Please help with UKCPS and Court Proceedings LTD

taffy056

ppeterson1750 wrote: »

In most cases the person who gets the ticket/invoice/charge was not using the services of the car park owner anyway.

If I am the owner of a carpet shop then the parking is for my customers only, I pay the rent/rates/upkeep of the land so why would I want to be providing a service for other shops that do not have parking ?
The simple truth is I don't and I want to keep my car park for my customers, its a commercial decision and if that person who parked was using my shop then they would not get a ticket/invoice.

It is not legal babble but fact and once a person decides to argue a case then this 'legal babble' becomes very important as the courts are not there to get emotional they look at the laws and as much as you dislike what I am saying the facts speak for themselves.

You don't half speak a load of carp , the business model is based on victimising the very people who use the car parks legitimately, they get done for trivial things like parking on a line or over staying whilst shopping, or coming back after an hour or so ! The people who it don't work on are the success stories here, and the ones who know exactly what this scam is.


You are just an useless troll perky, it must be sad in your world ! And by the way I am still waiting on your reply on that other thread.

fil_cad

That troll is desparate for £sssss otherwise the ghooon wouldnt be on here trying to tempt jo public into filling PPCs coffers up! maybe he should go to church and confess his sins, then he may come out a new man cleansed forever

Stephen_Leak

ppeterson1750 wrote: »

and that is my point.

How much would you demand they pay?

give_them_FA

How much have they got?

H.M. Government Health Department WARNING:

Following the advice of PPC TROLLS can seriously damage your bank balance!

Stephen_Leak

I would still like to hear his answer, though.

give_them_FA

Why give him a soap-box to stand on? I have the feeling this gentleman (hopefully) won't be around a lot longer. You will never get a straight answer out of a dishonest man with an axe to grind.

Stephen_Leak

ppeterson1750 wrote: »

If the signage states £50 per 8hr period and you were present for less than 8hrs then the charge is £50.

I do not understand the point of the question, as surely the answer lies within the question (unless you are trying to be a smart a##e)

I just wanted to make sure, before the next step.

When the charge owed is only, for example, £2, a much more common amount, why do you always ask for more?

taffy056

A free car park, why ask for £80 or so when you stay for say over 2 hours, how can there be a loss of £80 from 1h59min to 2h01min ? How is there a discount of period of 50% if paid within 14 days ? What is the loss here £40 or £80 ? Lets face facts here perky, there is no discernible loss, its a penalty that is why 99.99999% of cases never go the small claim route, that is why threatograms are only sent as it won't stand up as a legitimate charge!

Coupon-mad

Stephen_Leak wrote: »

I just wanted to make sure, before the next step.

When the charge owed is only, for example, £2, a much more common amount, why do you always ask for more?

1. Because they can.
2. Because they are greedy.
3. Because the UK public are gullible.

And it's not about 'loss' if there's £50 written as a contract (not penalty for breach), clearly set out on clear, multiple and well-placed notices. The point being that most PPC fail on pretty much all of those points. Pains me to say that IMHO it is correct that a properly written PPC contract could occasionally win - unless you get a judge similar to those in cases like Hetherington-Jakeman and Martin Cutts who saw right through the scam, saw the real raison d'etre of PPCs.

Coupon-mad

Oooh look, Hasbeen lost another case today, and he had spent MONTHS on it!

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=58542&st=200

Well done Alexis & Hedwig! Comments from ppeterson most welcome...conspicuous by his absence here today...Peter...

:T:T:T:T:T