Owner left site - UKPC and Debt Recovery Plus Ltd

trisontana

peter_the_piper wrote: »

Still waiting for the answer regarding the "challenge" and still waiting for all the court judgements which were defended.

Although he is reluctant to appear on Pepipoo, I have posted his above load of tosh on there, so they can have a laugh as well as us.

peter_the_piper

Psst so did I. Strange how if its so legal what they are doing that they will not stand up to the challenge.

anewman

Shaun_Goater wrote: »

A judge is interested in the facts only. Is the sign correct? Was a ticket issued correctly? Was on offence committed?

Careful. Criminal law and Civil law are entirely different things. An offence is a criminal act! You'd be advised to get your terminology correct if you want to have the slightest chance of winning any defended cases!

Shaun_Goater wrote: »

Quote you Property Act 1925 and see where it gets you.

And as not being the owner of the property, the PPC has no legal interests or rights over the property. Only the property owner does.

Spartacus_Mills

Shaun_Goater wrote: »

Pay the ticket. You wife took up a space that is inteneded to provide for someone with a toddler. It is difficult and dangerous for people with children to walk thru a car park with toddlers.

Yes, you are right. So difficult and dangerous.

However did people manage in the past ?

:rotfl:

keystone

Shaun_Goater wrote: »

What a pathetic and typical reply from someone on this forum. Sod safety for mothers and children, as everything is just a conspiracy to scam the public. Get a life!

Mmm - methinks the scam is not in the provision of the spaces, which are a good neighbourly thing to do, its the way they are policed. What a cowardly argument to justify yourself.

Oh and BTW whilst you and your like are busy being the guardians of public safety (mothers, children, old folks, disabled etc) would you kindly do something about the morons who think its perfectly acceptable to tear round the car park at enormous speed doing donuts and other "manly" things.:D Thats rather more dangerous. Thanks

Cheers

anewman

keystone wrote: »

Oh and BTW whilst you and your like are busy being the guardians of public safety (mothers, children, old folks, disabled etc) would you kindly do something about the morons who think its perfectly acceptable to tear round the car park at enormous speed doing donuts and other "manly" things.:D Thats rather more dangerous. Thanks

Asda in Blackwood (South Wales) claims to issue pathetic unenforceable PPC style charges for just this!

keystone

anewman wrote: »

Asda in Blackwood (South Wales) claims to issue pathetic unenforceable PPC style charges for just this!

Oh - thats going to be reeeeeally effective.:D

Cheers

trisontana

Shaun Goater. You say that judges don't take kindly to "armchair lawyers". I ask again, are you legally qualified, or are you just another "armchair lawyer" who is a humble clerk working for a debt recovery company? Is this why you won't go onto Pepipoo and argue your case with proper lawyers?

HO87

@ SG. If you actually want to put your case, rather than simply ranting, then do so. Standing in a corner stamping your feet isn't going to impress anyone.

Btw

I do sympathise
I too have my own company
I'm not handicapped but my mother is - never had a problem using her blue badge to get a parking space (with her in the car I might add)
I too work whatever hours are necessary for the task to be completed - but I have staff I can delegate work to so I can, for example, come to this forum and have a life away from the computer.
I too provide a service to clients that enables them to operate legally
I appear as a witness on their behalf in court on a regular basis.

You made the choice to go into the business you are in and you made the choice to post here. Neither choices were compulsory, so, don't act like a spoilt child and make yourself out to be so hard done by because few agree with you.

Oh, and please don't get caught in your own spin and suggest that by allegedly "breaching" some implicit contractual condition that a parker in your car park commits an "offence". An offence (unless we are talking personal insult) is a breach of the criminal law.

James_N

Shaun_Goater wrote: »

A judge is interested in the facts only. Is the sign correct? Was a ticket issued correctly? Was on offence committed? Is the CHARGE, not FINE for breaking the conditions of the car park clearly displayed?
If the answer to these questions is YES then the judge is liklely to rule in favour of the PPC. End of story. Quote you Property Act 1925 and see where it gets you. Really find something else to do in the evening, like I do.
Oh and I had to register with Pepipoo so that I could download a court decision that was posted on there, sorry to dissapoint you.

I wish that the PPC that's (so far) failed to "deal" with me as the RK of the car that spent a little longer in a near empty car park than some pathetic cramped text sign located halfway up a wall and written in 12 point font (and thus unreadable) "allowed", when the person who WAS driving (again not me and there's no law to force me to say who it was) was spending money in one of the shops that was "being deprived' of income by my car being in a near empty car-park at gone six in the evening, and then decided that a £60 "fine" on documentation that mimics real council documentation was appropriate, and who then raised this to £100 - oh and now "Court Costs" and "Fees" and "CCJ" and "associated costs" ---- phew .. I WISH they'd have the guts to TAKE ME ON IN COURT.

But you won't will you, not because it's too much trouble, but because you would lose. AND if you ever dared to do that, win or lose, and then make or face an appeal to a court where the decisions COUNT in law - and lost ... it would bring your entire pathetic scam to its knees.

I have no doubt that "my" case is unreasonable and would be thrown out in court - I just wish that a PPC company would finally take someone like me in circumstances like mine on. Game on.

I won't wait though ..........