Private Parking Tickets discussion

DirectDebacle

At last, someone has addressed my point.

Sir Roger deLodger

As it happens, I don't think that able bodied people should park in disabled spaces.

Thank you.

Coblcris

DirectDebacle wrote: »

Is there anything you disagree with in my post? If not then perhaps advising such thoughtless selfish drivers should not continue that behaviour would be more positive. Telling them they have done nothing wrong does not assist in improving their behaviour towards disabled people.

We all have rights and responsibilities. By all means advise them they cannot be forced to pay the charges but balance that with a reminder of their responsibilities towards others. Particularly in respect of those less fortunate than themselves.

Issues of morality are irrelevant to this.
However deeply held they are merely personal issues not legal ones.

Indignation at the actions of these companies in preying and the weak and defenceless, upon whom they depend for their income, is an equally valid and moral response. But is equally irrelevant to the facts and the law.

Paranoid

Have any of you regular posters on this subject considered the "Protection from Harrasment Act 1997"?

www.uk-legislation.hmso.gov.uk/acts/acts1997/ukpga_19970040_en_1

Have a read. I believe very pertinent to the PPC scam.

Unfortunately those who suffer most are likely to be ignorant of the masses of good advice posted on the site.

A test case perhaps? Might save some rain forest..........

taxiphil

There was a case in the Court of Appeal just over a year ago which established that corporate liability can arise under the Protection from Harassment Act, even where the letters are part of an automated chain process:

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2009/46.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1140905/Sue-Judge-backs-woman-took-British-Gas.html

And I'm only guessing here, but I bet British Gas's letters weren't anywhere near as bad as some of the filth the PPCs send in the post.

Paranoid

Very interesting, taxiphil.

Pity not much chance of a PPC scammer issuing a court action, giving rise to the harrasment defence.

Anecdotally, during my lengthy and succesful action against a clamping outfit the company secretary complained to the police that I was harrasing her when I served a court injunction!

The police arrived and warned me that I would be arrested, taken into custody, and brought before the magistrates if I visited the address again............!

C'est la vie!

anewman

Paranoid wrote: »

Anecdotally, during my lengthy and succesful action against a clamping outfit the company secretary complained to the police that I was harrasing her when I served a court injunction!

If you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen!

Or maybe it's just company policy to mess people around as much as possible and she was instructed to file a complaint of harassment by her employers against anyone who came to the office to rebuke a clamp charge to try stall any action against them.

Plus I thought they needed an injunction against you for power of immediate arrest and court, which they wouldn't have had?!

taxiphil

Paranoid wrote: »

Pity not much chance of a PPC scammer issuing a court action, giving rise to the harrasment defence.

The PPC wouldn't need to sue, it's merely the chain of threat-o-grams that gives rise to the cause of action for harassment (in the Ferguson case, British Gas only threatened to do X, Y and Z via a letter chain in respect of money that Ms Ferguson didn't actually owe; they didn't act on any of these threats). In other words the Protection from Harassment Act is a sword rather than a shield.

Paranoid wrote: »

Anecdotally, during my lengthy and succesful action against a clamping outfit the company secretary complained to the police that I was harrasing her when I served a court injunction!

The police arrived and warned me that I would be arrested, taken into custody, and brought before the magistrates if I visited the address again............!

A classic example of how the authorities are hesitant and scared of taking action against companies compared to individuals.

On a similar note I'm reminded of the time I instructed county court bailiffs to execute a warrant against Tesco over an unpaid CCJ I'd won against them. The warrant came back to me unexecuted with the following reasons as to why it had failed: "bailiffs could not gain entry into the premises" and "no goods were available for seizure", yet this was a Tesco store they visited during the daytime, with its doors wide open to the public!

trisontana

Clampers are such nice people:-

Garage closes forecourt to protect motorists from clampers

Thanks for the person on Pepipoo for highlighting this story.

peter_the_piper

Some old cars and some superglue could work wonders here. They'd give up soon enough.

Dr.Shoe_2

Awwww diddums.

The garage "does not want" people to enter their forecourt out of hours and so have every right to prevent people from doing so. That's what I would say if I was the garage owner.