URGENT Parking firm taking me to court and demanding my insurance docs? WHAT!?????

[Guest courtupdater]

Hi, courtupdater. Would you object to posting a full breakdown of these costs?

Regards

 

My notes read:

 

£137.61 for the charge + interest to date of issue

£4.35 for interest from issue date until yesterday

£25.00 Court Fee

£25.00 Hearing Fee

£50.00 Attendance charge

£116.00 Travel Costs

£4.50 Parking Fee

 

All this will be confirmed when the order comes through, I was told this takes about 10days.

[Guest courtupdater]

 

The recent Excel Parking cases were lost by the PPC. From what I have seen no correctly defended case has been won by a PPC.

 

Do you know anything about the Excel case, with the exception of what you have read in the newspaper ?

 

Have you spoken with the defendant in that case ?

Have you seen the court transcripts ?

Do you know on what basis the case was lost ?

[gwc1000]

Hi, courtupdater. You say the parking charge was £137.61p. I assume this includes the interest. Did the parking charge increase from the day the person got the ticket?

[fridgedoor]

Oh I see, not for the first time mr factual court updater is changing his story. Apparently the defences are not available on the site after all as he earlier told us. They are available by PM he now tells us. He has been repeatedly challenged to post the defence used and has failed to do so. I am not a lawyer but I would be able to tell what a pukka defence looks like and so I am sure would others. So, go on court updater do that so we can all have a look. Unless you are afraid we would draw other inferences that is.As for the other two cases, as this individual is already speaking with very forked tongue I for one would not believe they even exist, far less that anyone from here has been involved in the defence. Until I see definitive evidence, which I suspect will be far from forthcoming.To courtupdater, why is it so important to you and CPS to discredit pepipoo and CAG? Did thery hurt your fellings at some time?

[vulcanswb3a]

£50.00 Attendance charge

£116.00 Travel Costs

i though the was no costs in the county court

[fridgedoor]

the general principle about CAG/PePiPoo cases is not to publicise them until they have won ... and if they lose, deny all knowledge.

 

Whereas the general principle of CPS cases is: find an undefended/poorly defended case, win it and try to pin the poor defence on pepipoo/CAG members without any basis for doing so. Hmm.

[lamma]

As I understand it having looked at CPR CPS will get a copy of the defense statement before the hearing. They could very easily post them up. Or put them on their bragging page and say "look here is a 'proper defense from CAG/pepipoo' and we beat it". It would back up their claims that internet forums are 'bad for people and that folks should just pay up'. I wonder why they haven't ? . . or do I ?

[JonCris]

or.......& I'm not claiming this has happened, get a mate to accept their details being put forward to the courts as a parking debtor then win the judgment, as the 'defendant' doesn't actually defend........... the 'defendant' pays up within 1 month (or at least the court is told that) so no harm done then claim it as a victory;) wot u tink

[Genepool1]

or.......& I'm not claiming this has happened, get a mate to accept their details being put forward to the courts as a parking debtor then win the judgment, as the 'defendant' doesn't actually defend........... the 'defendant' pays up within 1 month (or at least the court is told that) so no harm done then claim it as a victory;) wot u tink

 

Does seem possible given the scams this lot have tried to pull in the past (posing as Scottish, female, PPC victims and a hundred other stupid IDs). They are looking more and more like a knock off watch salesman: "It's a genuine Rolex, honest guv". You just have to substitute: "Pepipoo were involved in the case, honest guv". Yet it has to be admitted CPS are one of the more entertaining PPCs, even if most of us laugh at them, not with them.

[JonCris]

Perhaps folk don't realize but there are moves afoot to give people like these (for a small fee of course) powers to issue on the spot fines & demand your details

 

God help this country

[lamma]

does not apply to PPCs. but will be people of similar leanings, just working for a small wage and a commission in all likelihood.

[JonCris]

Wanna bet it will apply to there like very soon. After all they meet Noo Labours employment criteria to a tee. 1st be an uneducated bully & 2nd be an uneducated thug

[pin1onu]

Wanna bet it will apply to there like very soon. After all they meet Noo Labours employment criteria to a tee. 1st be an uneducated bully & 2nd be an uneducated thug

Backed up by a "brilliant" in-house legal team of course and outstanding pieces of legislation like the PSI Act.

[Guest courtupdater]

So, here goes:

 

Court commenced approx 14:15

The judge looked at all the evidence, including copies of the correspondance sent from the defendant in which he stated "take it up with the driver".

The other evidence was viewed (photos of vehicle parked in front of the sign) - clear terms and conditions for the issue of a parking charge and stating not to park if they did not agree to them.

The evidence was heard that 'take it up with the driver' was a poor argument and the defendant has an obligation to assist wherver possible under the pre-action protocol and this type of obstructive response was not helpful.

In the event of the defendant actually bringing another party to the court hearing and for those to accept liability then the original defendant would still be liable for wasted costs for the hearing today as they have received ample opporunity to do this.

The court considered the dunlop case and a case of clydebank shipping when looking into penalties, it also considered the case of currie - this was dismissed as there is no such thing as a 'free' carpark - even in supermarkets the consideration is more busines, more profit etc...

The area in which the defendant parked was not a public parking area and as such the defendant had no lawful reason to be there, the signage clearly stated this and the defendant (and a reasonable) person would have seen and understood the signage and the charges for parking there - a concious decision was made to park and a charge received.

The defendant did not appeal or complain once the ticket was issued, he merely ignored it and thought it would 'go away'.

Sorry ... The Unfair Contract Terms Act was also considered - the court found that the defendant had opportunity to move his vehicle before a charge was issued, in fact they parked and left it there - It was noted that it is not for a court to enforce terms on parties that have been agreed, by actions.

The charge was upheld with the limited costs as already explained.

 

So .. there it is in a nutshell ... you can either beleive or not beleive ... The facts I have stated - you can get a copy of the full transcript from the court (after paying the fee etc..)

[Genepool1]

Hmm in a nutshell all right. From what our CPS troll now says it appears that there was no defence at all submitted by the defendant. All that is mentioned is letters saying take it up with the defendant. If there was in fact a defence then the troll has been requested on numerous occasions to post it so that we can judge for ourselves whether it was a pukka one. He has refused to do so and I for one read into that that there is either no formal defence, only template letters which surprisingly enough did not succeed, or that the defence is not a a properly drafted one at all. As for the rest of the facts as related by our very biased friend, I would not believe a word of it, he has already posted a succession of untruths and shown himself to be far from credible.

[Guest courtupdater]

Genepool (obv an old member with a new name) ...

 

They used ...

Take up with the driver - FAILED

Unfair Contract Terms Act - FAILED

Dunlop & Clydebank Shipping cases for penalties - FAILED

Currie v Misa case for No consideration so no contract - FAILED

 

There was 1 other case, dismissed as irrelevant, that of Lordsvale Finance (sorry did not pay much attention to that one)

 

So .. What would a proper defence consist of then ???

[lamma]

still not posting up a scan of the submitted defense then. bored now..

[Genepool1]

Genepool (obv an old member with a new name) ...

 

Oh dear the old CPS paranioa returns.Let me put it in capital letters as there is clearly some fluff between the ears of this latest CPS troll: PLEASE POST THE DEFENCE. Posting random case references proves NOTHING. If ther is an obstacle to you posting the defence please tell us what it is.

[Guest courtupdater]

No need for insults Genepool1.

[gwc1000]

courtupdater, could you clarify if the defendant attended court in person? It isn't clear in your summary.

Thanks

[lamma]

to be believed there is a need that courtupdater posts the submitted defense. until then all is froth and bubbles. defenses used against CPS never get posted by CPS. I wonder why that is... or do I.

[Genepool1]

hah they're SO sensitive these CPSers. Note no sign of the defence being posted. Must be at least six times he has been asked now. You're not the only one bored lamma.

[JonCris]

Having read the 'victory' where the defence, if any, was poorly presented or worse none existent I fail to see where CAG or Pepipoo was involved.

 

Furthermore it's clear from the post in question that had anyone from CAG or Pepipoo been involved the claim would have been dismissed forthwith

[Guest courtupdater]

Now Now, you have been fed a little bait to keep you going.

 

All will be revealed in the goodness of time, would hate to ruin your fun this early into the game.

 

The "experts" on here (and the other expert site ) know very well why the defence has not been posted ... be aware the OP still has 14-days to appeal so would hate to prejudice anything.

[Guest courtupdater]

This is also strange .. PePiPoo has asked its members to come on here and copy the posts made about this case to the site..

 

Yet it does not allow a response, just wants to feed its visitors the same old rubbish ... Mr Foster & Co you should be ashamed ...

 

Barring someone you disagree with, so they cant question you ... typical coward !