£70 Parking Fine in non P&D Car Park

marleyboy

frank_potter wrote: »

When a PPC thinks they might lose a case through it being well defended it is not unusual for them to fail to attend the hearing. i.e. lose.

As appears to be demonstrated in the first post here:

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/parking-traffic-offences/122841-court-case-victory-securi.html

The Defendant was certainly successful in the aforementioned case.

Surely, this is just another forum site, albeit a useful bit of information, but no different to this forum, its just someone elses version on an event, which has to be taken with a pinch of salt, as there is nothing in anyway of factual evidence to back it up.

I am not trying to say it isnt true, it may well be, but it isnt enough to convince me that it is worth taking that risk. Anybody can do a google and find such forums posted around, for both successful and failed cases.

I dont know enough about parking laws, particularly on Private Land, likewise if someone on this forum was to say, "You can refuse to pay for a speeding ticket, and they will simply drop it", isnt going to be enough for me to think it is a good idea not to pay up. However if someone was to post something that is nothing less than "proof", I might be tempted to take such a chance.

Upto now the only proof I have seen and not just on this forum, goes against the idea of taking the risk in NOT paying. Imagine telling a Judge the reason you didnt pay, was because someone on MSE said it wasnt enforceable.

superscaper

frank_potter wrote: »

The link works fine for me.

What exactly gives you cause to doubt the credibility of its contents?

He asked whether there were court documents or proof. That link provides neither. Even some of the posters on that forum have also asked for documentary proof.

taxiphil

The thing is, CAG and Pepipoo contain hundreds of threads about people beating the parking companies, both in and out of court.

If you dismiss the credibility of all those threads, you are saying that all those people are lying.

On the balance of probability, do you really think that is the case?

mpython

As much as I don't like the implications, IMO at the moment, Blue Lagoon has put forward the most persuasive arguements & evidence. Maybe when blue lagoon has supplied a nationwide list of car parks for MSErs to test their claims on contract law, & supply copies of their court papers & judgements, then I'll change my mind.

marleyboy

I would have to say I dont know. Probabilities arent evidence. The way I see it if so many people are appearing on so many forums claiming victory, then surely the evidence of such should be more easily accessible for me to know for sure that it is true.

That those forums in question are dedicated to parking issues, then the probabilities of people on there discussing "parking cases", are more highly probable, and from that group, the probabilities of people saying "I won", are much higher than the national average. So a probability, wouldnt be enough as proof, it is rendered a "rumour" or the "word on the street".

taxiphil

marleyboy wrote: »

Imagine telling a Judge the reason you didnt pay, was because someone on MSE said it wasnt enforceable.

You make it sound like a fanciful notion to go to court armed with what you read on MSE. But don't forget that thousands of people did exactly that with the banks, and it worked.

marleyboy wrote: »

I would have to say I dont know. Probabilities arent evidence. The way I see it if so many people are appearing on so many forums claiming victory, then surely the evidence of such should be more easily accessible for me to know for sure that it is true.

Cases of victory in court against a parking company are admittedly rare - for the simple reason that the claimant gets to see the defence and any supporting evidence before the hearing. When a proper robust defence is submitted (most importantly, one that challenges the legality of 'penalty' charges and argues that damages should only be based on actual loss), the claimant can simply fail to attend the hearing, causing the claim to be struck out.

The reason they do this is because it would be disastrous for their business, and indeed the whole private parking industry, for a transcript of an unsuccessful hearing to get into the public domain. By failing to attend court they ensure there is no hearing, and so nothing is challenged or put to the test.

This is exactly the same strategy all the banks have been using when faced with many thousands of claims for unfair charges, and the reason why they never let it go to court.

marleyboy wrote: »

That those forums in question are dedicated to parking issues, then the probabilities of people on there discussing "parking cases", are more highly probable, and from that group, the probabilities of people saying "I won", are much higher than the national average. So a probability, wouldnt be enough as proof, it is rendered a "rumour" or the "word on the street".

I thought the challenge by bluelagoon and others was to show just one example of a parking company being beaten on a point of law. On that basis it only requires one out of the hundreds on CAG and Pepipoo to have been telling the truth. So if there was never a single instance of a parking company being beaten, it naturally follows that all those people are lying.

(I can't actually see what anyone would have to gain by lying about it, since they are all there to help each other, not mislead each other).

sarahg1969

Another thing to remember. If a defendant defends himself against a PPC and is successful in his defence (ie the Claimant does turn up and the Judge makes a judgment based on the evidence), then the best you can hope for is a synopsis of the case from that person. The judgment from Court will NOT give details of the Judge's reasoning, only the fact that there is a judgment and any details of monies due. Someone who has personally defended a case is unlikely to go to the bother of instructing a transcription company to obtain tape of the hearing to transcribe the Judge's findings because it is a very expensive affair. And, they might not even know that it can be done.

taxiphil

sarahg1969 wrote: »

Someone who has personally defended a case is unlikely to go to the bother of instructing a transcription company to obtain tape of the hearing to transcribe the Judge's findings because it is a very expensive affair. And, they might not even know that it can be done.

Exactly. You've hit the nail on the head.

The reason Mike Perkins at Combined Parking Solutions paid a transcription company to produce the transcripts posted earlier by bluelagoon, is because he's a businessman and they are the Holy Grail of sales tools when he's going after new contracts.

A successful defendant, on the other hand, has nothing to gain from paying for a transcript - they know what went on in court because they were there, they won, and they're happy with that.

peter_the_piper

mpython wrote: »

As much as I don't like the implications, IMO at the moment, Blue Lagoon has put forward the most persuasive arguements & evidence. Maybe when blue lagoon has supplied a nationwide list of car parks for MSErs to test their claims on contract law, & supply copies of their court papers & judgements, then I'll change my mind.

Just don't hold your breath.;)

sarahg1969

peter_the_piper wrote: »

Just don't hold your breath.;)

There are several members of pepipoo who are awaiting court papers - in fact some of them even have unsealed claim forms. They have invited the PPCs to issue proceedings, but they don't seem very willing.