) he will have a CCJ on his credit file for 6 years.

That's only a big deal if he doesn't pay it within the time limits stipulated by the court. If the debt is satisified then the credit agencies aren't interested - it's only when marked as unsatisfied that it becomes relevant.

Edited October 15, 2008 by pin1onu

[lamma]

Angela ...

 

SteThomas was on at 19:01 today... Saw the postings and even read PMs

 

BUT he hasnt put a reponse on here .. WHY ??? .. If it was wrong or a different case he would have said (together with his legal expert team of LegalAdviser/Geronimoman/Southpaw81 from PePiPoo and not forgetting his expert 'lay legal rep)

 

See http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/parking-traffic-offences/144471-perky-defeated-oldham-county.html

The case number is in there : 8QT03984 .. Call Oldmam court on 0161 290 4200 to confirm it was the same case.

 

Then .. wind your neck in !!!

 

As asked by someone else - but the question was soundly ignored. How on earth can you know that he read PMs ? Until this is resolved I would suggest that anybody using PMs is VERY circumspect as to the contents thereof. Also on posts naturally. Internet trapping - and very limited circumstances. This is not the big deal it is being played up to be. Except perhaps to Perky's ego, perhaps he will create a login and tell us himself instead of this third person stuff.

[angry_driver]

Pin1onu

You are doing like many other the other regular posters on here and showing your lack of knowledge ....

A CCJ is registered if the debt is NOT paid in full within 28-days, not how long the court gives you to pay and will remain on your credit file for 6yrs.

 

Once paid (if after 28-days) you can apply (for a fee) to have it marked as satisfied .. it will still show and all lenders will see it - in the current economic climate with credit etc.. they will be VERY cautious to any CCJs on a file satisfied or unsatisfied.

 

 

AL27,

Why would he want to beat me to a pulp, we live in a civilised world he went to court and lost .. maybe you would resort to violence but we dont all operate at your level !!

 

 

Steve_M

The posting on here was not his main falldown - I was there and can assure you that other factors came into play, in fact many of the regulars do not see the ID of a driver as being important as the parking charge is still unenforceable .. well that was the advice given until yesterday ...

As for the money, this wasnt ever about the money it was to prove a fact that despite the best CAG/PePiPoo brains behind the defence tickets ARE enforceable and the courts do enforce them.

 

Tiglet,

I have already contacted Stethomas by PM offering him to contact us in order for the charge to be negotiated ... he has failed to do so.

 

My_Real_Name

We still have cases pending that have the SAME defence submitted (almost word for word) over the next few months .. I can only suspect the same 'experts' assisted in those defences .. so maybe a few more wins over the next few months.

[My Real Name]

My_Real_Name

We still have cases pending that have the SAME defence submitted (almost word for word) over the next few months .. I can only suspect the same 'experts' assisted in those defences .. so maybe a few more wins over the next few months.

Those tenterhooks are going to be worn out then.

 

How about providing us with details on the future cases - That way, when you next achieve landmark victories in all of them, you can crow on these, and other forums, without anyone being able to accuse you of making things up.

[angry_driver]

You can all go on about how this is not a big deal ... but you only have to look at the threads back in May when it was mis reported about the defeat and the comments made.

 

The May postings were yesterday shown to be totally false, the comment made about "We just do" .. we made up by the defendant, (I have to admit the look on his legal advisers face was a picture when the transcript was produced).

 

We would still love to know the username came with Mr Thomas (as he did confirm he was off the forums) ... Are you going to be man enough to own up or are you still too ashamed of letting Mr Thomas and the forums down ?

[Al27]

AL27,

Why would he want to beat me to a pulp, we live in a civilised world he went to court and lost .. maybe you would resort to violence but we dont all operate at your level !!

 

My tongue in cheek comment seems to have gone over your head. Your twisted view that Thomas won't be blaming you, but us, certainly hasn't gone over mine.

 

We still have cases pending that have the SAME defence submitted (almost word for word) over the next few months .. I can only suspect the same 'experts' assisted in those defences .. so maybe a few more wins over the next few months.

 

Excellent. I suspect this could be the one and only 'victory' for you. No doubt you'll be very quiet when you lose those ones. From a business perspective though, what's the point? It's not worth it for £135 when you know as well as me that you have a very large risk of failure each time.

[angry_driver]

Those tenterhooks are going to be worn out then.

 

How about providing us with details on the future cases - That way, when you next achieve landmark victories in all of them, you can crow on these, and other forums, without anyone being able to accuse you of making things up.

 

I dont see anyone stating it is made up, except you.

 

Why would I (or anyone else) want to advertise things to come ... its like this site publishing a full defence with case details online before the hearing .. you wouldnt recommend it would you.

 

EVERYTHING I say can be verified by the court, newspaper article, stethomas and the person from the site who went to court for him.

 

What is there to be made up ... or are you saying the whole stethomas episode was s setup, if so you must be on some amazing drugs to be that paranoid.

[MrShed]

You can all go on about how this is not a big deal ... but you only have to look at the threads back in May when it was mis reported about the defeat and the comments made.

 

The May postings were yesterday shown to be totally false, the comment made about "We just do" .. we made up by the defendant, (I have to admit the look on his legal advisers face was a picture when the transcript was produced).

 

We would still love to know the username came with Mr Thomas (as he did confirm he was off the forums) ... Are you going to be man enough to own up or are you still too ashamed of letting Mr Thomas and the forums down ?

 

why not answer the many questions and points made if you are so confident?

 

Personally, I am amused that you are dancing so much about the fact that what two posters on this site said was TECHNICALLY incorrect. It shows that you have no larger scale victory(i.e. the actually legal enforceability generally) to celebrate instead, and smacks of desperation, gleefully enjoying the tiniest of victories.

[angry_driver]

 

Excellent. I suspect this could be the one and only 'victory' for you. No doubt you'll be very quiet when you lose those ones. From a business perspective though, what's the point? It's not worth it for £135 when you know as well as me that you have a very large risk of failure each time.

 

We have numerous victories, our website has a few listed .. I think lamma went and for FOI requests so he can probarly tell you how many wins we have.

 

This victory is significant as its the one EVERYONE on here and PePiPoo said could never be done (ie, a good defence crafted by our experts will always see them off as all these tickets are unenforceable).

 

What has been proved, and it cant be denied as it happend - The CAG/PePiPoo defence FAILED on all counts - it was stated in many many threads this could not happen and it did.

 

No matter what spin you want to put on it, the defendant is £250 out of pocket .. .he was off work for 1.5days (he obviously cant afford to be off work, to us it was a jolly - the money not important)

 

As someone on another site said "some you win, some you lose" .. so one day a case will go against any PPC - the law of averages.

 

As for high risk of failure ... I disagree and I can only say that from the real statistics (Lamma can advise on the exact numbers/percentages).

[MrShed]

This victory is significant as its the one EVERYONE on here and PePiPoo said could never be done (ie, a good defence crafted by our experts will always see them off as all these tickets are unenforceable).

 

 

"EVERYONE" did not say so. A few posters did. The rest of us know that it was POSSIBLE, but IMPROBABLE, and like lightning unlikely to strike twice!

[tiglet]

Glad to see you're so magnanimous in victory, angry_driver

[Andy7807]

Don't you have tickets to go and put on cars? Talk about being magnaminous in victory.

[Al27]

We have numerous victories, our website has a few listed .. I think lamma went and for Freedom of Information Act requests so he can probarly tell you how many wins we have.

 

Is Lamma acting as your carer or something?

 

There's a difference between your undefended 'wins' / no shows and this one.

[Andy7807]

Tiglet you beat me to it!

[My Real Name]

I dont see anyone stating it is made up, except you.

I neither stated nor implied that you had made anything up. I suggested a way to mitigate comments that call your credibility into question.

 

Why would I (or anyone else) want to advertise things to come ... its like this site publishing a full defence with case details online before the hearing .. you wouldnt recommend it would you.

Actually, my view is that a solid defence stands on its own merit, and would not necessarily be undermined by being known in advance.

 

EVERYTHING I say can be verified by the court, newspaper article, stethomas and the person from the site who went to court for him.

But in the absence of any corrobaration, we have but your word to go on, don't we, which leads back to the question of credibility.

 

What is there to be made up ... or are you saying the whole stethomas episode was s setup, if so you must be on some amazing drugs to be that paranoid.

I was not aware of that implication having been made either.