Honest John - Telegraph paper

taffy056

murdomaguire wrote: »

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

I have just been through this thread and cannot see that, I skimmed it though so please quote has been said, the only thing I really found was the post about her spamming this forum that Quentin dealt with, who by the way is a respected user of this forum.

murdomaguire

What are you on about. I corrected the typo in my post.

Why does everyone here want to fight and bandy around accusations all the time? The earlier sections of this thread seemed to be almost taunting Honest John to "come and have a go if you think you're hard enough". No wonder I haven't been here for two years.

Would you not all be better having some sort of rational debate or argument. So you post a statement and I agree, partially agree or challenge some or all of it.

You almost seem to be doing that in a previous post where you said:

taffy056 wrote: »

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.

And I am replying:

There seems to be some misunderstanding here. From a legal perspective the issue of loss is irrelevant as the case is not brought under trespass - where a loss would need to be proved - it is brought under contract law.

By imposing the fine the parking company is saying "park here for free for x hours but if you overstay the x hours then you pay us £70".

The courts have generally agreed that a contract enforced by signage can be created by the action of parking -- so it is "legal" in your terms -- but then the court has to decide whether £70 is punitive.

Generally speaking they have found it to be so which is why the parking companies are reluctant to take the cases to court. They have "won" a number of cases but the compensation awarded has been derisory - actually usually about £10. Their costs are not recoverable.

So while I perfectly agree that the advice - as Lucy gave - is not to respond in any way.

But you have to agree that instead of using the courts instead the parking companies have turned themselves into letter writing factories which issue endless threats and demands, threats of court etc. etc. which greatly trouble some people. They threaten debt collectors and personal visits.

When I used to deal with these cases -- and I did nothing else for three years -- we would many times be contacted by perfectly reasonable intelligent and educated people who were reduced to tears by them.

I am a tough, 36 year old Scotsman from not the better end of Glasgow with a law degree so it is no problem at all for me to put their "invitation to settle out of court" in the bin. And as I said that is probably the best advice.

But offering them £10 in a counter offer is not necessarily bad advice if you have the money (as many Telegraph readers will) and the result is they take it and go away.

I agree most of the heavier end of the parking industry - Excel, G24, Civil Enforcement - are not going to accept the offer - but they will send the £10 back. There is no admission of liability and the offer will be taken into account if the case gets to court when the judge is much less likely to find for the parking company because they had refused to accept a "reasonable offer". So Honest John's suggestion is not completely barmy - and I understand from his newspaper column this morning that many people who use it report it has worked for them.

The problem we have is that there are too many vehicles on our roads and not enough parking spaces. And there are some very selfish people who will park where they are asked not to - so as not to inconvenience others - such as in the mother and baby and disabled bays when they are neither. Or will block up a car park all day which a firm has provided for the convenience of customers at great expense, while they go off and shop somewhere else.

The "solution" we have at the moment is for a bunch of rogue companies to undertake parking enforcement with almost no regulation. Lucy's solution for rectifying this has some merit and should at least be discussed.

anewman

murdomaguire wrote: »

and I understand from his newspaper column this morning that many people who use it report it has worked for them.

Dear Dishonest John,

Paying £10 did not work for me as the Parking company just kept hounding me and told me I had accepted the contract by part paying the fee and I legally had to pay the rest.

Honest John's secretary helpfully files these letters in the folder marked BIN I suspect.

taffy056

I beg to differ the loss is very relevant, also if for example it costs a £1 an hour to park in a car park, and you over stay for a few minutes, is a ticket for £50+ a fair reflection of that loss?

trisontana wrote: »

On the subject of OPC, as you may know 27 cases relating to Ingress park have been "stayed" by the judge while he considers the case. He as asked some very pertinent questions (taken from CAG):-

1. Authority: "The claimant shall disclose the documents on which it relies as giving it authority to issue parking tickets and collect payments from visitors to and residents at Ingress Park."
The Court wants to see the paperwork (contracts)behind Crest/Peverel, landowners, and OPC and to see who is making any money from this scheme, how it came about, who is benefiting etc.

2. Signage: Essentially the Judge wants a plan showing where all the signs are or were, and what they had written on them, when they were removed (by OPC, Council, or parking vigilantes) - and if so were they replaced or not.

3. Contract: "The claimant shall explain in legal terms how it contends a contract is made between themselves and parking drivers and shall state the legal effect of any signage relied upon; identify the nature of the offer and the acceptance and identify the parties to any such contract."
It goes on to ask how they calculate the parking control fines and to explain the damage/loss OPC incur by someone parking.

4. debt collection: "The claimant shall clarify its relationship with Windsor-Smythe and Partners and in particular as to whether there is any linkage in the form of personnel or management."

murdomaguire

Dear Dishonest John,

Paying £10 did not work for me as the Parking company just kept hounding me and told me I had accepted the contract by part paying the fee and I legally had to pay the rest.

If they took the £10 they have accepted the counter invitation to settle and any further action could be proceeded using protection against harassment legislation. One letter should resolve that.

If it carries on you can bring civil litigation and in some circumstances the police will become involved.

ripped_off_driver

Of course the Lucy BC advice is total and utter pants. By paying the £10 not only have you admitted a contract but you have admitted breaching it as well. And being the driver. All you are left with is quantum. As the few PPCs know that have tried it on there are a multiplicity of reasons why they fail - including that they should have proceeded in trespass, inadequate signage, not the driver, no authority to issue the invoice. The list goes on and on. I can see why the PPCs would love the Lucy BC advice to be taken up as they would have 90% lof their case already made out for them. But it is absolutely not in the interests of the motorist.

And as for our "Scottish" friend who suddenly pops up quoting the totally discredited and most likely completely Perky set up Combined Parking Solutions v Stephen Thomas case, you quickly know you are in PPC troll territory.

murdomaguire

I beg to differ the loss is very relevant, also if for example it costs a £1 an hour to park in a car park, and you over stay for a few minutes, is a ticket for £50+ a fair reflection of that loss?

No which is why the court has often found for the claimant (parking company) but awarded minimal damages stating the charges were punitive.

However if you have the situation where (for example) taxi drivers were parking in McDonalds at Gatwick (which is free) and staying 3+ hours so they could take a break (avoiding airport parking charges elsewhere) then the potential loss is not on the "free" car park but on all the Big Macs they didn't sell - which could be substantial. In that case the court might find that the £70 charge was not punitive - I am not saying that is what he would find but what he might find and if he did that would not be a perverse decision.

Judges generally don't like parking companies but the judge in the case you quote is not throwing it out. He is asking for the evidence they have (and making it as difficult for the claimant as possible).

ripped_off_driver

murdomaguire wrote: »

No which is why the court has often found for the claimant (parking company) but awarded minimal damages stating the charges were punitive.

Oh really? Enlighten us as to where these great victories were? Planet Perky by any chance?

murdomaguire

And as for our "Scottish" friend who suddenly pops up quoting the totally discredited and most likely completely Perky set up Combined Parking Solutions v Stephen Thomas case, you quickly know you are in PPC troll territory.

Part of the problem with this thread is everyone seems to post but nobody reads anything - or if they do so it is "through a glass darkly".

If you read the post which included the Facebook link you would see that nothing could be further from the truth about me (or come to that Lucy) representing Private Parking Companies. In fact it was my research and advice in my previous job which led to the Excel getting their DVLA link cut off for six months.

Also - as I said as far as I know Lucy has never advocated paying £10 - that is Honest John apparently - I was explaining the legal logic he claims behind making the payment. I don't think it is necessarily right but from a legal perspective it is not completely barmy.

My normal advice is to pay them nothing but many people capitulate in the face of the letter writing and other threats. And as I said earlier if the PPC takes the £10 providing the accompanying letter is written correctly they have accepted an offer to settle out of court with no admission of liability.

Most of the "heavier" parking companies know this and probably won't accept the payment so you are no further on.

As far as Stephen Thomas is concerned the case was heard and that was the outcome. No point ignoring it. The main legal point was that the judge decided

a) that a contract existed; and
b) that on the balance of probability Mr Thomas had been driving the car.

Mr Thomas clearly annoyed the court and hence the award was higher than might have been seen in most similar cases (where the award has been generally derisory) and contrary to what most PPCs assert it set no precedent but the judge was probably correct in law on the issue.

ripped_off_driver

murdomaguire wrote: »

As far as Stephen Thomas is concerned the case was heard and that was the outcome. No point ignoring it. The main legal point was that the judge decided

a) that a contract existed; and
b) that on the balance of probability Mr Thomas had been driving the car.

Mr Thomas clearly annoyed the court and hence the award was higher than might have been seen in most similar cases (where the award has been generally derisory) and contrary to what most PPCs assert it set no precedent but the judge was probably correct in law on the issue.

Ah but who was "Stephen Thomas". We know that Perky, the idiotic "brains" behind Combined Parking Solutions, has pretended to be "Stephen Thomas" in at least one forum outing. Sometimes things are not all as they appear and the court will not care about who everyone is or is not. Why would "Stephen Thomas" admit being the driver on a forum and then deny it in court? Why would the claimant in a "successful" court action ever pretend to be the "losing" defendant? Questions, questions.