Scottish Law - Parking on Private Land

[buzby]

So whilst I cannot comment on the advice to ignore a PPC letter, as that would be biased, the fact still remains of the responsibility of all parties to follow and should a party not comply then the possible financial implications that may follow by not doing so.

 

Noted. However, all the defender need to is advise the Sheriff (or Judge) of the ongoing practice of fleecing motorists by the use of sustained speculative correspondence in order to make them pay up, and has a ready-made justification for not responding or entering into any correspondence.

 

The PPC's are their own worst enemy for this - they created this 'vertical' market of a rather 'seedy' business model, and use all their powers to weaken the resolve of the letter recipients. As there is no independent arbiter (as there is with Local authority decriminalised appeals) a motorist receiving an invoice unasked has no obligation to treat it with any more respect than junk mail. I believe no judge would hold any motorist liable to a wasted costs order on the premise you outlined, but if you can quote case law where it pertains to a PPC pursuer, I would be interested in reading it.

[Gambling Commission Rule]

Everyone that disagrees with Perky or has a different opinion is a "fool". Some things have not changed. When are you taking up the Pepipoo Challenge Perky? Surely you are not too yellow to stand up and face a proper opponent? You have shirked the Challenge for 8 months now, isn't it time you stood up for what you say you believe in? Or do you only take cherry picked cases with clueless defendants?

[looplotty]

Noted. However, all the defender need to is advise the Sheriff (or Judge) of the ongoing practice of fleecing motorists by the use of sustained speculative correspondence in order to make them pay up, and has a ready-made justification for not responding or entering into any correspondence.

 

The PPC's are their own worst enemy for this - they created this 'vertical' market of a rather 'seedy' business model, and use all their powers to weaken the resolve of the letter recipients. As there is no independent arbiter (as there is with Local authority decriminalised appeals) a motorist receiving an invoice unasked has no obligation to treat it with any more respect than junk mail. I believe no judge would hold any motorist liable to a wasted costs order on the premise you outlined, but if you can quote case law where it pertains to a PPC pursuer, I would be interested in reading it.

 

In Scotland the CPR does not apply, I am only referring to England/Wales.

 

The main thing to remember is the paperwork that is sent out beforehand, the PPC will fall down if they try and suggest the keeper is liable (directly or indirectly) but if they do it correctly then all will be OK.

 

Case Law, I can refer you to some English county court references, these are not case law in the way I think you mean and I do not have any transcripts of these hearings so a case number will not give you anything except a number and parties involved.

[looplotty]

Everyone that disagrees with Perky or has a different opinion is a "fool". Some things have not changed. When are you taking up the Pepipoo Challenge Perky? Surely you are not too yellow to stand up and face a proper opponent? You have shirked the Challenge for 8 months now, isn't it time you stood up for what you say you believe in? Or do you only take cherry picked cases with clueless defendants?

 

I know I shouldnt but I will.

 

'Cherry Picked Cases', when paperwork is issued against a defendant how does anyone know how it will go, who they are up against ?

 

Lets take Thomas for example, yes he admitted to being the driver but then came on the forums and got advice from experts on how to come up with a defence that would see the PPC off.

At this, if the case were cherry picked the PPC would have backed down as a formidable force such as anonoms on the net were involved.

The PPC continued the case, it went to an initial hearing where the judge was not happy with the POC and ordered the claim as written (submitted via MCOL so 24lines or 1080 characters) was not sufficient and that it be resubmitted within 14days.

The POC was rewritten and submitted - it then went to a full hearing and Thomas went along with 'Mr Large' (who I suspect you know very well) and put all the arguments over (penalty/signage and the likes) and after due consideration Thomas lost.

So we get back to the fact the ONLY difference here was the identity of the driver was known, but that aside if the other legal arguments stood then the identity of the driver is not important.

 

I would still like to know how you define 'Cherry Picked'.

[Fright-Flight-Fight]

Easy! THEY cannot understand the difference themselves! Mind you, that letter was worthy of an MP's redaction. I cannot establish if the double yellow lines they refer to are on a public highway, in which case, a PCN would ne the correct description.

 

Does this help any? The vehicle was parked on private land.

 

*DVLA EDIT REMOVED*

 

Edited June 26, 2009 by Fright-Flight-Fight
*DVLA EDIT REMOVED*

[Gambling Commission Rule]

Yawn, same old, same old from our "loopy" friend. Nowt changes - Perky Groundhog Day. With an added touch of paranoia - I am apparently now "Mr Large". Tell you what Perky I'll play along - we can form a double act, you be Mr Little. Oh no sorry you're not exactly the right profile for that are you? Far too many pies.

[buzby]

Non conclusively. Councils do empower private firms to run parking and enforcement (Like Glasgow's 'City Parking'). Similarly without the shopping centre details my local knowledge is useless - Sauchuehall Street SC? Silverburn SC? The fact is the DVLA treat the transgression in the same terms as decriminalised parking and do not distinguish between public and private parking. Perhaps they should?

[looplotty]

Yawn, same old, same old from our "loopy" friend. Nowt changes - Perky Groundhog Day. With an added touch of paranoia - I am apparently now "Mr Large". Tell you what Perky I'll play along - we can form a double act, you be Mr Little. Oh no sorry you're not exactly the right profile for that are you? Far too many pies.

 

More insults, you know they do say that once a person resorts to personal insults then the argument is lost.

 

I wouldnt know your profile as you are hiding behind your internet name, should you wish to reveal your real identity then we can decide if we can form a double act but I doubt that will ever happen when we can hide behind tghe internet and throw insults, world of difference insulting someone you know face-face, I mean that would take a real man.

 

Wow, in 3 messages you have once again taken this way off topic so I will bow out now - BTW you still have not responded to the PM I sent yesterday.

[Gambling Commission Rule]

Oh dear, our friend has resported to throwing his toys out of the pram again. For someone who has registered bogus IDs which must run into three figures by now to attack others for staying low profile is a good laugh. Then the playground bully talk, all very familiar MO for The Ego. He may have gone back to Planet Perky for now but no doubt we will see him again soon claiming some bogus or fantasy victory in some other fictitious court case. And BTW Perky I did receive your PM but am very picky who my penfriends are. I draw the line at ****** PPC bosses.

[Fright-Flight-Fight]

Non conclusively. Similarly without the shopping centre details my local knowledge is useless

 

Check PM's

Thanks

[lamma]

"'Some' PPCs also like to refer to the 'pre-action protocols' of CPR. More rubbish from them. the disclosure provisions (31) don't apply to the small claims track. Who would have thought that PPCs would get is so wrong . . . . . . . . they need better consultants." Where does this mention Scotland ? Maybe it it was the "they need better consultants" that caused loopy to vent. Self control is an asset. And still 'the challenge' is not picked up. QED.

[looplotty]

'the challenge', Ah this is the one where a person from another site wants to get a setup parking charge and not pay it so they get taken to court.

If the parking company win the driver will then complain to the court that the parking charge was a setup and the case was a sham. This could then get the parking company classed as a Vexatious litigant and cause major problems, thus playing into the hands of the site and members.

Many people come on here after getting genuine parking charges, why dont you take it up on their behalf, Oh I forgot you already did .. Thomas and Purdy spring to mind, and you lost.

Then comes the 'spin' by certain members of the community stating it was a dumb Judge, defendant never knew the law, cherry picked case or even silence and "We never helped" followed by 'next time we will' and the saga goes on.

The challenge is no challenge because it is legally flawed and quite obvious a setup to entrap whatever PPC is silly enough to do it.

 

As for Scotland, the thread is called "Scottish law - Parking on private Land", the clue is in the title where scotland came from.

[Gambling Commission Rule]

There you go, the Pepipoo Challenge sidestepped again by Perky. On the normal spurious grounds. We know how losing would affect you Perky. The loss of face would be a bitter blow for someone who has convinced himself lhe is the next Perry Mason. Don't worry about it. Not everyone has the courage of their convictions when it comes down to the wire. You are not alone in that. BTW is there anything the experts can help you with again while you are on here? Like your missus getting done for carrying a dangerous load perhaps? Do tell, we are here to help.

[looplotty]

I am sure the challenge would be taken up if it were legal, but it is clearly NOT legal.

A person can not take a case to court to prove a point (not sure what point it would prove anyway as its only the county court).

If a person wanted to do this correctly they would have to get leave from the court to do this (ask permission).

If the person who is challenging does this then it will be taken up, 100% guaranteed, but it needs to be with the approval of the court so nothing can backfire.

Simple as.

[lamma]

The challenge was initiated by Perky. He made the offer. Look it up.

[buzby]

Check PM's

Thanks

 

Gottit! This SC is less straightforward than most - as you probaby know, the controls were put in place late last year and were pretty well flagged with advance signage, followed by the erection of substantial (and highly visible) signs within the car parks themselves. But herein lies the complication.

 

This SC straddlles two county boundaries, and traffic regulation (that is, the physical movement of vehicles from the traffic lights that control most of the entrance poits is/has become a serious problem. I'm only aware of DYLs on the access roads to the car parks themselves, there being no other barriers, charges and I don;t think there are even time limits either, so If it went to court, you would need to be careful as these roads may well have been adopted, or accepted by the council as 'public'. This could be a minefield!

[My Real Name]

I am sure the challenge would be taken up if it were legal, but it is clearly NOT legal.

Your logic is about as sound as wet tissue paper.

 

The challenge is entirely sound - Perky states a location in which his company has been employed as agent to enforce parking restrictions. A person parks there, in direct contravention of whatever "terms" are in place. All further play invoices and daffy letters are ignored, up until court proceedings are issued, at which point the claim is defended.

 

Which of these steps is not legal?

 

A person can not take a case to court to prove a point (not sure what point it would prove anyway as its only the county court).

If a person wanted to do this correctly they would have to get leave from the court to do this (ask permission).

If the person who is challenging does this then it will be taken up, 100% guaranteed, but it needs to be with the approval of the court so nothing can backfire.

Simple as.

Poppycock. If the point is to settle a point of law, then court is absolutely the place to do it.

 

The challenge is that Perky et al. have no basis in law to make their claims, not that they will not attempt to make a claim anyway.

[Gambling Commission Rule]

What is the bank charges case if not a pre-arranged test case? It's OK Perky, we know you are afraid you will lose it. Don't sweat it. Being a coward in some circumstances is human.

[looplotty]

What is the bank charges case if not a pre-arranged test case? It's OK Perky, we know you are afraid you will lose it. Don't sweat it. Being a coward in some circumstances is human.

 

You will find that BEFORE the test case happened, they obtained leave from the court to do it.

[looplotty]

The challenge was initiated by Perky. He made the offer. Look it up.

 

Did he, wheres that ?

[lamma]

Look it up, others have also issued the same challenge. people are still waiting for him to follow up on his famous "Now to sue Andy Foster and that other bollox Glacier" post. But why are you re-hashing Perky's old tat ? Oh yes, I see why.

[Fright-Flight-Fight]

I'm only aware of DYLs on the access roads to the car parks themselves, there being no other barriers, charges and I don't think there are even time limits either, so If it went to court, you would need to be careful as these roads may well have been adopted, or accepted by the council as 'public'.

 

I personally (nor the driver) were aware of any signage nor any change in policy re: use of PPC's to enforce arbitrary parking penalties.

 

Correct no barriers, no charges & no time limit. Car was not parked on any access road but within the Car Park. As I say soon as I get a chance I'll get some photo's. Thanks

[buzby]

You misunderstand, it is quite possible for PPCs to be contracted to issue Parking Tickets as agents for the council - and in these cases they are not arbitrary. Furtehr to your picture, this wasn;t an access road, but wholly contaiined within the 'car park'. As such there is no requirement for signage to explain the DYL prohibitions.

 

This then opens a fresh argument, why should a PPC have any less responsibility to explain the requirements of their particular DYL than a council has.... unless it is simply for their own entertainment and enjoyment?

[Fright-Flight-Fight]

I understand that PPC's may be contracted. I lived in Brighton for a while .. jesus wept I got a PCN at 09.04 on a Sunday morning for £60. Parking is prohibited after 09.00 (I didn't as yet have my Residents Permit). In any case wouldn't any PCN or Notice to Owner be identified as such and follow the standard guidelines and detail the offence etc. This was clearly not the case.

 

I as a driver have received numerous tickets (NTO's) at times and on numerous occassions I've argued that DYL were not clear i.e. under water etc. but that's another story. The fact remains that I understood clearly this was not a civil matter but Council/Police/Traffic Warden or PPC contracted by the Local Council. With the Official Bodies I had the right to defend and with satisfactory results in several cases. I never had debt collectors hassling me as a RK.

 

The Notice to Owner (RK) didn't even stipulate the 'infraction' or 'Offence' .. it was merely an invoice.

 

Ok if this is a PPC contracted by Local Council or whatever then fair play but if not then the DYL's cannot be enforced on private land nor can they require me to detail who the driver was.

 

You know far more about this than me and I did ask advice but I'm not entirely sure what you're getting at at times. This is my lack of knowledge not your advice.

 

Cheers

[buzby]

We're opening up the debate, and as such I have to mention the other issues you raised to avoid a misunderstanding. In the situation you describe, the lines could be made of toffee for all the use they are, they neither prove a transgression or impose any oblgation on the parker.

 

It is contract law, and at this SC, I have seen no signage that states what its 'lines' are for. Decoration? Amusement? Take your pick. Your agreement to their contract terms is paramount, if they don't have this - and can PROVE it, they've got a big problem collecting on their 'invoice'.

Edited June 26, 2009 by buzby