Honest John - Telegraph paper

taffy056

murdomaguire wrote: »

I asked you to come up with practical grounds to support your contention and you accuse me of being a troll?
I reiterate, put up or shut up.

And what is your connection to her ? You are arguing here suddenly after being registered for 2 years of inactivity, I suspect you are her, so be honest instead of the cloak and daggers!

Now this thread is about the awful advice of Honest John, that advice is not correct, so if he is not getting that advice from you , here is your opportunity to put the record straight, also what is your opinion of Honest John in this regard?

dacouch

murdomaguire wrote: »

The thread on Honest John -- unlike this thread which is a seeming rant -- is a cogent and serious examination of the legal issues involved in private parking cases.

And on it Lucy Bonham Carter seems to have provided a sensible and rational explanation of the law regarding private parking - as to what can happen, what is likely to happen - and what cannot happen.

There is even a solution offered as to what has otherwise seemed an intractable problem.

No one here seems to want to sensibly discuss private parking issues. Very few seem to have any real legal knowledge other than that they have copied down from elsewhere -- but everyone seems to have an opinion.

That thread at Honest John under "legal matters" was started by anewman who seems to be the cheerleader of the rant here.

If anyone here has any serious challenge to Honest John's and Lucy's position and explanation perhaps they should post it there rather than chuntering away here amongst themselves.

So this does not turn into a boring and fruitless confrontation, if people wish to comment can people please restrict themselves to quoting the actual sentences, sections or paragraphs which actually appear in Lucy's posts and which they believe to be factually incorrect.

Here is someone who disagrees with Lucy BC's way of dealing with parking tickets http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=54216921341

murdomaguire

Yes that is someone quoting me and it is precisely the same advice as Lucy is giving on the HJ thread.

murdomaguire

oldone wrote: »

I am intriqued as to your first posts being in defence of this Lucy Bonham Carter - whoever she is.

Perhaps you should declare any connection you have with her, or Honest John.

I used to work with her. I have no connection whatsoever with Honest John.

murdomaguire

I don't have a dog in this fight - I no longer work with Lucy and I have no connection whatsoever with Honest John - but I do know my parking law and have probably dealt with more cases than anyone else in the UK whilst with my previous firm.

The legal situation is:

1. You can enter into a contract when you park. The contract is established by you parking there and needs to be clearly outlined on the signage. The signage must be unmissable. The terms of the contract must be "fair" or the courts will not uphold them. The penalty for breach must be reasonable.

2. People have been successfully taken to court by parking companies for breach of contract. Admittedly these cases have been very rare. These have all been lower court cases so there is no precedent set but it shows that the courts accept that a contract can be created and a penalty for breach payable. (Combined Parking Solutions v Stephen J Thomas if anyone is interested).

3. The civil courts could make an order to the keeper to reveal who was driving. It is called a Norwich Pharmacal order. It requires a separate hearing at the claimant's cost. I don't think any parking case would pass the tests I outlined in an earlier post but they have been successfully used by copyright holders in the civil courts to compel Internet Service Providers to reveal the identity of their customers from their IP address because they were suspected of file sharing. Parking companies now often threaten to apply for one. I have never heard of one doing so (and I would have).

On the separate issue of whether it is wise to make to payment as Honest John has done on some occasions:

4. The letter from the parking company requesting a fee based on their alleged breach of contract is not a "parking ticket" or an "invoice" as is often stated in forums but in legal terms would be more properly described "as an allegation of a breach of contract accompanied by an invitation to settle out of court."

Obviously if the registered keeper was not the driver or did not overstay then this invitation should not be accepted as no contract could have existed.

But if the keeper was the driver and the signage was everywhere clear and legally correct then it is possible that a contract has been entered in to and may have been breached.

Legally the issue then goes to whether the contract is fair and to quantum.

In legal terms the offer of a small sum in full and final settlement can be done without prejudice and without any admission of liability. It is effectively a counter offer (to the parking company's initial offer) to settle out of court.

I have spoken to Lucy and this was something Honest John came up with on his own and is not something she has ever advocated. He is very careful only to advocate it when someone admits the breach (ie was driving and overstayed).

It would not necessarily be my advice but it is not necessarily bad advice and it does apparently work with a number of parking companies. For many comfortably off Telegraph readers if it stops the endless flow of hassling letters...? I could see it would be tempting.

However Lucy's advice is and always has been very clear:

There is a potential for the case going to court but the chances of it doing so are very remote because it is not economic for the parking companies to do so. Hence they use debt collector tactics.

I pinched the following from a comment she made on the Honest John thread:

My advice - for the last five years in dealing with these cases - is and has always been ignore all correspondence. Don't even acknowledge it as you will only confirm your address. Do not appeal as their appeals process is a sham aimed at securing further evidence against you. Do not acknowledge any correspondence unless you get a blue claim form from a county court. This needs to be a letter from the court - not just the threat of one - when you should file a defence which is free.

The court is your friend as that is the first place you will get a fair hearing.

The thread goes on:

To protect people the real need is for some sort of practical legislative or regulatory solution:

1. all operators need to be licensed and regulated or they do not get access to the DVLA data. Personnel need to be vetted CRO'd and trained.
2. maximum overstay charges need to be outlined and fixed.
3. the charge for the parking company accessing the DVLA data should be at least £10 to prevent fraudulent or false requests for data (when people have not overstayed).
4. the additional money raised from the DVLA charge should be used to fund an independent and binding appeals process similar to PATAS. As with PATAS if people lose their appeal they pay at a higher rate - or pay nothing.
5. The appeals process should apply de minimis principles in the event of a minor transgression or minimal overstay
6. Don't comply with any of the above and you don't trade.

However regulatory solutions are not the flavour of the month with the current government so it is not likely to happen anytime soon.

That seems to me to be a cogent and rational explanation with a sensible suggestion for a solution.

So what's with all the bile and vitriol that has been heaped on her here?

Sir_Roger_deLodger

My advice - for the last five years in dealing with these cases - is and has always been ignore all correspondence. Don't even acknowledge it as you will only confirm your address. Do not appeal as their appeals process is a sham aimed at securing further evidence against you. Do not acknowledge any correspondence unless you get a blue claim form from a magistrates court. This needs to be a letter from the court - not just the threat of one - when you should file a defence which is free.

The court is your friend as that is the first place you will get a fair hearing.

Magistrates court? Are you sure she knows what she's talking about?

trisontana

Sir_Roger_deLodger wrote: »

Magistrates court? Are you sure she knows what she's talking about?

I think even us "barrack-room lawyers" can see she is wrong on that point!

taffy056

murdomaguire wrote: »

So what's with all the bile and vitriol that has been heaped on her here?

Could it be because of the legal advice given, like the above, or maybe it is because she used this forum to spam her website and business ?

Offering a token amount of money to the ppc is not the right thing to do, whilst legally the advice about it could be right, the consensus of thousands of incidents is to ignore them and they will go away, also they suffer no loss in a free car park, and if it did go to court the material loss would be zero, if it was a paid car park they could only claim what the material loss was, which would be pennies for the most part.

Lets face it these companies are issuing penalties to drivers of vehicles which is not legal, and which has been confirmed by numerous court cases across the country, and the case you refer to is widely regarded as a set up, as the person lied in court! Any properly defended case would win.

murdomaguire

That's a typo which has been corrected - it was 6am when it was written - but please feel free to challenge me on anything else.

taffy056

murdomaguire wrote: »

I pinched the following from a comment she made on the Honest John thread:

murdomaguire wrote: »

That's a typo which has been corrected - it was 6am when it was written - but please feel free to challenge me on anything else.

So that would suggest you are her, and not someone who worked with her as you stated above, at least come clean about it for goodness sake!