Parking "tickets" when parked on private land

bargepole

Conor2 wrote: »

Yes..in the £100's.

As asked on another thread, before you got banned for making abusive posts, can you give us a single example of a PPC winning a defended case in court, and getting £00s in costs? (Ones where the defendant didn't turn up, and the PPC got a judgement by default, don't count).

If you can't do that, I suggest you stop posting ill-informed nonsense and misleading people with your rantings.

therealdeal_3

bargepole wrote: »

As asked on another thread, before you got banned for making abusive posts, can you give us a single example of a PPC winning a defended case in court, and getting £00s in costs? (Ones where the defendant didn't turn up, and the PPC got a judgement by default, don't count).

If you can't do that, I suggest you stop posting ill-informed nonsense and misleading people with your rantings.

ermmmm.......

http://www.rochdaleonline.co.uk/news-features/2/community-news/15278/judge-enforces-parking-penalty-in-landmark-case

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

I8Connor

Conor2 wrote: »

Yes..in the £100's.

Get real, how much is Michael Perkins paying you?

bargepole

therealdeal wrote: »

ermmmm.......

http://www.rochdaleonline.co.uk/news-features/2/community-news/15278/judge-enforces-parking-penalty-in-landmark-case

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

Well done, you found the only two cases (out of tens of thousands of unpaid tickets) where a PPC succeeded in court.

Both these cases are well known on other forums, and the consensus seems to be that Perky's mob chose their victims very carefully, and used forum postings against them in court.

Google for court cases involving Excel Parking Services, and you'll see what happens in properly defended cases.

therealdeal_3

bargepole wrote: »

Well done, you found the only two cases (out of tens of thousands of unpaid tickets) where a PPC succeeded in court.

Both these cases are well known on other forums, and the consensus seems to be that Perky's mob chose their victims very carefully, and used forum postings against them in court.

Google for court cases involving Excel Parking Services, and you'll see what happens in properly defended cases.

I found 2 cases, they lost in one and the other one they turned up late and as a result the case is going to be reheard.

The one they lost no one really knows why, apart from the newspaper reports and we all know that reporters get it wrong (ie. The one I posted was not a landmark) so apart from the fact A won and B lost the remainder of contents cannot be shown as accurate.

The question was asked to show a case, implying that NO COURT will back up a charge, I showed you 2 (1 England, 1 Scotland).

This site is not the 'poo' one and over here people have an open mind and will go with the mob mentality.

Wig

bargepole wrote: »

Well done, you found the only two cases (out of tens of thousands of unpaid tickets) where a PPC succeeded in court.

From case 'A'
Mr Thomas did not have to have seen the warning signs, only that they were present.

If the judge said this he was in error. Vine v Waltham Forest. And the ruling does not make case law - Vine v Waltham is case law.

It looks like the case Perky initially had thrown out, the one where the judge said "How do you know he was driving" and Perky replied "We just do". Yes, it's in Oldham C Ct so it must be the same case! They must have appealed or the case was adjourned.

therealdeal_3

Wig wrote: »

From case 'A'
Mr Thomas did not have to have seen the warning signs, only that they were present.

If the judge said this he was in error. Vine v Waltham Forest. And the ruling does not make case law - Vine v Waltham is case law.

It looks like the case Perky initially had thrown out, the one where the judge said "How do you know he was driving" and Perky replied "We just do". Yes, it's in Oldham C Ct so it must be the same case! They must have appealed or the case was adjourned.

Vine v Waltham Forest states that you do not have to see the signs, it is an objective test so as long as they are present, visible then objectivly you are deemed to have seen them.

I dont know about the comment "We Just Do", this looks like it was an urban myth as there is nothing to actually document it was said. As for the case being thrown out (Yet again more sensationalist headlines from people) from reading the many pages on the forums it seems the case was not thrown out just that the court stated the original claim did not go into enough detail and wanted the claim description enhanced and as they went onto win I presume they must have done it.

Neil_B

therealdeal wrote: »

The question was asked to show a case, implying that NO COURT will back up a charge,

No that was not the question asked where you chose to become so outstandingly and amazingly abusive.

You had stated quite clearly that they had a right to 'penalise' people. No they don't.

Your failure to understand your ill informed error led you to get riled. You're too easy.

Wig

therealdeal wrote: »

Vine v Waltham Forest states that you do not have to see the signs, it is an objective test so as long as they are present, visible then objectivly you are deemed to have seen them..

No, Vine states exactly the opposite, it has to be shown that the driver saw and understood the signs.

From Vine, the Recorder states:
I am not persuaded by the argument that when she parked there the sign was not there visible for her to see. Although the Range Rover was parked close to the wall and was high sided the sign was visible. Mr Parker, whose evidence I accept said it was visible. It was also conceded by Mr Godfrey that from time-to-time these signs are vandalised, but there was no suggestion that it was vandalised on the day of the incident. I was very much persuaded by Mr Godfrey’s evidence. I found him a frank and very convincing witness, and he was quite open about the fact that from time to time the signs are vandalised. It was unfortunate that Mrs Vine had not seen it, because as a result she was clamped.

The apeal court ruled that as it was found that the sign had not been seenthere could be no contract, visible sign or no visible sign. As follows

To show that the car owner consented or willingly assumed the risk of his car being clamped, it has to be established that the car owner was aware of the consequences of his parking his car so that it trespassed on the land of another. That will be done by establishing that the car owner saw and understood the significance of a warning notice or notices that cars in that place without permission were liable to be clamped. Normally the presence of notices which are posted where they are bound to be seen, for example at the entrance to a private car park, which are of a type which the car driver would be bound to have read, will lead to a finding that the car driver had knowledge of and appreciated the warning. In this case the recorder might have reached such a conclusion about the appellant’s state of knowledge, but he did not do so. The recorder made a clear finding of fact that the appellant did not see the sign. That finding is not surprising in view of the absence of any notice on the wall opposite the southern parking space and the appellant’s distressed state, the reason why the appellant parked and left her car hurriedly. It was the appellant’s evidence that she did not see the sign. There was never any suggestion that the appellant was other than a truthful witness. The recorder held, correctly, that the appellant, by parking her car where she did, was trespassing. Unhappily, the recorder jumped to the conclusion that the appellant had consented to, or willingly assumed, the risk of her car being clamped. In making that leap the recorder fell into error.

As I said, earlier, if the judge thinks that it is not necessary for the driver to see and understand the signs then he WAS in error.

therealdeal_3

Forget what the recorder stated - it went higher and therefore the recorders comments are irrelevant.

The vine case if you read it all was 'unusual circumstances' .. (her state of mind/sickness etc...) the justices do state 'absent unusual circumstances'

The comment
Normally the presence of notices which are posted where they are bound to be seen, for example at the entrance to a private car park, which are of a type which the car driver would be bound to have read, will lead to a finding that the car driver had knowledge of and appreciated the warning.

So ... as I stated first of all .. Its an Objecetive decision ..