Excel Parking Defeated in Court Today

[lamma]

IIRC the only Pepipoo challenge Perky has taken is trying to obtain advice from the Eagles there on behalf of his missus on a traffic matter without being found out. And he even failed at that! He pretends he cannot take the other long running Andy Foster Pepipoo Challenge by saying that it would be seen as a "set up". You do have to laugh at the irony of it.

 

really ? what was the traffic matter ? speeding ? PCN ?

[lamma]

There was a victory for CPS in Portsmouth County Court and in Scotland also documented on this forum.

 

cherry picked. and I bet that each time the victim was drawn into communicating with the PPC. Never communicate with a PPC. The peipoo challenge still awaits. but judging by the 'legal issues' page on Perky's website it will never be taken up ! I wonder about the many car parks that CPS 'watches', do the contracts confer proprietary rights to CPS or appoint them as proper 'agents' of the landowner (not the tenant). or do they just say something like "The Licence confers upon the Client and the Company the right to patrol the Licensed Area and to issue ticketed parking fines". The other PPCs that have been daft enough to pay attention to Perky may well be 'reassessing'.

[Gertrude Spitzenberger]

Glasgow driver hit with £5k parking fine - The Sunday Mail

[kiptower]

then half way down it reads :lol:

 

This year the Sunday Mail exposed English firm Central Ticketing, who have more than 100 Scottish sites. Drivers got £135 fines but their signs are often obscured. They had a contract in Stirling suspended after hundreds of complaints from shoppers.

[lamma]

Glasgow driver hit with £5k parking fine - The Sunday Mail

 

I refer you to post number 52 cherry picker. Well I point it out to other readers really as you cannot answer that post without admitting the true nature of the PPC 'case'. A properly presented defense works (Excel knows), fish in a barrel are a different question which is exactly why the pepipoo challenge lies open still. Although I did think you would have commented on the posited contract terms. and have a look at this, a PPC telling the truth. Huddersfield Examiner - News - Local West Yorkshire News - Travellers have returned to Leeds Road - but won't get a parking ticket The same spokesman (Attwood) who lost in court a couple of days later over exactly the same issues. "These people know the limitations of the law" correct we do indeed.

[buzby]

I hate to admit this, but I totally missed this one (as I was out the country for a month at the time), otherwise I would have gone to Paisley Sheriff Court. Unfortunately, at this late stage I cannot get hold of the 'decisions' file from the Scottish Court Service to discover whether Krystof Bortkiew had actually appeared in court. As h'es ms likely one of the transient Polish community, he would have made a convincing defendant, in that he had almost no risk, and I would seriously doubt whether the parking company managed to enforce the judgement, or is simply using it as window dressing.

 

I'll go to the court next week and see what I can dig up.

[lamma]

thanks

[JonCris]

then half way down it reads :lol:

 

This year the Sunday Mail exposed English firm Central Ticketing, who have more than 100 Scottish sites. Drivers got £135 fines but their signs are often obscured. They had a contract in Stirling suspended after hundreds of complaints from shoppers.

 

 

Well you know what they say "no publicity is bad publicity" ............. but in this case it is:lol:

[68904]

Have a read of this newspaper article regarding EXCEL, seems like as well as getting a bad court decision, they have finally realised that they do not have authority to issue unenforceable invoices at a car park in Huddersfield.

 

http://www.examiner.co.uk/news/local-west-yorkshire-news/2009/04/29/travellers-have-returned-to-leeds-road-but-won-t-get-a-parking-ticket-86081-23497279/

Edited May 4, 2009 by 68904

[Al27]

Glasgow driver hit with £5k parking fine - The Sunday Mail

 

Have we ever seen a transcript for this? No idea what his defence was, apart from what we gleam from that top notch bit of reporting.

 

By the way, did you ever even get your £5k?

 

I think I'd hapily put up with a CCJ for a few years. The bailiffs would have problems finding £5k+expenses in my rented flat, I can tell you.

[buzby]

The transcript will be copyright of the Court Reporter's Service, and they cost an arm and a leg to purchase. I hope to be at the court later in the week and will see what is publically available.

[johnandchelle]

This is not a court victory

Gertrude is on the wind up..posted something similarly stupid on an earlier post of mine! Worra tool!!!

[JonCris]

Have a read of this newspaper article regarding EXCEL, seems like as well as getting a bad court decision, they have finally realised that they do not have authority to issue unenforceable invoices at a car park in Huddersfield.

 

Huddersfield Examiner - News - Local West Yorkshire News - Travellers have returned to Leeds Road - but won't get a parking ticket

 

They would still try it on so it's got now't to do with nonenforceable it's more to with not wanting to get their heads kicked in by the travelers

[Gertrude Spitzenberger]

I should think one or two Excel enforcement officers handing out tickets ought to shift them.

[lamma]

Dftt

[crem]

I should think one or two Excel enforcement officers handing out tickets ought to shift them.

 

So why haven't they done it then? Maybe it's something to do with the following?

 

Martyn Attwood, technical director of Excel Parking, said: “We have to go through due process. The responsibility is with the land agents. All we can do in the interim is monitor the situation.

“If things get out of hand there’s not much we can do except call the police.

“These people know the limitations of the law and we have to deal with them as such.

“We just have to abide by the limitations of the law.”

He added the company would be unlikely to issue the travellers with parking tickets for staying in the car park longer than the maximum 90 minutes.

Mr Attwood said: “We would give them a ticket but I don’t think it will get much of a result.”

 

[lamma]

perhaps future letters from Excel should be posted back to Excel (after keeping a photocopy) personally addressed to Mr Attwood with just the words "The limitations of the law" written or overprinted on the letter.

[68904]

I should think one or two Excel enforcement officers handing out tickets ought to shift them.

 

Who or what are EXCEL enforcement officers?

What can these non descript forces enforce?

Are they backed by statute law, or just a nonsensical notion that someone has entered into an imaginable contract, that they dont know about?

Gerty you imagine and exagerate the nil powers that EXCEL employees have.

They cannot issue fines or PCN's, just unenforceable invoices as we have seen from the last clash with the judicial jamboree, which are worthless pages from the EXCEL parking book comic strip.

The public are getting wise to your [problem], make hay while the sun shines as the [problem] you operate is on its last legs.

[Gambling Commission Rule]

I have to say that Perkytrude is somwwhat letting the side down. I know the PPCs are not exactly bursting with brains but even by their low standards he is something of a parroty, unimaginative dullard. Anyway this latest Excel humiliation - I expect there could not be a shade of red that is redder than Attwood's face at the moment. The decision is from what I have read extremely interesting and potentially game changing. It means any action in respect of unauthorised parking can only be taken in tresspass by the landowner. It's no longer a question of were you the driver?, did you see the signs?, is it a penalty? etc but rather do we as a PPC have any right to take an action under contract law at all? All because Excel tried to pursue a vendetta and ended up getting a legal kicking they will not forget in a hurry.

[lamma]

the case is not game changing - its the same game and the reason Excel failed. proprietary rights (or 'agency') and the inability of PPCs to offer parking in the first place (and in almost every case). No sane person would give those rights to a PPC and very few PPC own their own car parks. All well known aspects of the PPC [problem] - this time they had a defendant who was not cherry picked and who stood up to present a proper defense. What of NCP you say ? they fall to the many other sins of PPCs and ownership of their car parks isn't always straightforward - it is a complex organisation. We have seen clear fraud on NCP invoices in particular 'byelaw' invoices. They are a large company and are averse to court for obvious reasons.

[pin1onu]

prob be the longest thread on CAG the "WINS by CAG members"

Funnily enough I started a thread along these lines back in 2008. Please see here for details. http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/parking-traffic-offences/128051-have-you-had-court.html

 

Things haven't changed much have they.

[JonCris]

gerty you really do live in a strange world. Anyway can't wait for your ahem! 'enforcement' officers giving the travelers a ticket. Do you have BUPA?

[Gambling Commission Rule]

Lamma you're right the basis of PPC invoicing was always dubious. You cannot come on to this land and if you do you are totally unauthorised. However if you do park while unauthorised I will offer the parking for a £100 charge. When you think about it, such an arrangement is completely counter to the laws of common sense never mind as the laws of contract. However while it is obvious to you and I what the legal position should be this is not always the same as getting a court to agree. I think the case may be the first where the court has explicitly recognised the difficulty of proceeding in contract. It can in future can be cited as a authority (will be persuasive especially for permit parking cases but obviously non binding) that a cause of action can lie only in tort (tresspass). It is a further significant hurdle the PPCs will have to negotiate even before they get into driver ID, signage, penalties, UCTA etc. etc.

[buzby]

Regarding the CPS 'win' in Scotland. I couldn;t speak to court officials today because of the public holiday, but a Solicitor chum provided a useful link which, he reliably informed me, lists the disposition of all cases as a matter of public record;

 

Sheriff Courts Judgments Search - Introduction

 

During my research the realson why I kept drawing blanks was there are ony 3 places where this judgement is referred to; The original Sunday Mail story in December 2008. It was not picked up by any other news media (BBC Scotland included who are really 'hot' on national stories like these). The other places to refer to it were Peppipoo and here on CAG.

 

All the other websites were consolidators, carrying the story with exactly the same minimal details and turns of phrase like 'binned'. If the paper's report is to be believed, then the £5,000 action at Paisley Sheriff Court which should be known as CPS or Combined Parking Solutions v Krystof Bortkiew would e easy to find - but it isn't.

 

No case notes are returned for any similar name, as a pursuer or defender, and when you recall that the press report stated further cases in Scotland were 'pending' I would have thought after such a resounding 'success' further cases would have followed. But I cannot find one - not even the one that supposed to have taken place in December 2008!

 

I'll still he heading out to the court to seek non-online confirmation of the facts, but so far, with only one media comment and precious little else, there's something not quite right.

 

More when I have it.

[Gambling Commission Rule]

Regarding the CPS 'win' in Scotland. I couldn;t speak to court officials today because of the public holiday, but a Solicitor chum provided a useful link which, he reliably informed me, lists the disposition of all cases as a matter of public record;

 

Sheriff Courts Judgments Search - Introduction

 

During my research the realson why I kept drawing blanks was there are ony 3 places where this judgement is referred to; The original Sunday Mail story in December 2008. It was not picked up by any other news media (BBC Scotland included who are really 'hot' on national stories like these). The other places to refer to it were Peppipoo and here on CAG.

 

All the other websites were consolidators, carrying the story with exactly the same minimal details and turns of phrase like 'binned'. If the paper's report is to be believed, then the £5,000 action at Paisley Sheriff Court which should be known as CPS or Combined Parking Solutions v Krystof Bortkiew would e easy to find - but it isn't.

 

No case notes are returned for any similar name, as a pursuer or defender, and when you recall that the press report stated further cases in Scotland were 'pending' I would have thought after such a resounding 'success' further cases would have followed. But I cannot find one - not even the one that supposed to have taken place in December 2008!

 

I'll still he heading out to the court to seek non-online confirmation of the facts, but so far, with only one media comment and precious little else, there's something not quite right.

 

More when I have it.

 

You might also ask why the decision is not referred to anywhere on the Combined Parking Solutions website, regarding Scottish parking invoices, when an earlier case (Onifade) is. Perky is usually very quick to post up his nonsense "landmark" wins, such as Oldham. Very curious that he has never done so with this "landmark" win in Scotland.