Honest John - Telegraph paper

murdomaguire

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

The cases reaching the courts are usually brought by the smaller one or two site companies who believe they are on solid legal ground having been advised as such by their lawyers. Excel have been to court a few times but generally they have lost - usually due to shoddy ticketing practices or defective equipment.

The Thomas case does prove a contract can be established but even when the signage is perfect, frequent and there is proof of the breach, the court will often make a relatively small award.

The ones I am particularly familiar with was parking in the residents parking area adjacent to Cardiff Bay. I think the company were called Millennium Parking or something similar. The signage was particularly good and plentiful - it was indeed impossible to park without seeing it - and the terms of the contract were clear. There are a number of events on the Bay and it was during one of these the tickets I am thinking of were issued.

Residents are particularly vigilant as they only have one parking spot each unless they buy another.

Millennium ticketed them and 20 or so cases went to court. The judge found for the parking company on the basis of breach of contract but awarded £12.50.

In the early days of the Civil Enforcement operation at Gatwick they also issued proceedings and won a few cases but gained minimal compensation.

Cases have also been won to my knowledge in Looe (Looe Harbour Commissioners). Again with the award of minimum compensation.

The reasons the parking companies don't take them to court is even when they win they lose (financially) so to speak as it costs more to bring the case. It's not because they are illegal.

murdomaguire

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.

Blimey. The reason Mr Thomas lost - aside from photoshopping documents - was that while he admitted it was his car he said he had not been driving it at the time it was parked (vicar's parking place at a church). Not unreasonably he was asked who else was insured to drive the vehicle and nobody else was. He then said that others had been driving under Drive Other Cars benefits so he was asked to produce them. There was a hearing. The judge thought he lacked credibility and that on the balance of probability had been the driver, had breached a contract and found against him.

Had he been more credible or had been represented the chances are the case could have been challenged on the signage issue - you usually can - but he was down the pan long before the judgement.

ripped_off_driver

murdomaguire wrote: »

Blimey. The reason Mr Thomas lost - aside from photoshopping documents - was that while he admitted it was his car he said he had not been driving it at the time it was parked (vicar's parking place at a church). Not unreasonably he was asked who else was insured to drive the vehicle and nobody else was. He then said that others had been driving under Drive Other Cars benefits so he was asked to produce them. There was a hearing. The judge thought he lacked credibility and that on the balance of probability had been the driver, had breached a contract and found against him.

Had he been more credible or had been represented the chances are the case could have been challenged on the signage issue - you usually can - but he was down the pan long before the judgement.

He he, I think you give a little too much away our Scottish friend. While I doubt that any of that actually happened the only way that you could know that it had would mean that you had actually been there ...

Which would make you...

Perky I presume

Now if Perky had not been stupid enough to then go and post in the name of "Stephen Thomas" and doctor the transcript, nobody might have cottoned on. But once a two bit sausage fryer always a two bit sausage fryer. Perky Mason he ain't. After all this is the same bozo who trolled on CAG as "looplotty" and then joined dating sites using the same name, later helpfully confirming that it was in fact him. Or pleaded for help from the legal eagles on Pepipoo and then used the same user name to announce his latest set up court "win".

ripped_off_driver

murdomaguire wrote: »

The reasons the parking companies don't take them to court is even when they win they lose (financially) so to speak as it costs more to bring the case. It's not because they are illegal.

Illegal? Who on here said they were illegal? People in the know view the invoices as unenforcable, which is an entirely different thing. Surely you as a self confessed seasoned lawyer would know the difference?

With every sentence you utter your story unravels.

If the people in Cardiff had come on here for advice they would not have to pay anything. That's if what you are alleging happened did happen.

anewman

murdomaguire wrote: »

but he was down the pan long before the judgement.

= setup.....

murdomaguire

He he, I think you give a little too much away our Scottish friend. While I doubt that any of that actually happened the only way that you could know that it had would mean that you had actually been there ...

Which would make you...

Perky I presume.
Now if Perky had not been stupid enough to then go and post in the name of "Stephen Thomas" and doctor the transcript, nobody might have cottoned on. But once a two bit sausage fryer always a two bit sausage fryer. Perky Mason he ain't. After all this is the same bozo who trolled on CAG as "looplotty" and then joined dating sites using the same name, later helpfully confirming that it was in fact him. Or pleaded for help from the legal eagles on Pepipoo and then used the same user name to announce his latest set up court "win".

More idiocy. In my previous job I used to defend people facing private parking charges so received case reports.

I have already been correctly identified in this thread as working for a company which successfully challenged PPCs. I was instrumental in the BBC Radio 4 challenging Excel having DVLA access - they lost it for six months thereafter. I also informally advised on the Mansfield cases and was instrumental in having the agent revoke Excel's licence for the site. I can fully stand up to any scrutiny and what is more I know what I am talking about.

This case has been referred to so much we actually contacted Justice Ackroyd and asked what happened. I was the person who revealed the special circumstances regarding the case -- particularly in relation to the documents -- on the internet. These have now been copied extensively elsewhere.

Indeed my (then) colleague Conrad Murray (who has appeared on radio and television many times in respect of parking cases) corrected the claims of the Parking company in the local newspapers at the time

That aside if you think Stephen J Thomas does not exist or was actually working for CPS you are not just a conspiracy theorist you are a conspiracy idiot.

The Oldham Evening Chronicle have a picture of him and interviewed him.

The people at St Andrew's Church, Littleborough near Rochdale knew him and he parked there frequently. They asked him not to several times.

Whether or not some idiot parking company person posted on another forum as Stephen Thomas I know not - but I do know I am not "Perky" who ever he may be and I am certainly not some parking company foil or troll.

FWIW the reasons I have been a member for two years and never previously posted until now is that I had probably forgotten how poor the site was in the quality of information posted in the forums by people passing off their partial knowledge, theories and half truths.

Furthermore that the mutual backslapping is at such a level that if anyone comes along and challenges any part of the accepted "creed" they face relentless ad hominem attacks of such ferocity that they never want to come back again.

Coupon-mad

murdomaguire wrote: »

The cases reaching the courts are usually brought by the smaller one or two site companies who believe they are on solid legal ground having been advised as such by their lawyers. Excel have been to court a few times but generally they have lost - usually due to shoddy ticketing practices or defective equipment.

The Thomas case does prove a contract can be established but even when the signage is perfect, frequent and there is proof of the breach, the court will often make a relatively small award.

The ones I am particularly familiar with was parking in the residents parking area adjacent to Cardiff Bay. I think the company were called Millennium Parking or something similar. The signage was particularly good and plentiful - it was indeed impossible to park without seeing it - and the terms of the contract were clear. There are a number of events on the Bay and it was during one of these the tickets I am thinking of were issued.

Residents are particularly vigilant as they only have one parking spot each unless they buy another.

Millennium ticketed them and 20 or so cases went to court. The judge found for the parking company on the basis of breach of contract but awarded £12.50.

In the early days of the Civil Enforcement operation at Gatwick they also issued proceedings and won a few cases but gained minimal compensation.

Cases have also been won to my knowledge in Looe (Looe Harbour Commissioners). Again with the award of minimum compensation.

The reasons the parking companies don't take them to court is even when they win they lose (financially) so to speak as it costs more to bring the case. It's not because they are illegal.

I have to say I like having you on this thread, welcome. :T

The info about Courts only awarding £12.50 was news to me and made me laugh. That would be good to tell people about when they are worried about what a very rare Court case might award.

But do you mean the £12.50 was the PPC's expenses, in addition to the 'parking charge' amount? Or do you mean the parking co was claiming an extortionate amount but only got £12.50 altogether from each person?

FWIW I don't see you as a troll and I think Lucy BC's advice seems OK.

It's Honest John's idea of people sending £10 we don't agree with. I suspect most people doing that wouldn't make it clear that it was a counter-offer and represented full & final settlement. Best not to write or acknowledge at all which is what Lucy's advice seems to be so I don't have a problem with that.

Please tell us more about cases, who was the worst PPC to write to? Did you EVER see any evidence of any PPC allowing or even considering any 'appeal'?

taffy056

murdomaguire wrote: »

FWIW the reasons I have been a member for two years and never previously posted until now is that I had probably forgotten how poor the site was in the quality of information posted in the forums by people passing off their partial knowledge, theories and half truths.

Furthermore that the mutual backslapping is at such a level that if anyone comes along and challenges any part of the accepted "creed" they face relentless ad hominem attacks of such ferocity that they never want to come back again.

If the advice is so bad, why come here in the first place, surely us normal people who put our opinions on here are beneath your educated self?

And I don't believe anyone has attacked you, this is a faceless internet forum where everyone has some degree of anonymity, the advice given is actually in line with what Martin Lewis offers on here, that is the tickets are virtually unenforceable, don't appeal to the company, don't contact the company at all, the only thing we are advising on here is to ignore the scammers, and before you say it they are SCAMMERS!

murdomaguire

If the people in Cardiff had come on here for advice they would not have to pay anything.

So what would you have advised them?

The judge accepted they had parked there (the residents had photographs). The residents had clearly been deprived of their right to "peaceful enjoyment" of their private parking space by them doing so.

The signage relating to the contract was photographed and mapped.

The contract details and penalty terms were listed and presented to the court.

The parking company -- appointed by the management company which is owned by the residents -- has issued proceedings. You are in court representing the defendant.

What do you say so they don't have to pay anything? What makes it unenforceable?

How do you present their case to the judge.

taffy056

murdomaguire wrote: »

What do you say so they don't have to pay anything? What makes it unenforceable?

The fact that its not legal for a private company to issue penalties, all properly defended cases that I know of have either been thrown out, or a figure of a few pounds has been awarded to the ppc as you have just posted above.