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

[angela-27]

Or is it o.k. for a member to post ficticious scenarios in an attempt to destroy the reputations of other posters? Especially when that member seems to despise the existence of CAG. If we all start to tell untruths on here, there will be no point in having this forum.

 

Surely is posting fictitious statements and blatant lying, not an abuse of this forum?

 

Surely the mods should take this very seriously?

[Al27]

I don't think he'll be around much longer anyway since he's had his 15 minutes of fame.

[Guest Ting]

Despite my one earlier post i've been quite disappointed at everyone who has actually risen to this unsavoury idiot.

 

never mind, might as well join in.

If no-one has posted this yet - it might ring a bell before the edited cag version!

 

Fixed Penalty Given - Offence Code 950 - FightBack Forums

-

[Fair-Parking]

Post 166 - Is that the same Andy Foster who last January made the unsupportable and unedified comment that our scheme had made 'dubious' claims?

 

Well we are still here Andy - over 1 year old and still functioning and with a 100% success record.

 

That's because we are the honest party fighting the dishonest ones.

 

Given that you see yourself as a leading light in the protection of motorists, I trust that this particular penny will drop one day soon and that you may be able to take a more appreciative and better balanced view in the future.

[JonCris]

This bunch of cretins need to be crushed

 

In the meantime do you know that approx. 1/3 of all security guards, bouncers AND WHEEL CLAMPERS are operating without a licence

 

Anyone think that might be useful in some way;)

[JonCris]

Does anyone know how to contact TomTubby as I have the name of a recently struck off bailiff to pass to him? & which for pending legal reasons I cannot post on an open forum

[Hobbie]

I'm away for a few weeks and this is what happens?!? Having read the latest posts, I suppose it is a disapointment to Mr Thomas, but due to the county courts and the balance of probabilities on a sliding scale, its not the same as a criminal court, so it can go either way even if a doubt is in question.

 

As for Mr Thomas, having to cough up the money has any one thought of offering assitance to him? couple of quid each maybe?

 

Well just goes to show though, PPC's will do anything to earn a bob or two, but by the time the monies are spilt with the land owner, if of course Perky decides to share in his "winnings" and the amount of time and effort put into this, im sure he'll have enough change left over for another bacon butty

[Al27]

As for Mr Thomas, having to cough up the money has any one thought of offering assitance to him? couple of quid each maybe?

 

We've offered it for the appeal. They haven't been back on though, so I suspect they're busy sorting out an appeal rather than get into a slanging match with Perky the Clown.

[pin1onu]

We've offered it for the appeal. They haven't been back on though, so I suspect they're busy sorting out an appeal rather than get into a slanging match with Perky the Clown.

Clown?

 

I thought he was a muppet.

[Al27]

All for us to start saying the invoices are 99% unenforceable instead of 100% unenforceable.

[WebFerret]

'angry driver',

 

You stated in your original post that, to quote: "I will answer openly any questions you may have.", yet to date you have ignored many key questions asked of you:

 

Q1) 'Simon7685' - "I was wondering how you would know someone had read their PM's, I thought that is what they were private?"

 

Q2) 'Bookworm' - "How much profit is the PPC going to actually make from this?" - "what is the profit in it? In pounds? Doesn't have to be precise, a ball park will do."?

 

Q3) 'AI27' - "How much do you charge for a permit on said bit of land? Or are they freely given out by the church?"

 

Q4) 'lamma' - "As asked by someone else - but the question was soundly ignored. How on earth can you know that he read PMs ?"

 

Then your quote (post #160) states: "The reason for requesting the thread to be locked is nothing constructive can be added by any other party at this stage, with the exception of the other side." – this is not true, for I would very much like to know your answers to these important questions you have not yet answered.

 

 

Then in your post #154, you state, quote:

"Courts are not the place to bring actions just to prove a point, thats not a game we want to start playing".

 

and yet you stated in post #99, to quote:

"This case was NOT about the money, it was to show that parking charges (IF issued correctly with the correct signage etc..) are perfectly valid and legal DESPITE the 'park anywhere, get lots of tickets and screw them brigade' saying they are unenforceable invoices with the correct defence."

 

and again in your post #139, to quote:

"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."

 

and again in your post #145, to quote:

"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)."

 

and again in your post #154, to quote:

"We have already won a CAG/PePiPoo defence ... how many will it take before we prove it 2,3,4,50,100 ... We took on the Thomas case after it was clear that CAG/PePiPoo were involved .. we could have backed down and called the action off ... we didnt ... We saw it through to the very end and won."

 

This to me is all evidence to suggest that you are indeed out to simply prove a point and that you are playing!!

 

 

You also stated (post #145):

"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." - I would like to see the transcript of the 'defence' to know if this statement is true and correct before I simply take your word for it!

 

Then you quote (post #145):

"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)" - This apparent gloating, in my view, simply does nothing more than enforce 'Joe publics' current general negative opinion of PPC's and further damages your own reputation.

 

Furthermore, from your gloating and confirmation that "Courts are not the place to bring actions just to prove a point", I'm sure, that in hindsight, the Judge may well now be wondering if he made a sound judgement or not! - and thus possibly damaging any defence you may produce against an appeal if one is indeed lodged!

 

 

Then there is your quote (post #128'): "The PPC wants this to goto appeal but so far nothing has been heard or seen from the defendant" - (another point to prove?) - I don't know if you’re a religious person, but with reference to the church site, it could be said that God does move in mysterious ways! - in other words your apparent assumption of success to an appeals process is by no means guaranteed.

 

 

I am very disappointed to see that angry_driver has not yet responded to my post.

 

There are obviously a number of 'key points' raised here that I, and I'm sure many others, would very much like to hear his response to.

 

.

[tiglet]

I'm disappointed to see he said the best CAG/PePiPoo brains were behind this - I didn't get involved at all

[WebFerret]

I agree letshelp ....

 

In the past Legaladviser/Geronimoman have only been TOO quick to post their false and misleading victory (which we not know AS A FACT).

 

Their silence on this site and the PePiPoo one is something that is certainly noteworthy.

 

 

Still no response from angry_driver to my post(s)/questions, I see!

 

Talk about the 'pot calling the kettle black' - lol

[lamma]

seems like he isn't posting. maybe too busy monitoring PMs.

[JonCris]

Oh dear perky what will you do now:D

 

A woman who ran a car clamping firm which took thousands of pounds from drivers has been jailed for four years.

 

Rebecca Meakin, of Millers Vale, Heath Hayes, Staffordshire, was convicted of blackmail by charging motorists up to £300 to retrieve their vehicles.

 

Her company, Rowencroft Immobilisers, worked at car parks in Cannock and Worcester, Stafford Crown Court heard.

 

Judge Simon Tonking said regulation of the UK clamping industry was "far from rigorous".

 

He said: "The boundaries between what is lawful and unlawful are unclear.

 

"It is a most unsatisfactory state of affairs."

 

Her co-defendant Cameron Khan was jailed for four-and-a-half years for a number of charges, including conspiracy to blackmail.

 

YOU (perky) could be next;)

 

It's worth noting that the last time this happened was in Scotland & it brought about the virtual demise of the cowboy clamping industry North of the border

[JonCris]

Also Westminster have stopped clamping & removal & are turning their car pound into a public car park

 

Gonna mean a major loss in revenue for JBW enforcement........... & no more telly appearances

 

'av a nice day folks:D

[green_and_mean]

Also Westminster have stopped clamping & removal & are turning their car pound into a public car park

 

Gonna mean a major loss in revenue for JBW enforcement........... & no more telly appearances

 

'av a nice day folks:D

 

Clamping and removal was never done by JBW they are baliffs not parking contractors.

[JonCris]

As you should know the majority of their work for Westminster was collecting unpaid parking fines but no more sad innit

 

Never mind they can always get a job enforcing dustbin regs

[green_and_mean]

As you should know the majority of their work for Westminster was collecting unpaid parking fines but no more sad innit

 

Never mind they can always get a job enforcing dustbin regs

 

 

You seem to be confusing two completely seperate matters on street removals and clamping and parking debt enforcement. JBW has never carried out on street enforcement for Westminster or used their car pound in Park Lane.

However they are no longer one of Westminsters parking debt enforcers due to the Council moving away from balliffs and instead they use First Revenue Assurance to chase the debt prior to warrant stage which saves them half a million a year in TEC costs. JBW have recently been taken on by several other authorities to enforce both Council tax and traffic debts so are not going broke just yet!!

[JonCris]

GM you seem to know a lot about JBW's business??

 

Anyway I doubt Westminster will be the last authority in the current climate to move away from the barbaric use of bailiff's

[angela-27]

GM you seem to know a lot about JBW's business??

 

Anyway I doubt Westminster will be the last authority in the current climate to move away from the barbaric use of bailiff's

 

i'm sorry but what has any of this got to do with the oldham case?

[green_and_mean]

GM you seem to know a lot about JBW's business??

 

Anyway I doubt Westminster will be the last authority in the current climate to move away from the barbaric use of bailiff's

 

I know a lot about many things lol! The move is purely financial the TEC charges to issue a warrant and the balliffs 'fees' do not get paid to the Council. Its therefore more cost effective to use a collection agency who trace and badger the debtor to pay prior to warrant stage by writing and tracing phone numbers for debtors and convincing them it will be cheaper to pay up prior to a warrant being issued. The saving in warrant fees alone is £400,000 per annum.