parking ticket from excel parking services limited

ManxRed

Didn't Mrs Ibbotsen's husband get the £42 back in a counterclaim against VCS's subsequent claim on him?

Coupon-mad

ManxRed wrote: »

Didn't Mrs Ibbotsen's husband get the £42 back in a counterclaim against VCS's subsequent claim on him?

Yep. All in all it was a great result for the Ibbotsens and for everyone (except the PPCs). Especially with VCS -v- HMRC happening the same month.

Stephen_Leak

Yes. As he won his case, Judge McIlwane awarded him the £42.50 cost of the Norwich Pharmacal Order against his wife.

Trebor16

ManxRed wrote: »

Incorrect. They only have to convince a judge that on the balance of probabilities the person who they have claimed against is the driver.

See CPS v Thomas.

Sorry, but you need to understand that there are several options here, and just because someone favours a different option to you, does not make them 'wrong'.

Your second 'fact' is incorrect too. There are plenty of examples on here and in other forums where it is suggested to write to the PPC. For example, in setting up a potential claim for harassment, or where there is a lease car involved. I know that doesn't apply here, but it does make your statement incorrect.

Thomas had identified himself as the driver on internet forums.

notts_phil

Trebor16 wrote: »

Thomas had identified himself as the driver on internet forums.

As perky was doing his usual lurking

ManxRed

Trebor16 wrote: »

Thomas had identified himself as the driver on internet forums.

I know that, that isn't the point I was trying to make.

A defence of 'prove I was driving' is a weak one, if you were the driver. The OP I was responding to in this thread (before I was pulled up by Oopsadaisy) seemed to indicate that he might be the driver.

Therefore a defence reliant on the PPC not knowing who the driver was, when you were the driver does not mean the PPC are stuffed. They could either link this thread to the driver (unlikely I know) or if the judge simply came out with the question in court then the defendent would be in a bit of a pickle.

There's also the issue that the decision is based 'on the balance of probabilities' rather than burden of proof.

Hence my point, that the 'they don't know who the driver is so they are stuffed' is not as cast iron as Oopsadaisy thinks it is.

Oopsadaisy

So your point is the "PPC don't know who the driver is so they are stuffed' defence doesn't work if the PPC knows the driver.....magnificent logic.

I'll absolutely concede that the 'PPC don't know who the driver is so they are stuffed' defence does indeed not work if the PPC knows who the driver is.

I'm still amazed that on the basis of one very badly defended case you suggest writing to a PPC...but hey ho, knock yourself out.

ManxRed

Oopsadaisy wrote: »

So your point is the "PPC don't know who the driver is so they are stuffed' defence doesn't work if the PPC knows the driver.....magnificent logic.

I'll absolutely concede that the 'PPC don't know who the driver is so they are stuffed' defence does indeed not work if the PPC knows who the driver is.

I'm still amazed that on the basis of one very badly defended case you suggest writing to a PPC...but hey ho, knock yourself out.

You have a problem with your reading abilities.

If you were to be taken to court (unlikely I know, but it does occasionally happen), presenting a defence of 'prove I was driving' (when you were) is a risky strategy. If you WEREN'T the driver, no problem at all. The poster I was responding to in this thread indicated that they were the driver.

Let's get it straight here, in the 85% or so (my estimate, I have no figures) of cases where the PPC (or more correctly, the landowner) has suffered no financial loss - either the car park is free, or in a car park where there are charges, but the 'offence' is something like 'parking over a white line, or something stupid) then the advice is ALWAYS 'ignore, ignore, and ignore some more'

However in the small number of cases where a loss has been suffered (such as in the case of the poster I replied to in this thread), or it is a lease car, or the RK might be a worrier, or for any similar reason, there are TWO options.

1. Ignore (probably OK)
2. Write and offer them the amount underpaid/give them the impression you were the driver.

Either option is valid (and I did mention BOTH options in my original response in this thread), and I am not the only poster to advocate this on here, in fact I'm not the only poster IN THIS THREAD to advocate this.

If you don't agree with this then that's fine, everyone has their own viewpoint and opinion, however it doesn't make people such as me who disagree with your viewpoint 'wrong'.

IGNORE is not ALWAYS the correct option.

Learn to live with it.

Oopsadaisy

We've already established that the chances of being taken to court under ANY circumstances are something like 100,000 to 1.

Even if the DRIVER has a T-shirt made to say 'I was the driver' or even if they admit it in court, a properly defended case is almost always going to win.

So on the basis of miniscule odds of ever being taken to court, combined with the impossibility of the PPC winning against a properly defended case [even one where the driver is known], why would anyone feel the need to write to the PPC?

ManxRed

If its a lease car? And that's only one example.

Face it, the ignore advice is right MOST of the time, but not ALL of the time. Even then, as I've said, but you've continually ignored, it is only as a suggested alternative to 'ignore'.

I'm not alone in giving this advice on this forum.

And I'm not 'wrong', I'm only in disagreement to you.

That's it from me in this thread.