£70 Parking Fine in non P&D Car Park

BigPhil

bluelagoon wrote: »

Not looking for support really, but I think many of the people posting on here actually do more harm than good. There is so much misinformation in these forums that I'm quite sure it gives false hope to some people who eventually end up in Court with a £200 bill.

And in the way that you have worded the majority of your posts you are trying to even the score by making people think that they will end up in court unless they just pay up.

bluelagoon wrote: »

I'm in no way suggesting that ALL car parking charges are justified as I'm sure there are some ruthless operators out there who issue tickets under questionable circumstances but with regard to the tickets issued on our land I do know that every ticket is enforceable and any people who don't pay end up in Court.

Not so. What you know is that every ticket so far taken to court by Mr Perkins has not been defended sufficiently well to provide the Judge with good reason to dismiss the claim. As previously stated the Judge will not fill in the blanks in the defendant's case or look up case law which has not been put forward as a defence. The fact is that the vast majority of private companies will not take court action as they know that it will only take one successful case, properly defended with the correct argument to blow apart their multi-million pound business as from that day forth nobody will ever again pay a private parking ticket - CPS issued ones included.

Elmer_Dudd

Bloomin Heck-just looked a bit more into this and these parking companies have applied 5.3 million times to the DVLA for individuals keeper details and the DVLA just keeps dishing them out without a moments hesitation.:mad:
Soon these firms will have enough of our keeper details to start up their own database and bypass the Swansea DVLA and save themselves £2.50 a shot.
This is all about making big money-£2.50 becomes £80-£200 a go.
No wonder these guys want to frighten everyone into paying up-it's a big big earner for minimal outlay for a so called minor parking 'infringement'.:eek:
How long before someones details (inevitably) fall into the wrong hands and someone ends up being hurt as a result-if it has not happened already.
What do these firms do with all this data after they receive it.Do they sell it on to others like bailiffs/debt collectors etc and the sort?
This is a bit of a nightmare really and no one seems to have the gonads to stop it.
Really Spooky and unsettling!:mad:
Got to run..left my car in Aldi's car park for the weekend and awaiting a million dollar fine.
Elmer:cool:

joe1965

bluelagoon wrote: »

Actually I do spend a few hours each weekend issuing tickets as that's when our car park is abused... but no - I don't wear a cap - I wouldn't want to give anyone any clue that I've just stuck a ticket on their car as some can be quite angry after being ticketed and I try to avoid confrontation.

What you mean to say is that you don’t want confrontation with people who will stand up for themselves, just the vulnerable ones who you can bully and coerce into paying.

Bluelagoon, if you are going to place links to court judgements PLEASE could you link them to true judgements rather than the fakes you are using to try and persuade us you are in the right?
Judgements have the court seal on the first page with the name of the judge handing down judgement, none of the examples you gave have either. Also on every proceeding page on the top left hand side it doesn’t just say “approved Judgement”, it has the judges name above it.

Having looked at the CPS website, all I can say is what a bunch of cowboys!
They say "During this process, we are bound at all times by the DVLA's code of conduct for the release and processing of data and The Administration of Justice Act 1970."
The Administration of Justice Act 1970 Section 40 of the act provides that a person commits an offence if, with the object of coercing another person to pay money claimed from the other as a debt due under contract,
"he or she utters a document falsely represented by him to have some official character or purporting to have some official character which he knows it has not".
The ticket used is clearly a copy of those used by wardens who are lawfully entitled to issue tickets. And under what law is unauthorised removal of the ticket an offence? Again, that is only when issued by wardens or police officers who are lawfully entitled to issue the ticket. CPS are just shysters.
Please just tell us in what town you have your land so we can all come and park for a few hours. Or maybe on some of your friends land as it seems you can make money out of that also.
Again from the CPS site:
"We are so confident you will be happy with our service, we offer an unique loyalty system - As a "Thank You" for recommending a friend YOU will receive £5 (inc vat) for each and every ticket issued for life on their land (as long as you are still a customer) - There is also NO limit to the amount of people you recommend."
You don't give a monkeys backside about the parking. You are just out to fleece whoever is foolish and misinformed enough to believe you.

bluelagoon_3

digp wrote: »

go get a life you joker

Thank you for this intelligent contribution to the discussion!

bluelagoon_3

joe1965 wrote: »

What you mean to say is that you don’t want confrontation with people who will stand up for themselves, just the vulnerable ones who you can bully and coerce into paying.

Actually they all pay up and whether they get abusive or not in the car park, they still get a ticket and their photo taken.

joe1965 wrote: »

Bluelagoon, if you are going to place links to court judgements PLEASE could you link them to true judgements rather than the fakes you are using to try and persuade us you are in the right?

Ah yes, the good old 'they're fake' argument.

joe1965 wrote: »

Judgements have the court seal on the first page with the name of the judge handing down judgement, none of the examples you gave have either. Also on every proceeding page on the top left hand side it doesn’t just say “approved Judgement”, it has the judges name above it.

They're not Court judgements - they're Court transcripts. I apologise for the confusion but I just assumed that you'd know the difference. I'd be happy to post the actual Court judgements as well but I guess they'll just be fakes too!

joe1965 wrote: »

You don't give a monkeys backside about the parking. You are just out to fleece whoever is foolish and misinformed enough to believe you.

On the contrary, the 'permit holder only' signs work very well and have reduced the parking problem significantly - anyway, if they didn't work and these tickets were not enforceable we'd just start clamping instead.

bluelagoon_3

BigPhil wrote: »

And in the way that you have worded the majority of your posts you are trying to even the score by making people think that they will end up in court unless they just pay up.

Yes, in my experience unless people do pay they end up in Court.

BigPhil wrote: »

Not so. What you know is that every ticket so far taken to court by Mr Perkins has not been defended sufficiently well to provide the Judge with good reason to dismiss the claim.

That's good enough for me.

BigPhil wrote: »

As previously stated the Judge will not fill in the blanks in the defendant's case or look up case law which has not been put forward as a defence. The fact is that the vast majority of private companies will not take court action as they know that it will only take one successful case, properly defended with the correct argument to blow apart their multi-million pound business as from that day forth nobody will ever again pay a private parking ticket - CPS issued ones included.

If this were true then don't you think that it would have already happened? Hundreds of thousands, possibly millions, of tickets issued in the last few years and not one single example of a "properly defended case".

Perhaps you should give up writing about your 'theories' and look at what happens in the real world, in real Courtrooms.

peter_the_piper

If this were true then don't you think that it would have already happened? ""Hundreds of thousands, possibly millions, of tickets issued in the last few years and not one single example of a "properly defended case"".

The main reason being that if there's a mere sniff of a case being properly defended you can't see them for dust.

joe1965

bluelagoon wrote: »

Actually they all pay up and whether they get abusive or not in the car park, they still get a ticket and their photo taken.

Taking someone's photo without their permission can be judged as being against their human rights. You are not a law enforcement agency or a government body which is empowered by law to take photos without the person’s permission.

bluelagoon wrote: »

They're not Court judgements - they're Court transcripts. I apologise for the confusion but I just assumed that you'd know the difference. I'd be happy to post the actual Court judgements as well but I guess they'll just be fakes too!

Please do, I'm up court myself on Thursday so I'll take a copy with me and they can determine their authenticity.

bluelagoon wrote: »

On the contrary, the 'permit holder only' signs work very well and have reduced the parking problem significantly - anyway, if they didn't work and these tickets were not enforceable we'd just start clamping instead.

So if your ticketing didn't work you would start extorting the money from drivers. Just have to borrow the mother in laws disability card. Nothing you could do then.:D

I notice you only address a few parts of my post, it must be hard to defend the indefensible.

peter_the_piper

Presumably they are registered with the data protection system for this, highly unlikely that blue lagoon is.

joe1965

There are provisions in law for them to do so to provide security for the company and customers. Not for someone to try and extort money from you.