PPC Court Action

bargepole

infotouch wrote: »

... Or maybe, just maybe the parking companies concerned are getting it together and presenting cases in a way that win.

I bet Simon Renshaw-Smith wishes that were true. His Excel mob must be the laughing stock of the BPA by now.

infotouch

bargepole wrote: »

I bet Simon Renshaw-Smith wishes that were true. His Excel mob must be the laughing stock of the BPA by now.

I have seen 2 of the transcripts for Excel cases and they failed on 2 different areas.

The first (Hetherington Jake), (1) the signage did not state that CARS would be subjected to the overstay charge (2) they did not have any proof to show the vehicle left before the overstay - they had a picture at 1 time entering and at a 2nd time leaving, the defendant claimed they left during and Excel could not state if this was true or not (3) Excel failed to show how they got to the amount claimed and especially as it was ANPR, all atomatic, no manual intervention the charge of £100 was not a genuine pre estimation of the cost/loss.

The second (name I forget) was just down to the fact Excel failed to show the license agreement they had with the landowner and therefore the judge rules they had no rights to collect any charge - nothing else was noted and claim dismissed on this sole ground.

I agree, all the above are basic errors and the fact they paid a solicitors to do the work and present the case is even more concerning.

infotouch

PerkysaLiar wrote: »

Our non-Perky friend (they are never Perky of course - what is he afraid of?) does not appear to be able to read a transcript. HJ decided the charge was a penalty, as is clear from the now readily available transcript. Alan Matthews himself has confirmed that the Excel-landowner agreement was produced as he quotes from it in the other thread. Matthews extremely important as challenges the whole basis of contract law enforcement for unauthorised parking - only the landowner can sue in tresspass. Those are the facts, not the lies and propaganda put out by individuals with a vested interest. Thomas may not have been a set up, but he was only assisted by experts in the first part of his case, which he actually won. Therefore far from being a victory over the experts Perky crusades against it was in fact a defeat. Never let the truth get in the way of a good story, eh Perky?

GCR/Perkysaliar, have you seen the transcript or just from what you have read ?
I have seen the whole transcript from HJ and the judgement transcript from Matthews itis all there in black and white.
I have PMd you on CAG but you have not responded

As for Thomas, I fail to see how an order asking for a full particulars of claim is a victory which I understand (again from the facts) is what happened at the prelim hearing.
If the case would have been struck out then the claimant could NOT have brought a claim on the basis he might get a judge who agrees, that is not how the system works.

I also understand that Thomas confirmed during the full court hearing that his assistant 'Mr Stephen Large' was a person from the pepipoo website who was assisting him. (as noted on the HEARING transcript), to which he lost that case, again only reading from the FACTS.

Not appearing to be rude, but you obviously have nothing of fact to add to the conversation so you are best keeping quiet.

peter_the_piper

I had hoped when infotouch first posted that ,although he was connected with private parking, he might have something constructive and civil to add to the discussion. Its sad that things have worked out the way they have.

bargepole

peter_the_piper wrote: »

I had hoped when infotouch first posted that ,although he was connected with private parking, he might have something constructive and civil to add to the discussion. .

About as likely as one of their "appeals" finding in favour of the appellant, I'd say.

Spartacus_Mills

bargepole wrote: »

About as likely as one of their "appeals" finding in favour of the appellant, I'd say.

Aren't these the appeals that will only be considered if you send the full sum of the "fine" involved with the appeal.

Well you have a great chance of getting your cash back there !!!!

peter_the_piper

I've always been an optimist and like to give them the benefit of doubt until they prove me wrong. Oh Well. Wrong again.

infotouch

peter_the_piper wrote: »

I've always been an optimist and like to give them the benefit of doubt until they prove me wrong. Oh Well. Wrong again.

I think you're telling little white lies here peter_the_piper, you did PM asking me to join another site.

I responsed by stating if members of another site wanted to read comments then they should come here.

You then put the PM on that site.

I sent you another PM to which you failed to reply, then a monkey from another site who seems to have some fixation on Perky signed up here and started ranting.

infotouch

peter_the_piper wrote: »

Trying to find details of the Telford case, only because its the first, and cannot get anywhere. Any bright ideas to finding the cases that infotouch is referring to?

Combined Parking -v- Gladwell
Listed for a small claims trial, 10:00 - 25th June 2009.

With all the solicitors and legal people that purport to be experts on this and other related sites (yeah right, thats the laugh of the day), but if just 1 was legally connected they would have access to CourtTel and get county court lists.

Coblcris

Does anyone have a copy of the Judgment from 'HJ ?. I am sure a full transcript isn't needed. I have been informed that it swung on
1) the PPC depending on Vine, a frequent occurrence. But Vine expressly excluded making any comment about the amount.
(as a footnote to this point any PPC that claims that Vine makes the amount 'valid' is talking horsefeathers !)
2) That the hearing found that the charges were not recoverable - due to appalling signage.
3) That it was a penalty.

But a post of the judgment would be informative.

The full transcript may be even more so, I have been informed that the plaintiff's counsel had some very uncomfortable moments.