Park Direct Ltd -

MDBJ

I suppose it was quite predictable that having had some adverse decisions in court one week and been completely silent that, with nothing better to do, certain PPC representatives post on here to bait regulars and, probably, with a view to linking to those posts in such a way as to completely misrepresent the general views here. Not that PPC's have ever been known to misrepresent anything - least of all facts.

muggerbee

Welcome Back Mr P :j

ripped_off_driver

Regular followers of Perky Pieman's exploits will be interested to know that a little digging has revealed that Combined Parking Solutions have lost a number of cases, despite Perky's long hours spent cherry picking, trolling etc. Of course this shows Perky's claim never to have lost a case as just another lie.

The cases so far uncoverered are (no doubt there are many others):

Case 7QZ54950, Poulter, Bury St Edmunds
Case 7QZ32226, Cooper, Milton Keynes

Funny enough you will not see those defeats on Perky's joke of a website.

Care to comment Perky? (we know you are on here as usual, having no other life to speak of).

Regards other trolls such as the latest crop of losers, least said the better. I know PPC reps are muttonheads but no need to wear it on your sleeve.

notts_phil

That's priceless

bromsgrovebarry

Apparantly Perky cannot be with us at the moment as he is in casualty having a bullet removed from his foot.
Nice research Ripped Off Driver. Presumably these cases are 'landmark rulings' like the much hyped Thomas case?

esmerobbo

ripped_off_driver wrote: »

Regular followers of Perky Pieman's exploits will be interested to know that a little digging has revealed that Combined Parking Solutions have lost a number of cases, despite Perky's long hours spent cherry picking, trolling etc. Of course this shows Perky's claim never to have lost a case as just another lie.

The cases so far uncoverered are (no doubt there are many others):

Case 7QZ54950, Poulter, Bury St Edmunds
Case 7QZ32226, Cooper, Milton Keynes

Funny enough you will not see those defeats on Perky's joke of a website.

Care to comment Perky? (we know you are on here as usual, having no other life to speak of).

Regards other trolls such as the latest crop of losers, least said the better. I know PPC reps are muttonheads but no need to wear it on your sleeve.

Your not suggesting Perky has been telling Porkies are you!!:D

notts_phil

I would ring cos and have a chat to him on the phone lol but they only have an 0871 number and I am not paying 10p a minute to chat to a pie eater!

Unless Anyone has a geographic number lol:)

SodG24

chrisspectre wrote: »

A private parking company is contracted to private land. That company has an awful lot of legal work to sort out before operating, including scrutiny from councils, health and safety, fair trading, BPA, SIA, bye-laws, laws etc etc. They then act within those guidelines to control parking. They act within the law.
Now perhaps you can tell me by what laws you act in encouraging trespass?

Scrutiny from :

Councils - Really ? on what grounds ? Councils don't care about private parking enforcement on private ground.

H&S - what exactly do they have to do ? Ensure a hi-viz vest is worn ?

Fair Trading - who on earth are fair trading ? We're not talking Co-Op chocolate here !

BPA - :rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

SIA - they are a certification organisation to which clampers have to belong. There's nothing you have to do extra to be able to look after a private car park. Even then the SIA exams are designed for knuckle dragging zombies to pass so it's hardly an endorsement.

Bye-laws and laws - Yes right !!!! PPCs don't even understand CONTRACT law let alone bye-laws and laws.

Face it, PPCs are rapidly running towards judgement day and bankruptcy.

SodG24

chrisspectre wrote: »

What i can tell you is that years ago there was no clear definition of laws regarding ticketing/towing/clamping which meant that it could be much more costly to defend such cases than to default on them.
This led to many Private parking companies neglecting to defend themselves.

Contract law has been in place for many years - there hasn't been any lack of definition for those in the know. PPCs chose to try any bypass those laws.

If the cases were so costly to defend why bring the cases in the first place - stupidity ?

Sirdan

chrisspectre wrote: »

A private parking company is contracted to private land. That company has an awful lot of legal work to sort out before operating, including scrutiny from councils, health and safety, fair trading, BPA, SIA, bye-laws, laws etc etc. They then act within those guidelines to control parking. They act within the law.
Now perhaps you can tell me by what laws you act in encouraging trespass?

Oh really how interesting.

APCOA told BBC watchdog that apart from the one instance used by the programme that they had NEVER broken BPA guidelines..BUT I have an E-mail dated prior to that statement from the BPA themselves confirming that my complaint re APCOA flagrantly breaching the code was justified and the BPA had advised them to change things.

So who was lieing APCOA a major PPC that has won industry standard awards (what a joke) or the BPA ...????

Town & City despite being told continue to have signage with the word penalty in numerous car parks.

Pet debt collectors Roxburghe ..so squeaky clean re guidlines and laws ..er I think not ..hence the OFT are currently "MINDED TO REVOKE" their licence to trade.

As for the law ..does OPC ring any bells ...let me remind you GUILTY on numerous counts in a CRIMINAL court !!
Oh and not wishing to prejudge but one can only wonder how another PPC is due in court on criminal charges in September ?

Park Direct have 31 unpaid CCjs how is that operating within the law ??