Private Parking Tickets discussion

therealdeal_3

Neil_B wrote: »

Really? wanna back that up with a successful court case where a ppc has justified 'penalising' someone? Nope, I didn't think so. Rubbish as usual.

Ermmm, well heres 1 in England and 1 in Scotland


http://www.oldham-chronicle.co.uk/news-features/8/news/15246/parking-penalty-just-judge-rules


http://www.sundaymail.co.uk/news/scottish-news/2008/12/14/glasgow-driver-hit-with-5k-parking-fine-78057-20968709/


You asked for a sucsessful case, theres 2.

BTW, as I understand it 1 of the websites mentioned to give advice to help people avoid paying charged even prepared the defence for the Oldham case and they lost it big style.

Neillgb

therealdeal wrote: »

Ermmm, well heres 1 in England and 1 in Scotland


http://www.oldham-chronicle.co.uk/news-features/8/news/15246/parking-penalty-just-judge-rules


http://www.sundaymail.co.uk/news/scottish-news/2008/12/14/glasgow-driver-hit-with-5k-parking-fine-78057-20968709/


You asked for a sucsessful case, theres 2.

BTW, as I understand it 1 of the websites mentioned to give advice to help people avoid paying charged even prepared the defence for the Oldham case and they lost it big style.

Vested interest??

Glacier_2

Oh indeed.

It is no other than Perky of Wolverhampton.

Juan_Karder

therealdeal wrote: »

BTW, as I understand it 1 of the websites mentioned to give advice to help people avoid paying charged even prepared the defence for the Oldham case and they lost it big style.

Only because the driver was very stupid.

therealdeal_3

Juan_Karder wrote: »

Only because the driver was very stupid.

He must have been to listen to the advice given on that site thinking he was on solid ground.

Juan_Karder

therealdeal wrote: »

He must have been to listen to the advice given on that site thinking he was on solid ground.

No.

His stupidity was doing anything other than replying courteously to the original letter confirming he was indeed the RK but he was unable to assist any further in their enquiries to establish who the driver was.

therealdeal_3

Juan_Karder wrote: »

No.

His stupidity was doing anything other than replying courteously to the original letter confirming he was indeed the RK but he was unable to assist any further in their enquiries to establish who the driver was.

No, if he would have done that then he would not be as required in the pre action protocols:
http://www.justice.gov.uk/civil/procrules_fin/contents/practice_directions/pd_protocol.htm
If they were the driver they should say so, if not then say who is and get on with their lives - a 1 liner saying they are unable to help will go against them in court, as Mr Thomas found out.

Dont be intimidated in having to agree with the users of other sites who have appeared here under their strange usernames, they can't get to you on here, you are free to have a mind of your own without running the risk of being banned.

I know what you meant by your original comment about him being a fool, just as you do.

peter_the_piper

therealdeal wrote: »

No, if he would have done that then he would not be as required in the pre action protocols:
http://www.justice.gov.uk/civil/procrules_fin/contents/practice_directions/pd_protocol.htm
If they were the driver they should say so

Not having a legal mind would you please tell us the sections which you refer to which compel the RK to say who the driver is? Even if this is not known?

Neuromancer_2

Chapter 3, section 2 of the Perky Law contains the legal requirement to name the driver. A fantasy law just for PPCs.

Neuromancer_2

Glacier wrote: »

Oh indeed.

It is no other than Perky of Wolverhampton.

Sir Perky of Wolverhampton I will have you know. Knighted in the New Year honours. "Services to trolling" apparently.