Jump to content

You can now change your notification sounds by going to this link https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/index.php?/&app=soundboard&module=soundboard&controller=managesounds

 

You can find a library of free notification sounds in several places on the Internet. Here's one which has a very large selection https://notificationsounds.com/notification-sounds

 

 

BankFodder BankFodder

 

BankFodder BankFodder


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • The OP could call Express to see if they will withdraw the claim if she restarts her claim and just pay the court issue fee.    Then everyone is a winner! 
    • Hi Stormy   I do wish you good luck but I'd urge you not to get over-optimistic about a letter from your GP having any bearing on the outcome of this.  I do not share London1971's view that such a letter will assist you in defending the claim against you - unless you are suggesting that the diagnosis is so bad that you aren't functioning - in which case you probably ought not to be working.  Is your GP going to say that you can't be held liable for a breach of contract, but that you're perfectly OK to continue working and to make significant decisions in other areas of your life?  I don't know.   Also, I'm uncertain where the question of bullying and harassment first surfaced in this thread.  You engaged them on a NWNF basis to pursue a claim for you.  Apparently they contacted (or attempted to contact) you a lot - certainly more than you felt necessary or were comfortable with, and you ended up deciding to discontinue the case.  But were they harassing you?  Again, I simply don't know because I wasn't there - only you were.  Most people complain that they don't have enough contact from their solicitors, not that they are being harassed by being contacted too often.  [EDIT:  I also think most people would associate "harassment" with behaviour that is in some way harmful or damaging to the recipient, and not with a situation where the alleged harasser is trying to act in the other person's interest and to their benefit].    And I'm not sure where the bullying comes from?  They're suing you because they think you are in breach of contract and that you owe them the costs and expenses they've already incurred - and that they cannot now recover from the other party because you decided to discontinue the case.  I'm no particular supporter of law firms but, unlike some people, I don't have "anti-lawyer" as a default setting.  If they've genuinely incurred costs acting on your behalf and in your interests, then I think they've got a more than fair case to recover those costs.  Threatening to sue you or actually suing you isn't necessarily bullying.   I honestly think your best chance of success is questioning the level and extent of costs and expenses they claim to have incurred and try to reach a mutually acceptable settlement.   As I've said before, I'm not intending to be critical of you in any way and I'm really sorry that all this (the original accident, hassle with the lawyers and now them suing you) seems to have contributed to all the stress you have to bear.  I'm really just interested in ensuring that you can see this problem from all points of view and that you don't place too much reliance on an approach that I think has only very limited chances of success.  (But of course - as London1971 has pointed out - there's no harm in getting a GP's letter anyway AND preparing a legal defence like BankFodder is suggesting AND preparing to think about settling.  They aren't all mutually exclusive and you should keep as many irons in the fire as you can.  Use belt and braces and don't just rely on one).   Anyway.  Good luck.  I'm frequently wrong and you may win outright!
    • I would go with the following....please feel free to amend or add.   WITNESS STATEMENT OF Baycloves.pdf  
    • I think it would be prudent to stick with a realistic objective and that is the hundred and £69 which you you can apparently support by means of evidence. You originally said that you could have sold them for four times – £400 and I think this is certainly unrealistic. If you had some official evaluation of the books from an independent source then you would have stood a good chance but as the books have gone, I think your fallback is the £169
    • Hi  I don't have an issue going all the way - The only question I would have would be whether I could expect to recover the resale value or whether it would be best to concede this is unlikely. I can prove to some extent the expected resale value but not as readily as the prices originally paid. 
  • Our picks

    • Currys Refuse Refund F/Freezer 5day old. Read more at https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/422656-currys-refuse-refund-ffreezer-5day-old/
      • 5 replies
    • Hi,  
      I was in Sainsbury’s today and did scan and shop.
      I arrived in after a busy day at work and immediately got distracted by the clothes.
       
      I put a few things in my trolley and then did a shop.
      I paid and was about to get into my car when the security guard stopped me and asked me to come back in.
       
      I did and they took me upstairs.
      I was mortified and said I forgot to scan the clothes and a conditioner, 5 items.
      I know its unacceptable but I was distracted and Initially hadn’t really planned to use scan and shop.
       
      No excuse.
      I offered to pay for the goods but the manager said it was too late.
      He looked at the CCTV and because I didn’t try to scan the items he was phoning the police.
       
      The cost of the items was about £40.
      I was crying at this point and told them I was a nurse, just coming from work and I could get struck off.
       
      They rang the police anyway and they came and issued me with a community resolution notice, which goes off my record in a year.
      I feel terrible. I have to declare this to my employer and NMC.
       
      They kept me in a room on my own with 4 staff and have banned me from all stores.
      The police said if I didn’t do the community order I would go to court and they would refer me to the PPS.
       
      I’m so stressed,
      can u appeal this or should I just accept it?
       
      Thanks for reading 
      • 6 replies
    • The courier industry – some basic points for customers. Read more at https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/421913-the-courier-industry-%E2%80%93-some-basic-points-for-customers/
      • 1 reply
    • The controversial sub-prime lender says the City watchdog is investigating its practices.
      View the full article
      • 0 replies
looplotty

The great PPC debate

style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 4025 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

Recommended Posts

So I have decided to start a thread to debate PRIVATE PARKING in general and the enforcement.

Private Parking and the laws (or lack of them) is always an emotive issue and with the amount of cowboy companies who have been prevented from clamping for various reasons or just see private parking as an easy way to get money does not help the image.

Private parking is here to stay and so are the companies that do it, many will come and go, the ones that do it right and enforce/win cases will stay.

I wonder, if it is possible to have a thread on here dedicated to a serious discussion, without insults from any party.

Any takers ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its all been done before. PPCs just have to act legally and lawfully. Try it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Put large signs stating parking is for permit holders only, the landowner will allow persons without permits to park for a charge of £100, reduced to £60 is payment made within 14days, The charge will increase to £150 + court costs if legal action is taken to recover charge. 1 charge per 24hrs can be given.

Do not park unless you agree to, and understand the conditions.

 

Car parks, Parking charge attached.

 

What is wrong with that ... Big signs of a type a reasonable person would see.

 

Do you not think the person should pay the charge if they decide to park ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Put large signs stating parking is for permit holders only, the landowner will allow persons without permits to park for a charge of £100, reduced to £60 is payment made within 14days, The charge will increase to £150 + court costs if legal action is taken to recover charge. 1 charge per 24hrs can be given.

Do not park unless you agree to, and understand the conditions.

 

Car parks, Parking charge attached.

 

What is wrong with that ... Big signs of a type a reasonable person would see.

 

Do you not think the person should pay the charge if they decide to park ?

 

 

So said permit holder parks up, unfortunately 1mm onto white line.

 

PPC can't get him for not having a permit, so decide to use this mythical new charge, parking over the white line.

 

Just behave, we all know PPC's have no place in this Country.

 

Jogs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are a lot of statutes and regulation that PPC have to follow to act legally and lawfully. Signage is just one small issue. Getting it right is their problem and the sooner they do act legally and lawfully the better. They would win every case ! The only small problem they have with this in my view is that their business model disappears. Why not start a 'Legal and lawful PPC' subgroup at the BPA ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well that charge would not be allowed then would it, he has a permit the signage clearly states the conditions to which parking is allowed and the conditions for paying a charge.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There are a lot of statutes and regulation that PPC have to follow to act legally and lawfully. Signage is just one small issue. Getting it right is their problem and the sooner they do act legally and lawfully the better. They would win every case ! The only small problem they have with this in my view is that their business model disappears. Why not start a 'Legal and lawful PPC' subgroup at the BPA ?

 

I cant see how their business model would disappear, for a PPC to win cases in court then their case has to be strong and legally correct.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I cant see how their business model would disappear, for a PPC to win cases in court then their case has to be strong and legally correct.

 

It's commercial suicide to run a business that concentrates on taking people to court to gain income. Which is why nobody does it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I cant see how their business model would disappear, for a PPC to win cases in court then their case has to be strong and legally correct.

 

1) you could only pursue the driver under the terms of any (mythical) implied contract. How does a PPC find out who was driving? There is no obligation on the RK to offer the information, nor can the RK be pursued instead - Google: privity of contract.

 

2) In order to charge for parking in the manner that you suggest, the PPC would need to hold a contract with the landowner far and above any normal commercial contract.

 

3) Your suggested charge of £100 increasing to £150 does not even begin to be a genuine pre-estimate of losses. How would you prove to a court that you have lost £100 because X parked. This charge is so high that it would seem to me to be a penalty - specifically forbidden by case law in English contracts.

 

There's three just to get you started...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is 2 fold, if a PPC works correctly so charges are issued correctly and once a case goes to court they have done everything correctly and win, then only totally crazy people would pay £150+ instead of £60.

 

There are plans for certain parking companies to work together for a uniform approach to the legal side (signage, tickets, letters, court paperwork).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1) you could only pursue the driver under the terms of any (mythical) implied contract. How does a PPC find out who was driving? There is no obligation on the RK to offer the information, nor can the RK be pursued instead - Google: privity of contract.

 

2) In order to charge for parking in the manner that you suggest, the PPC would need to hold a contract with the landowner far and above any normal commercial contract.

 

3) Your suggested charge of £100 increasing to £150 does not even begin to be a genuine pre-estimate of losses. How would you prove to a court that you have lost £100 because X parked. This charge is so high that it would seem to me to be a penalty - specifically forbidden by case law in English contracts.

 

There's three just to get you started...

 

1 - Civil court is on balance of probabilities, I have yet to see a genuine case where a person did not know who was driving at the time a charge was issued, I appreciate there will be occasions but certainly not the normal.

 

2 - Contracts already exist that allow the PPC to pursue parking charges on behalf of the landowner

 

3 - If parking is £100 and it states £100, why is it a penalty. Check out birmingham airport, over £250 for 24hrs in the parking area next to the terminal, designated to be drop off but if you want to stop longer then you accept it will be an expensive stay as stated on the signage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So what you're saying is that court is not easily winnable at the moment just because of poor signage, tickets and letters?

 

Which bring me back to the fact that even if all the above was spot on AND there were fundamental changes in 100+ years of established law leading to slam dunk wins every time, a business cannot scrape by on measly court winnings and a handful of CCJs a week.

 

Unless of course it would just be tool to get these 'crazy' people to pay up out of fear.

 

Oh, hold on. That's just the current business model isn't it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 - If parking is £100 and it states £100, why is it a penalty. Check out birmingham airport, over £250 for 24hrs in the parking area next to the terminal, designated to be drop off but if you want to stop longer then you accept it will be an expensive stay as stated on the signage

 

Got a link? I can only find £30 for 24 hours:

 

airport.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I cant see how their business model would disappear, for a PPC to win cases in court then their case has to be strong and legally correct.
In the higher courts, maybe. In the lower courts, it can be a complete gamble.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Patdavies has made the cases pretty explicitly - privity, unfair terms and unlawful penalties covers just about as much as needs to be covered.

 

Their are no "correct" charges. Statute does not cover private parking charges. The numbers mooted earlier constitute penalty charges, and are unlawful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sure Al:

 

Where to Park at Birmingham International Airport

 

 

Dropping off and picking up passengers

When dropping off passengers, use our convenient Drop & Go car park adjacent to the terminals and costing £1 for 15 minutes (£2 for 30 minutes).

 

 

I will dig out actual page that explains prices after 30mins ... it works out to be over £250 for 24hrs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 - Civil court is on balance of probabilities, I have yet to see a genuine case where a person did not know who was driving at the time a charge was issued, I appreciate there will be occasions but certainly not the normal.

 

 

You have either misunderstood my point or have deliberately not answered.

 

I was not arguing that the RK did not know. My point was that the RK is not required - short of direct judicial instruction - to reveal the information to a PPC.

 

So how does a PPC ascertain who the driver is in order to sue the correct person.

 

If a PPC takes the RK to court and the RK can prove that he/she was not driving, then the case instantly collapses as the wrong person has been sued. The RK has plenty of way to prove that he/she was not driving at the time without having to reveal who was.

 

Even if you (misguidedly IMO) attempt to rely on the balance of probabilities being that the RK is the driver, how would you manage if the RK is a company? Obviously a compnay cannot be the driver and is not required to name the driver.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They have barriers for paying on exit don't they? This, and its designation as a drop off point, would cover any unfair contract legislation I would have thought.

 

Invoicing £250 subsequently for 24 hours in an open car park nothing to do with dropping off passenger just because the airport down the road has such a facility wouldn't wash in court.

 

In theory, yes, you could pursue Mr Smith if he left his car in your airport drop off zone for a full 24 hours. I can't see how this would happen practically though?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All the (or this) PPC has to to do is take up the challenge against a worthy opponent. re regulations, as I have posted many times see http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/parking-traffic-offences/164651-problems-ppcs-face.html?highlight=problems+ppc+face and FAQs - PPCs - fighting back. The forces are aligned. Has anyone vet seen a letter from a BPA PPC that actually follows the CoP. ALl that advice that Trading Standards gave them willfully ignored. there is much more that could be written about the regulations etc but I will never put that on a public forum least of all one populated by the PPCs. Talk about it in the bar after the next BPA. You never know, I may be listening.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
They have barriers for paying on exit don't they? This, and its designation as a drop off point, would cover any unfair contract legislation I would have thought.

 

Invoicing £250 subsequently for 24 hours in an open car park nothing to do with dropping off passenger just because the airport down the road has such a facility wouldn't wash in court.

 

In theory, yes, you could pursue Mr Smith if he left his car in your airport drop off zone for a full 24 hours. I can't see how this would happen practically though?

 

There are barriers and you are correct he would pay on exit, the point I was trying to make is the charges are on display and if he drove upto the barrier and said "this is too expensive, unfair term etc.." they would simply laugh at him point to the signs.

 

If he did not have the money they would (I presume) send an invoice to him, it went to court if unpaid and I do not see how he could have any defence and the charge would remain.

 

The same with any private car park (the location is irrelevant), if a charge is stated it should be paid and if someone does not want to pay the charge or thinks its too expensive they should have the option to remove the car and not park it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So you are continuing to avoid answering my question (post#17)?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is Perky on something? All these posts, it's like he's in some kind of manic phase in bipolar disorder. Still doesn't answer the questions though. First problem for PPCs, who was the driver? Second problem, is enforcement under contract law or tresspass? Third problem, if the latter how does the PPC sue as only the landowner can sue for tresspass? Fourth problem, can the PPC be sure that the court will rule that the driver (if they know who it was) saw the signage? Vine proves it can be prominent and still not seen. Fifth problem, showing the costs add up to the amount charged without being a penalty and without including court costs. Sixth problem, chasing the charge without frightening and intimidating the defendant (one of the hallmarks of a penalty). Seventh problem, even if you manage to negotiate Dunlop and penalties is it caught by UCTA? I could go on but you get the gist. That is why court action by PPCs will remain a minority sport for those who have petty vendettas to pursue but is not a realistic business. Concerted action by the PPCs will not change this. Anyone that tries to build a business on suing in court should sue for bankruptcy now. Or maybe raffle that caff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Indeed. Plus other legislation the PPCs fall foul of as part of their business model. When completely ignored they have no idea of their victim, is the victim a solicitor or a policeman (or related to one) ? is the victim a hard criminal (or related to one) ? etc. Something must have upset loopy/perky - maybe takings are down ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Absolutely lamma, I wonder has he hit the bottle again? Has a penchant for it I understand. Certainly the behaviour over the past few days is weird, even for Perky. Business down, caff for sale, American property underwater, who knows what's behind it. Maybe the other PPCs he has "consulted" for are saying "you told us it would be different and we are still losing". Who knows. To be honest it doesn't matter a great deal. Perky's outfit is just a minnow, with hardly a pot to **** in. Any delusions of grandeur are just that or some other personality disorder.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is very strange, delusions of adequacy perhaps ? Pointless trying to figure out the unfathomable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...