UK CPS parking charges...the aftermath

[freakyleaky]

Can I just let any new members know that we don't advise taking action on any advice given via Private Message from users you don't know. Any advice should be given on the open forums so it can be corrected if wrong.

[sour_cream]

Can I just let any new members know that we don't advise taking action on any advice given via Private Message from users you don't know. Any advice should be given on the open forums so it can be corrected if wrong.

 

Sound advice.

 

I asked the OP to go from PM to open forum.

In doing so I realised i would be blasted by some, shame the idiots come out of the woodwork, which to be honest I expected them to, they always do, but I wanted to post in public, because it is wrong to give a blanket impression that all will go away if ignored, this simply is not always the case.

 

Whether there is a basis for contest or appeal is by the by, I chose to just let it go.

 

The outcome will always vary, but think about this, the moron who I dealt with in court will get some confidence boost from our outcome.

[My Real Name]

nope - basically the notice says you may park for a fee

it is private land.

That would be a contract then. Nothing to do with trespass.

 

people stop trying to apply every case as being the same - a car parked over a line thus taking up two spaces is wholly different, there is no charge here by the hour for parking ....

I spoke only of the car park mentioned by the OP

The OP gives very limited detail of the circumstances. It looks as though you are being entirely disingenuous.

 

I spoke only of the incident with me at the car park the OP spoke about. I can't speak for anyone else's situation.

You seem to have being doing just that in earlier posts.

 

Hang on a sec - are you the shill being referenced in this thread?

[sour_cream]

are you the shill being referenced in this thread?

 

No

 

I asked the OP to go from PM to open forum.

you obviously missed this bit, er that would mean he spoke first via PM

[the_looker]

i'd just like to say that i appreciate everybody's comments. as a new poster who is new to this situation it's helpful to get many different people's perspectives on what to do or not to do. so again, thank you to everyone for taking the time out to reply to my post.

[the_looker]

No

 

 

you obviously missed this bit, er that would mean he spoke first via PM

 

in sc's defence this is entirely true. i asked for advice from him and he insisted i post in the main forums

[sour_cream]

i'd just like to say that i appreciate everybody's comments. as a new poster who is new to this situation it's helpful to get many different people's perspectives on what to do or not to do. so again, thank you to everyone for taking the time out to reply to my post.

 

you are welcome, opinions are always controversial

take care

sc

[freakyleaky]

as a new poster who is new to this situation it's helpful to get many different people's perspectives on what to do or not to do. .

The majority do seem to be advising along the same lines.

[My Real Name]

you obviously missed this bit, er that would mean he spoke first via PM

Which you posted at the same time as I posted, give or take 60 seconds.

you are being entirely disingenuous.

[My Real Name]

i'd just like to say that i appreciate everybody's comments. as a new poster who is new to this situation it's helpful to get many different people's perspectives on what to do or not to do.

Which means, unfortunately, that you run the risk of receiving advice from those whose credibility might be in doubt, or who are willfully misinformed, yet perhaps unaware of their own lack of understanding.

[sour_cream]

Which you posted at the same time as I posted, give or take 60 seconds.

 

 

The bottom line is simple, each situation may have a different end result, to gamble or not to gamble, ignore and hope their demands for money goes away, or risk court, settle and be done with it, or have a go in court.

 

Some posters suggest let it run right up to court papers, let the Car Park guys run up their own expenses. Yes why not. Your choice, what happens if you settle after the court papers, theres still the issue of costs which may or may not be sought even after paying the sixty quid.

 

Its the readers choice.

 

General view is to ignore and they will go away, and for the most part fair ??% success.

But this blanket advice may not work in every situation, in mine it did not, hence my post.

 

Whether the Judge set a precedent or not, open for appeal or not, for me was by the by.

[lamma]

I see takings are down again. Much wrong with the 'advice' in my view but this single point "this is an enforceable debt" is enough to show the sham. Maybe the PPCs are having a 'PR blitz' after Oliver Mischon (QC and parking specialist) said on national television it was easier to not pay.

[Gambling Commission Rule]

Fake threads and posters of the world unite [Waits for furious backlash from non-Perkies].

[sour_cream]

Oliver Mischon (QC and parking specialist) said on national television it was easier to not pay.

 

of course it is easier not to pay

[crem]

of course it is easier not to pay

 

Great! You finally got round to the right advise.

[sour_cream]

Great! You finally got round to the right advise.

 

Lol

I did just that, ignored them, even when the papers arrived. Except for me it did not work, which is the single only reason I posted.

It is a seperate argument whether the Judge shot off down a tangent and invited appeal in doing so.

Surely there can not be actual advice. It is merely a question of the reader seeing all options to enable the reader make an informed decision.

I posted only what happened to me.

[My Real Name]

I posted only what happened to me.

No you did not. You posted ill informed and inaccurate advice, albeit extrapolated from your own limited experience in court.

[sour_cream]

No you did not. You posted ill informed and inaccurate advice, albeit extrapolated from your own limited experience in court.

 

(edit)

 

MODERATORS NOTE:- Twice you have been warned about insulting other users. There won't be a third.

Edited June 30, 2009 by freakyleaky
as above

[My Real Name]

(edit)

Resorting to petulance and childish retorts seems to be par for the course when you are entirely unable to carry on a reasoned discussion, and are continually being presented with your own inconsistency and hypocrisy.

 

Or, in terms that might be more commensurate with your level of reasoning: (edit)

Edited June 30, 2009 by freakyleaky
Insults.

[Gambling Commission Rule]

If this supposed loss is true (a big if) you can see how it might have happened. With an attitude like that I can see our friend calling the Judge names. If he does not understand the vast difference between contract law and trespass then you do have to question what he was doing there in the first place.

[sour_cream]

oh dear oh dear its funny I do not recall seeing any of you with me in courts so it is a little strange you have a better recall of what happened than I do.

I did not resort to petulance in my response I merely suggested one should remove one's head from the sand and consider for just one second there are occasions when things don't go as you guys would like

I posted to the OP to show that things are not always cut and dried, there is sometimes folly in believing the armchair lawyers.

nothing inconsistent in my post.

 

oh i forgot to say, instead of the word sand i used preverbial, i fail how to see that as an insult ?! i don't want an answer this is an observation

Edited June 30, 2009 by sour_cream
edit

[sour_cream]

(edit)

 

MODERATORS NOTE:- Twice you have been warned about insulting other users. There won't be a third.

 

pardon me i am sure

i post in order to show the reader there are times when we don't get the results we want nor expect, to be barracked by the armchair lawyers in a 'I know better than you attitude' is narrow minded at best.

[Gambling Commission Rule]

"Armchair lawyers". Hmm, where have I hear that expression before?

 

If you had consulted the "armchair lawyers" and not acted in a bullheaded way as if you know everything you might have been tipped to the difference between contract law and trespass and actually had a chance. I'm not sure what to make of you- you keep telling us you were beaten unfairly but seem to spend your whole time arguing with those who could have helped you. Who is the narrow minded one?

 

Can I ask when and where this alleged hearing was heard and who appeared for UKCPS? Was there another "armchair lawyer" of a different persuasion in attendance?

[londoncass]

pardon me i am sure

i post in order to show the reader there are times when we don't get the results we want nor expect, to be barracked by the armchair lawyers in a 'I know better than you attitude' is narrow minded at best.

 

Oooh you went to court? Why don't you scan and show your judgement?

[Al27]

God this is boring.

 

Nothing ever changes.

99.9% of these silly notices don't result in court.

0.1% do.

 

Of those 0.1%, remaining:

• a proportion are fishing trips hoping for a non defended win.

• a proportion don't even see the PPC turn up to court

• a proportion fail because the PPC hasn't even bothered - missing signs in court bundles, no decent particulars of claim

• a proportion get no further than mediation

 

Which leaves a couple left where odds are seriously stacked against the PPC.

 

And then if they do win, they probably won't see their money and they won't make any profit even if they do get paid.

 

So all this theoretical claptrap is pointless.

 

Just tell us what dates you have lined up Perky, and start a thread for each. Then your theory can just be tested in the real world.

 

What's the point of bickering with people when it doesn't actually matter if you're right or wrong? Makes no odds in the real world.