Parking Eye - Nasty tricks

Oopsadaisy

Boo hoo hoo.

Coupon-mad

Newbies - Welcome to MSE! :T

The advice in England/Wales has changed - DO NOT IGNORE!!!!


So stop reading this ancient thread and get reading the sticky threads on page one from this year instead!!


THANKYOU





ANY QUESTIONS? PLEASE READ THE TOP 'STICKY' THREADS ON THE CURRENT FORUM BOARD. No replies here.




Please consider this thread archived!!! No replies please, look at the current forum .......:)

Please consider this thread archived!!! No replies please, look at the current forum!!!!!!!!!


No replies here...please.


Read the sticky threads and start your own new thread if you still need reassurance.

See my signature - the current forum is just one click away.

No replies here...please.

Sirdan

Clodia wrote: »

As everyone on this forum is so unpleasdant I am not going to post any more. The police got Parking Eye off my back. End of. if you don't like it, sod off!!

Pot , kettle , black .

Two points, on a personal note I felt it was relevant to point out that Section 5 of The Public Order Act does not have any relevance to the letters Parking Eye write...the reason this needs pointing out is that I would not wish other visitors here to go quoting that at Parking Eye because Parking Eye will fall off their chairs laughing as they know it has no relevance and they would probably increase their letters to anyone wrongly quoting the law as they love a hooked fish who is ignorant of said law.

For information the correct legislation is The Protection from Harassment Act 1997 .

Second point, your reaction to Parking Eye and this forum are somewhat disproportionate ...running to the Police when someone writes you a letter stating they may take some legal action is clearly ridiculous ..and telling everyone here to sod off just because they have given advice which is somewhat critical is patently pathetic..may I respectfully suggest you get over yourself and get a life !!:)

taffy056

Stop being a nasty sod Sirdan and clodia I would suggest you follow marilyn's advice, we are in fact helping her in a new thread .

taffy056

Hello before you consider placing a reply here, can you please start a new thread instead for advice. just press on the new thread button below to do so. The reason why I am asking this is this thread is very old, and the advice on here has changed, as things alter in the parking world the advice changes, it is easier to follow and offer advice in a brand new thread.

Many thanks

give_them_FA

Sirdan wrote: »

"Finally I contacted the local police in Lancashire and complained about being caused harrassment, alarm and distress by their behaviour, an offence under the Public Order Act section 5."

Writing a letter to someone at their home is not an offence under S5 of the POA..regardless of what the letter may say ..I do hope your friendly PC has a better grasp of the law than you do !

It may not be an offence under the Public Order Act. But it IS, most certainly, an offence under S.1 of the Protection from Harassment Act and also probably S40 of the Administration of Justice Act 1970, to make threats demanding money from someone who does not owe it. Indeed it could be classified as making unwarranted demands with menaces, a serious criminal offence.

And as you address the subject of proportionality in your other post, the reaction of complaining about clear breaches of the criminal law by complaining to the police, is far more proportional than to send a series of unpleasant threatening letters about a "debt" of about £50 - £60 that actually doesn't exist at all.

If only more people took these illegal threatening letters to the Police....

Coupon-mad

Newbies - Welcome to MSE! :T

The advice in England/Wales has changed - DO NOT IGNORE!!!!


So stop reading this ancient thread and get reading the sticky threads on page one from this year instead!!


THANKYOU





ANY QUESTIONS? PLEASE READ THE TOP 'STICKY' THREADS ON THE CURRENT FORUM BOARD. No replies here.




Please consider this thread archived!!! No replies please, look at the current forum .......:)

Please consider this thread archived!!! No replies please, look at the current forum!!!!!!!!!


No replies here...please.


Read the sticky threads and start your own new thread if you still need reassurance.

See my signature - the current forum is just one click away.

No replies here...please.

Sirdan

give_them_FA wrote: »

It may not be an offence under the Public Order Act. But it IS, most certainly, an offence under S.1 of the Protection from Harassment Act and also probably S40 of the Administration of Justice Act 1970, to make threats demanding money from someone who does not owe it. Indeed it could be classified as making unwarranted demands with menaces, a serious criminal offence.

And as you address the subject of proportionality in your other post, the reaction of complaining about clear breaches of the criminal law by complaining to the police, is far more proportional than to send a series of unpleasant threatening letters about a "debt" of about £50 - £60 that actually doesn't exist at all.

If only more people took these illegal threatening letters to the Police....

The Police would tell them to ignore or deal with it as a civil matter ...they certainly would not be interested in taking it on as a criminal case ..

give_them_FA

But its not a civil matter if it's a breach of criminal law. You are right, there is a degree of inertia amongst the lower ranks you will meet on the front desk, who cannot be bothered and probably wouldn't understand. But ask to see the station inspector and you may have more luck.

Sirdan

give_them_FA wrote: »

But its not a civil matter if it's a breach of criminal law. You are right, there is a degree of inertia amongst the lower ranks you will meet on the front desk, who cannot be bothered and probably wouldn't understand. But ask to see the station inspector and you may have more luck.

As the Act itself provides specific provision for civil remedy the willingness of the Police/CPS to pursue all but the most serious cases as criminal matters is effectively nil.

There is also of course a defence for the PPC that just because a keeper asserts that they were not the driver doesn't actually mean they weren't. Not a great defence but none the less a defence of sorts, i.e. we write to the only person who may be a position to respond to us...who else are we to write to ?

Also is it really harassment to tell someone that you may pursue a course of action that is legally possible ?..keepers have been taken to small claims ,where the claim spectacularly fails (usually) but none the less the PPC has carried out what it said it would in the letter.
(Above it could be argued falls under Section 3 (c))

If a keeper provides some evidence that they were not the driver and they still get letters that is of course an entirely different matter.

Getting a letter threatening possible legal action does not amount to harassment if that action is actually possible ..however slim the reality of the PPC pursuing it.
Just because a letter threatens something that you don't like doesn't make it harassment.
However the frequency/volume/wording of letters could change that, but still more likely of success in a civil action as the evidential threshold is so much lower.