PPC Court Action

peter_the_piper

infotouch wrote: »

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.

No lie of any colour , it was an attempt to get information both to this site and the other one, under the misapprehension that you were genuine. I was wrong. Your answer, telling them to come here if they wanted information was unexpected. As for the unreplied to PM, I had decided that it was not worth getting involved with a conversation behind the scenes which was likely to turn into a slanging match. I think that by calling a poster on here a "monkey" you have shown you true colours. End of conversation.

infotouch

Coblcris wrote: »

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.

You are correct, the plaintiffs counsel were very uncomfortable. You are also correct in the reasons it failed.

The signage made it impossible to recover a parking charge, the driver stated they had not overstayed and the claimant could not show if this was incorrect as the system only looks at first and last entry time.

The penalty bit was because the parking company could not show how it got to £100, when all their systems are automatic (ANPR, Electronic DVLA link and a couple of letters)

The transcript is on a few locations on the internet, I am sure that you will get many PMs offering it to you.
I have a copy of both the hearing and judgement but I am sure that my copy is not genuine (:rolleyes:) then you are best getting it from a more reliable source.

If you cant get it from the genuine source :rotfl: then come back to me

infotouch

PerkysaLiar wrote: »

Combined Parking v [insert made up name]There's a useful template for you Perky. Hope it helps.Calling me a "monkey". Dear, oh dear, the temper is in overdrive now. You also appear to have confused peter the piper with bargepole. Now I know you are a little slow and have many user names of your own to try to remember, but do try to keep up. It isn't that hard really. I suggest a long walk - when you have returned no doubt you will have some more fantasy court lists for us. Then no doubt a great splash about what a great victory it was.

I have not had any PM from bargepole, only peter - you are getting confused.

So are you trying to say some cases do not exist, please advise when you find a non existant case.

As for monkey, it the cap fits.

infotouch

What is certain, the member PerkysaLiar is seriously obsessed by Perky and everything he does.
His other username Gambling Comission Rule is certainly aimed at Perky (he still thinks Perkys shop raffle was stopped because of them, but then again if you beleive everything you read).

I suspect this person keeps up this obsession with Perky because he has maybe met Perky face to Face and maybe even been defeated by him (or his company) in court at sometime over a parking charge.

It is certain that should this person will NEVER be man enough to come from hiding and show who he really is, people like this never do when they can hide on the internet and carry on his obsession with 1 person in such an unhealthy way.

If you read this persons posts on here (and on the consumer action group under Gambling Comission Rule) you will see what I mean, every post is a dig / insult aimed at 1 person.

Well have fun, as I am sure you will - But seriously for you to be this obsessed with 1 person you have either been defeated by Perky or are just jealous by him (Jelosy takes many forms, some people deal with it well and others are just insultive and take every opportunity to mention the person even when that person is nothing to do with the conversation).

I think the best way of dealing with this is to confront your demons head on, Go on, if you would like someone to act as a middleman then let me know, I will be happy to watch as you two unite.

Goodnight and god bless, (I just had an awful thought of you having lots of cuttings and printouts of Perky on your bedsit wall)

Jez_Wolf

According to the Wolverhampton Express & Star:

"A couple who put up their historic coffee shop in Wolverhampton city centre as a raffle prize today revealed they had abandoned the competition amid concerns by the Gambling Commission that it was an illegal lottery".

http://www.expressandstar.com/2009/04/18/couple-ditch-plan-to-raffle-off-coffee-shop/

Jez_Wolf

Any news from the court in Telford?

Sell Pies!

peter_the_piper

How would anyone not connected with the case find out?

sarahg1969

Did no one from here, CAG or pepipoo attend to watch? If it was a final hearing, it would have been in open court.

peter_the_piper

I'm guessing its the first anyone knew of it.

Coblcris

The court itself should be able to say whether the finding was for the plaintiff or the defendant (or dismissed).