OPC - Ingress Park

[Old Snowy]

Ummm. Sounds interesting. Are OPC represented? Second thoughts, don't answer that.

[Jeevesikins]

Just to try and elucidate a little more (having received confirmation of the claims being stayed today), the particulars of why it has been stayed amount to the following (a summary):

 

1. Authority: "The claimant shall disclose the documents on which it relies as giving it authority to issue parking tickets and collect payments from visitors to and residents at Ingress Park."

The Court wants to see the paperwork (contracts)behind Crest/Peverel, landowners, and OPC and to see who is making any money from this scheme, how it came about, who is benefiting etc.

 

2. Signage: Essentially the Judge wants a plan showing where all the signs are or were, and what they had written on them, when they were removed (by OPC, Council, or parking vigilantes) - and if so were they replaced or not.

 

3. Contract: "The claimant shall explain in legal terms how it contends a contract is made between themselves and parking drivers and shall state the legal effect of any signage relied upon; identify the nature of the offer and the acceptance and identify the parties to any such contract."

It goes on to ask how they calculate the parking control fines and to explain the damage/loss OPC incur by someone parking.

 

4. Debt Collection: "The claimant shall clarify its relationship with Windsor-Smythe and Partners and in particular as to whether there is any linkage in the form of personnel or management."

 

Overall, it was very pleasant reading...finally, someone is going to get to the bottom of all this.

[crem]

Looks like OPC might be in the doo-doo with all that the court is asking for. :lol:

[DBC]

Paragraph 3 is very interesting, as it gets to the heart of the matter regarding actual material loss or damage suffered by the land owner.

[crem]

Paragraph 3 is very interesting, as it gets to the heart of the matter regarding actual material loss or damage suffered by the land owner.

 

Actually, if Jeevesikins has quoted it correctly, the court is asking for clarification of what loss OPC have suffered, rather than the landowner, as it is they who are bringing teh court case. This will presumably be even harder (impossible) for OPC to quantify.

[letshelp]

I bet OPC wish they had never started on this path now:-D

regards

[Old Snowy]

If OPC engage the contents of their collective craniums they'll fold on all counts. If the BPA involve themselves in advising OPC they'll almost certainly suggest the same. Will anyone on the PPC stump want close examination of any clause purporting to confer full agency rights or a detailed examination of what any payments made by OPC to the landowners amount to?

 

As any contract between OPC and the landowner will almost certainly contain a clause indemnifying the landowner against any claim arising from OPC's activities on their site one can surmise that Peverell will be taking a close interest in the matters.

 

Is that just the faintest whiff of phoenix in the air?

Edited September 14, 2010 by Old Snowy
Clarity

[Zeb77]

Oh yes, Peverel are quietly very interested indeed in the outcome of this case.

 

As far as I know, I was the first case scheduled in this latest batch of IP residents (which have a large amount of tickets) v OPC cases. My case was not heard, as the Judge stayed it, of course.

However, OPC/ Peverel weren't to know that, but they did know that whatever the outcome of my case was, it would set some kind of precedent for the next 26 cases.

 

My second court bundle from OPC, received the day before my hearing, contained defamatory witness statements from the Peverel estate manager and his lackey here at IP, attempting to smear my character and good name/ scare me into settling out of court. I don't think they would bother doing this for all 27 of us, just the unlucky resident who was the first to be heard (me).

 

There are no depths which these people won't stoop to.

Edited September 15, 2010 by Zeb77

[afcwben]

sounds pretty astonishing

[Big Barnett]

On the 8th August 2010 OPC took pictures of my father's car parked on the kerb outside our house but no ticket was issued. On the 28th August 2010 he received a letter stating he has been issued a private parking ticket on 08/07/10, this was 51 days after the photographs were taken.

They sent photographic evidence clearly showing no such ticket was placed on the car. According to OPC signs around Ingress Park a ticket should have been issued immediately for blocking the highway. I'm under the impression that each household has 1.6 car parking spaces. So for very 2 houses there should be 3.2 parking spaces. Where is the additional 1.2 space that is missing?

If someone could help us or give us advice that have been in such a situation we would be very appreciative!

From the BigBarnett house members in Ingress Park.

[Al27]

Just ignore. The ticket is just an unenforceable invoice.

[Al27]

OPC lost in Wolverhampton County Court today on the grounds that they could not prove the identity of the driver.

[afcwben]

OPC lost in Wolverhampton County Court today on the grounds that they could not prove the identity of the driver.

 

Does anynone know why OPC keep doing this, it makes no sense

[netpots]

OPC lost in Wolverhampton County Court today on the grounds that they could not prove the identity of the driver.

 

Can you PM me with any details please, I would like to pass them on to Wolves TS.

[jpaul3767]

Al, if you could do the same for me please by pm or email I would be very grateful. I would love to add this into my defence, and any other details about previous cases that have been lost by OPC. This IP business is shaping up to be a great mould for future cases. Hope it gets heard before my case which is likely to be end of November or early December. Thanks in advance. JP

[phoneywar]

I was the defendent in the case at Wolverhampton, I always maintained that i could not remember who was driving the car that day, I neither confirmed or denied being the driver, I wrote 2 letters to OPC asking them to substantiate their case against me, they could not. At the end of the day it should be up to the claimant to prove on balance of probability who the driver was. I would never advise anyone to lie in court, dont say you were not driving if you were, however, you dont have to help the other side, So if you are not sure then dont admitt to anything just to accomodate these parasites, Neither confirm nor deny it and ask them to substantiate their case. I am aware that the default advise on the forum from people far cleverer than me seems to be never to reply to them however in my case this helped greatley. I would also like to take this opportunity to thank AL27 (Alex) for all his help and support and i would advise anyone in a similar predicament to listen to his advise, but remember to do what you are comfortable with and tweak any defense to suit you.

[Al27]

You've got some more information for us phoneywar I think?

 

For impartiality, the judge at Wolverhampton only found against OPC because our defendant wasn't the driver. Arguments such as contractual penalties, unfair consumer regulations and contractual offers were dismissed. The judge stated that the signage constituted a valid contractual offer and the amount was an agreed charge in debt.

 

Fake court papers were described as legitimate copies of papers to be prepared and that it was a valid tactic by debt collectors.

 

Basically all the established defences and points of law were demolished in a tough hearing.

 

Be aware that OPC will probably now try to push cases towards Wolverhampton. These need to be transferred to a nearby court to avoid this problematic judge.

[letshelp]

Is there any evidence that this judge is on the board at OPC?

regards

[GuidoT]

Al27 - That case is not a real victory for the consumer as people do not always run the do not know driver option.

 

As a defending litigant in person your case should be transferred to your local court, so if you live in the Wolverhampton area be wary of this.

 

OPC would have no valid ground to get the matter transferred to Wolverhampton, given they are in Hertfordshire.

 

Al27 - was Excel v Hetherington used to argue the unenforceable penalty point?

[Al27]

Yes - it was described as "not necessarily persuasive". Your guess is as good as mine!

[GuidoT]

Okay it just shows how uncertain litigation can be, we found a similar level of inconsistency with the bank charges.

 

It does not matter how good you think your case is, if you get the wrong judge you are in some difficulty.

 

Good work Al27 helping.

[phoneywar]

Reference the above, the point about the Judge is of course valid, but this also applys to the defendent as i must admit i found the whole thing quite stressfull and had trouble getting my point accross, another person using the other points in the defence perhaps in front of another Judge would probably make a better case.

[Al27]

The judge is meant to be au fait with the law. It's not your job to explain it to him in words of one syllable.

 

You did a sterling job in circumstances I've never seen before.

[Al27]

It's Friday, and we all know what that means!

 

OPC lose in court again.

 

No proof of driver.

Edited September 24, 2010 by Al27

[Old Snowy]

Before there is any wailing and gnashing of teeth there are some points that should be borne in mind when considering this judgement.

 

Firstly, as has been said OPC lost.

 

Secondly, one should always run the best defence available (singular) even where there are others that can be applied. In such circumstances this often leads to what can look like concessions in others but in reality amount to little but chaff. Sometimes, it has to be said, such concessions have the appearance of sops offered by judges to improve the impression of balance though I'd doubt any of them would ever admit to it. Publicly.

 

Lastly, no decision in a County Court is binding on any other although suitably coincident circumstances can provide persuasive argument. Importantly, insofar as they relate to the allegedly false Court papers, the comments made, obiter, by the judge at Wolverhampton relate solely to the instant case and if viewed in full are very likely to be less obiter and more dicta.

 

I doubt he was viewing them in the context of the Unfair Contract Terms Act or the Fraud Act let alone the OFT guidelines. In short, there is nothing here to be concerned about other than continuing to ensure that defence cases are constructed carefully - which A127 has demonstrated his capability at on numerous occasions. A lesson OPC would do well to learn from. As the saying goes:

 

"A fool learns from his own mistakes. A genius learns from those of others"

 

On the basis of their recent Court performance OPC would seem to fall into the former bracket rather than the latter.

Edited September 25, 2010 by Old Snowy
Clarity