Private Parking Tickets discussion

raptor23

Presumably the same as all previous posts applies to Tesco? I'm now on around letter 6. They've even sent me some legal precedents "to think about".

Is there any way you could prosecute these people for harrassment?

roddydogs

Show us the "Legal Precedents"

raptor23

Having now read the first few pages of this thread, the example given is of CPS v SJ Thomas 2008 which is referenced on page 1. The other example is Watteau v Fenwick from 1893 which suggests that the keeper is responsible for his agents actions.

juliescot

raptor23 wrote: »

Having now read the first few pages of this thread, the example given is of CPS v SJ Thomas 2008 which is referenced on page 1. The other example is Watteau v Fenwick from 1893 which suggests that the keeper is responsible for his agents actions.

How sweet of Tesco to give you something to read.

Keep ignoring.

If you are interested in some discussion about the CPS v SJ Thomas case there is some stuff here http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.html?t=1935663

raptor23

juliescot wrote: »

How sweet of Tesco to give you something to read.

Keep ignoring.

If you are interested in some discussion about the CPS v SJ Thomas case there is some stuff here

Aha nice one. The person in that thread is in exactly the same position as me with the exact same letter it would appear.

ripped_off_driver

raptor23 wrote: »

Having now read the first few pages of this thread, the example given is of CPS v SJ Thomas 2008 which is referenced on page 1. The other example is Watteau v Fenwick from 1893 which suggests that the keeper is responsible for his agents actions.

PPCs have been telling blatant lies about "precedent" for some time.

Combined Parking Solutions v Thomas involved a person who had unwisely posted on a web forum that he was the driver and then denied it in court. The case is County Court so can never be a precedent anyway but it is of even less relevance given its strange and very unlikley to be repeated facts. The PPCs have latched onto the case to make all sorts of false statements, eg. that the RK is responsible for/presumed to be the driver etc etc. Outrights lies and very possibly fraud.

Citing Watteau v Fenwick is just laughable. It has no relevance whatsoever. Anyone claiming that the driver can be an agent for the RK needs their heads examined.

Sput2001

Citing Watteau v Fenwick is just laughable. It has no relevance whatsoever. Anyone claiming that the driver can be an agent for the RK needs their heads examined.

Unless the driver is acting specifically on the RK's behalf, it is indeed utter nonsense.

Coblcris

Small claims court sets no precedent,. to assert that it does is at best incompetent or at worse deliberately fraudulent. It may even be a combination of those.

To quote Watteau v Fenwick is quite frankly laughable.

ballla

Hi, I have read all the posts around private parking tickets but I just need a bit of advice on what will happen next. I am finding all this a bit scary.

Basically, my ticket fell off the window on the hottest day of the year! I appealed (I hadn’t seen this website then) and included a copy of my ticket. Surprise surprise my appeal was denied. I then saw this website and have been ignoring any correspondence since. I have just received a letter from a company called Roxburghe Debt collectors asking for £140 or they will instruct solicitors to take me to court. My question is, if I have a ticket and this went to court am I right in thinking the court can only award loss of earnings to the parking company i.e. zilch because I bought a ticket. Also, I know I have effectively admitted it was me in the car by appealing at first, but one of the letters they sent has an incorrect car registration number. Will this have a bearing on anything? Thanks!

roddydogs

A parking offence from 1893?