Excel Parking Defeated in Court Today

[JonCris]

Why has the link to Pepipoo been removed we are all on the same side are we not & they're a non-profit organization same as here. Is CAG getting paranoid or something?

[My Real Name]

It would not be TS, but the Gambling Commission, which has very specific rules about what can and can't be done with regards lotteries / raffles / tombolas etc.

 

The last time I looked, what Perky is doing with the cafe was surprisingly above board.

[JonCris]

Really MRN how so?

[Gambling Commission Rule]

Apparently after some complaints (wonder who would do such a thing?) the Gambling Commission weighed in and Perky abandoned the raffle of the greasy. Given my username I would be expected to know such a thing. Apparently he has since managed to flog it off some other way, not that anyone really cares, although I am told a very useful uindercover "Eagles" meeting was held there right under his nose. The plonker didn't have a clue.

[JonCris]

Have a look at this.....http://www.funderfinder.org.uk/pack/raffles%20and%20bingo.pdf

 

Perhaps a call to TS would be amiss.

 

My reading of the regs would appear to suggest that anyone NOT running a lottery for a good cause, & unless you consider Perky a good cause, are committing an offence - they are not allowed to profit as ALL the money raised less I suppose limited operating costs MUST go to the good cause - anyone want to make that call

[JonCris]

Apparently after some complaints (wonder who would do such a thing?) the Gambling Commission weighed in and Perky abandoned the raffle of the greasy. Given my username I would be expected to know such a thing. Apparently he has since managed to flog it off some other way, not that anyone really cares, although I am told a very useful uindercover "Eagles" meeting was held there right under his nose. The plonker didn't have a clue.

 

Excellent didn't see this before I posted. Incidentally who's 'not my real name' who thinks Perky is 'above' board not ANOTHER perky plant surely:roll:

[My Real Name]

Really MRN how so?

You'll have to excuse my failing memory on that front - Although I do distinctly remember rifling through the Gambling Commission website's regulations, specifically in relation to Perky's cafe sale.

 

Given GCR's responses, however, it would appear that my conclusions are entirely wrong.

[My Real Name]

Incidentally who's 'not my real name' who thinks Perky is 'above' board not ANOTHER perky plant surely:roll:

After 18 months on this board, and 280+ posts, I would have to be in a league above the usual Perky trolls, surely.

[JonCris]

MRN I do hope so & if I'm wrong I apologize it's just that your assertion that Perky was acting above board was, shall we say, a little over the top:D

[Gambling Commission Rule]

Couple ditch plan to raffle off coffee shop : Express & Star

[crem]

Couple ditch plan to raffle off coffee shop : Express & Star

 

“We have spent the last few weeks trying to resolve the issue but to be honest, it is like hitting your head against a wall (oh a bit like talking to a PPC!) so we decided to pull the competition. “In our view the UK has now become a nanny state. (with everyone required to park with all wheels inside a line, and not shop in Aldi for more than 2 hours) Everything is easy to research on the internet these days. This is a government department who do not seem to know what they are doing, (might as well have all teh staff working for PPCs then coz they'd fit right in).”

 

[lamma]

Word has reached me that his raffle has been stopped by the authorities already. I don't know what prompted their action but if true I applaud it.

[pin1onu]

Crem you missed a point

 

“In our view the UK has now become a nanny state. Everything is easy to research on the internet these days.

Yes it is. It's especially easy to find out how to ignore invoices from Combined Parking Solutions and to also how to avoid taking the Pepipoo challenge.

[JonCris]

I know pathetic ain't he "People are finding out what their rights are on tinternet & I'm screwed"

[lamma]

why else do you think they show up on here saying "its legal, pay it" and other dross (apart those PPCs having a 'bad hair day' or PMT - Poor Monthly Takings).

[JonCris]

lol

[buzby]

Sorry for the delay. I've just got back from the Sheriff Court in Paisley, and unfortunately most of my questions remained unanswered due to the fact this was a Summary Cause action, and as the clerk pointed out - all the notes on the case, once disposed of by the Sheriff, are returned by post in a 'bundle' to the pursuers.

 

The company acting for CPS was Gebbie & Wilson Solicitors, a South Lanarkshire based practice, even further away from the Paisley Court than the locus of the motorist's ticket collection point. The public record shows that Decree was granted (with expenses) on 23/01/2009 - the Pursuers of record weren't CPS but the Solicitors.

 

There's no indication whether the amount sued for £3230, plus expenses was ever paid. Strange that the newspaper report stated; "Glasgow driver hit with £5k parking fine" - I wonder what happend to the other £2k?

The Clerk said the case did go to proof and the Sheriff ruled on the facts before him at this hearing. The impression I get was the defender did not have professional representation. Court reference No was SC160/08.

[Al27]

Angela McCredie, LLB (Hons), Dip LP, NP. (Qualified 1997): Angela joined the Court Department of Gebbie & Wilson in 1999. She completed her traineeship and post qualifying experience in the Court Department of a busy, large Glasgow firm. Angela deals with a wide range of court work ranging from Family Law to Commercial Litigation. She has now wide experience of all issues of debt recovery litigation including insolvency aspects.

 

A cynic might say that disassociating from the case reduces the risk. Win and it's all CPS, lose and it was nothing to do with us, gov.

 

As we all know, winning is only half the battle. £3k that will in all probability never be paid and Gebbie & Wilson's costs will have to be paid by the PPCs. Not exactly a profitable exercise.

 

You can have CCJs against people coming out of your ears and you will never see the vast majority of the money. This is all a PR (and ego) excercise designed to get the usual victims to cave in and pay their 60 quids. Pity so many people now go on the internet and are becoming wise to the [problem].

 

There will eventually become a point where a) the laws are tightened up (as pushed for by TPT) and/or b) they'll have to take many many more people to court. The latter is just to risky as they know they'll lose 9 out of 10 and the bad PR outweighs any benefit. If they take someone to court who isn't on the internet they have virtually no PR comeback. We don't know anything about this Paisley guy (who didn't defend properly by the sounds of it), but it's had 0 impact on the last few months.

 

I really think we're looking at 4 or 5 years before the whole [problem] falls apart. Make hay fellas.

 

P.S. I suspect £5k was journalistic exaggeration.

[lamma]

The PPCs could start by issuing lawful paperwork - zero chance of that though for some reason. Oh yes, I remember, its a mail [problem]. Having said that a tiny tiny tiny a number of PPC 'tickets' are enforceable - but its minute. And to the shock of the PPCs reading this (hello guys and gals ) I add that people should buy their tickets in pay car parks.

[Al27]

Having said that a tiny tiny tiny a number of PPC 'tickets' are enforceable - but its minute.

 

I'm assuming you're talking about £15 for not buying a ticket, when car parks around e.g. airports charge a similar amount?

[lamma]

there can be proprietary right, good and clear signage, 'proper' fees and lawful paperwork. see how the odds diminish as you read each item in that list !

[Prawns25]

The Clerk said the case did go to proof and the Sheriff ruled on the facts before him at this hearing.

 

Please excuse my ignorance but does ‘going for proof’ show that the defendant turned up at court?

[Prawns25]

Please excuse my ignorance but does ‘going for proof’ show that the defendant turned up at court?

 

Bump.

[buzby]

Yes, he did (otherwise the decree would have been granted due to non-apparance).

[Prawns25]

Yes, he did (otherwise the decree would have been granted due to non-apparance).

 

Ok. Thanks for that.