Honest John - Telegraph paper

murdomaguire

You seem very confused. The transcript I am referring is the doctored document placed on the internet by Perky, the boss of Combined Parking Solutions, the claimant in the case. This has clearly been doctored to remove all references to the forum postings admitting to being the driver which were the key aspect of the case being decided in favour of Combined Parking Solutions.

I took a call from a local reporter from Rochdale on the day following the trial in 08 and we clarified general matters regarding whether this set a precedent, issues of signage etc. We were not involved in the actual case nor did we have prior knowledge of it.

The key point at the trial apparently - was that Mr Thomas claimed he could not remember whether he was the driver. As he was unequivocal, had been known to park there before and had been asked not to by the church - plus he seemed to be the only person insured to drive the car the judge found on the balance of probabilities that he had been the driver. He further found that a contract had been entered into.

There were other circumstances surrounding the case regarding internet forums and advice but I don't think the judge would have been to interested in those. In fact most of those seem to have been dragged into it later by the private parking company.

The key points the judge would consider were:
was his car parked there - yes
was it clear he should not - yes
as the keeper was he the driver - probably.

The judge then would then have had to take a view on the signage which presumably he found to be acceptable.

As I have said earlier Mr Thomas clearly annoyed the court and the consequent order was more severe than I would normally expected but all aspects of the case - newspaper with photograph, interviewed at the time, detailed street address, done it before and church knew and had spoken to him - would suggest that this was a genuine trial with a genuine claimant and defendant and you are in Dodi Fayed, Princess Diana conspiracy territory.

murdomaguire

Quoting ripped off driver on the Cardiff resident parking cases:

Total nonsense. It would be much more difficult to prove a loss under the law of trespass.

Every person is entitled to peaceful enjoyment of their own property so if you own - or have a legal right to use - a parking space and someone deprives you of that right you have a potential case against them.

Had the cases been brought on an individual basis with mum appearing in court saying she had to park her car half a mile away and ferry the heavy shopping etc. etc because nasty Mr Parker had put his car in her space and gone to an event I would have expected the award to be much more substantial.

The court would have attempted to quantify the "loss of enjoyment", the inconvenience and added the direct financial cost of parking elsewhere. The court can make its own ruling and in the above circumstances it may well agree a substantial sum than would have been provided for in the "contract".

In fact defending such a case one might be seeking to argue that the terms of the contract were valid and accepted.

ripped_off_driver

The newspaper report on the day following the Combined Parking solutions v Stephen Thomas case had the following report:

"The court heard how Mr Thomas, from Chadwick Street, Rochdale, was the vehicle’s registered owner and admitted to having parked at the church before.

But he could not remember if he had been driving the car when the ticket was issued and said he had not seen the car park warning signs.

Mike Perkins, from CPS, said the day the charge was issued, Mr Thomas had accessed a consumer internet site outlining the incident and asking for help.

He also claimed Mr Thomas modified the original wording when he was informed the matter would be brought to court.

Mr Thomas admitted making a post on the website but could not remember what he wrote.

District Judge Ackroyd said on the balance of probabilities, Mr Thomas was driving the car."

See the report here:

http://www.oldham-chronicle.co.uk/news-features/8/news/15246/parking-penalty-just-judge-rules

I understand the reporter was in court, having been pre-invited by the parking company, showing a remarkable ability to predict the future. Other less charitable people might suggest that the presence of the media in a case which could have gone either way was highly suspect.

The report above makes clear that the forum posting and subsequent court denial was front and centre to the decision. Had it not existed the claimant would not have been able to prove Thomas was the driver and so lost the case.

ripped_off_driver

murdomaguire wrote: »

Quoting ripped off driver on the Cardiff resident parking cases:



Every person is entitled to peaceful enjoyment of their own property so if you own - or have a legal right to use - a parking space and someone deprives you of that right you have a potential case against them.

Had the cases been brought on an individual basis with mum appearing in court saying she had to park her car half a mile away and ferry the heavy shopping etc. etc because nasty Mr Parker had put his car in her space and gone to an event I would have expected the award to be much more substantial.

The court would have attempted to quantify the "loss of enjoyment", the inconvenience and added the direct financial cost of parking elsewhere. The court can make its own ruling and in the above circumstances it may well agree a substantial sum than would have been provided for in the "contract".

In fact defending such a case one might be seeking to argue that the terms of the contract were valid and accepted.

That is not actually how the law of trespass works. The damages awarded would be to compensate for the loss of value of the land. Where the trespass is trivial, damages would be nominal. Where a trespass concerns some use of the land without causing damage, as in the case of unauthorised parking, the damages will be measured in relation to the value of the defendant’s use. You would need to work out how much you pay for your parking spot and how much you had paid for the period of unauthorised parking. The end result would be a nominal amount.

In fact most cases of unauthorised parking on private land are cases of trespass. It is patently ridiculous to suggest that someone who is expressly forbidden from parking in a particular place can then have been invited to enter into a contract to park there. There is even a case on the point (Excel v Alan Matthews) which is far more persuasive than some extremely dodgy Oldham case involving notorious PPC idiot Perky.

backfoot

Just got back in to find these huge developments.At last Murdo has revealed himself. Like Coupon Mad has said and increasingly other posters, we now find Murdo has a lot to offer.He is totally articulate,knowledgeable and informed on PPC cases. What's more he appears to be on the side of the motorist rather than the PPC.

So what changed today? Yesterday, when fewer people were around,I tried to engage Murdo and get him to make his point or points much more clearly. I sensed there was something behind his interjection but he wouldn't properly reveal it. He seemed to be agreeing with the main thrust that PPC Invoices were challengeable but he also seemed to be dogmatic that all our efforts and inputs weren't as worthy as LBC's.(even though the outcome is the same)

So Murdo constantly repeated his 'Put up or Shut Up' mantra which was totally infantile after several people had explained why they had taken issue with Honest John.

So now you are a normal Forum Member Murdo,I would ask you why you were playing at being a complete nob when you had so much more to offer? Now that you are reading contributions rather than just cutting and pasting the same thing,what was all that about?

Do I correctly suspect the two years watching in the wilderness was because the straightforward advice here was cutting into your fee base for doing this work? Also were yesterday's pathetic contributions borne of a frustration that just ordinary Joe's like us had got a grip of this topic and that 'a proper' lawyer like LBC had really set it out like it should be. i.e. there is an answerable case in principle but ....conditions x,y,z as well as a b c, have to be met before a claim for around £5 to £10 may hold up!!

It's all the same thing pal.

Anyway as I said yesterday,welcome on board. Keep up the good contributions. I and others are watching with interest.

murdomaguire

That is not actually how the law of trespass works. The damages awarded would be to compensate for the loss of value of the land. Where the trespass is trivial, damages would be nominal. Where a trespass concerns some use of the land without causing damage, as in the case of unauthorised parking, the damages will be measured in relation to the value of the defendant’s use. You would need to work out how much you pay for your parking spot and how much you had paid for the period of unauthorised parking. The end result would be a nominal amount.

Simply not true.

A court can make any accommodation it wishes and if you park on someone's land and they suffer loss of amenity the court can and will order compensation for it.

Generally speaking in trespass cases the court will award an increase in general damages for loss of amenity and in aggravated damages if there is a serious incursion into the claimants' right to the enjoyment of their home.

The aggravated damages will increase if the defendants were aware of the effect that their conduct was having in that respect; and that they intended (or, at the least, were indifferent to the fact) that it should have that effect.

Parking in someone's private space would obviously meet these criteria.

taffy056

You are talking in the vast majority of cases of people parking in retail parks or supermarket car parks though, the loss is zero as the parking is free, mostly these tickets are spurious like the one I had, parked with one wheel touching the white line, if I turned it by half there would be no ticket, now where is the loss to the ppc for that ?

We know parking bays are advisory only in these car parks and hold no real meaning, here is another one, my brother drives a very large van for his business, he went to a supermarket and used two parking bays, one was a parent and child bay the other was a normal one, he got a ticket despite him having my niece with him, now what damned right do a ppc have to restrict him from shopping there? Where is the loss, he is a paying customer ?

murdomaguire

The report above makes clear that the forum posting and subsequent court denial was front and centre to the decision. Had it not existed the claimant would not have been able to prove Thomas was the driver and so lost the case.

First you allege Mr Thomas was some sort of patsy for the parking company. Then we get that the court case was all about the Internet.

The issue was that Mr Thomas was the only insured driver so it would be reasonable to assume - on the balance of evidence - that unless he could produce someone else he had parked the car there. Furthermore the church had asked him not to park there on a number of previous occasions.

When you get in court a judge will often quickly form an opinion as to the merits of the case - nobody is in there very long.

Given the above of Mr Thomas being the only insured and the word from the local church that they had asked him not to park there on several occasions it seems reasonable that the judge would take the view that Mr Thomas was probably the driver and other matters - such as whether he had posted in forums or not - would add to, but not be crucial to Mr Justice Ackroyd taking that view.

FWIW I don't think the reporter was in court. Certainly the one I spoke to was not in court (and I don't suppose they put a team on it). It was off a press release from the parking company which is why we had to clarify the legal issues.

ripped_off_driver

murdomaguire wrote: »

Simply not true.

A court can make any accommodation it wishes and if you park on someone's land and they suffer loss of amenity the court can and will order compensation for it.

Generally speaking in trespass cases the court will award an increase in general damages for loss of amenity and in aggravated damages if there is a serious incursion into the claimants' right to the enjoyment of their home.

The aggravated damages will increase if the defendants were aware of the effect that their conduct was having in that respect; and that they intended (or, at the least, were indifferent to the fact) that it should have that effect.

Parking in someone's private space would obviously meet these criteria.

Aggravated damages? For parking in someone's parking space? I'm not sure if you are serious or taking the !!!!. If you want to be taken seriously on here you will need to speak with a little more common sense. Everything I have said in relation to damages for trespass to land above is correct but I am willing to agree to disagree if that makes you feel any better.

buglawton

I got my 1st parking ticket parking on a deep church verge at a wedding where there was a real shortage of parking. I arrived as there were about 40 cars already parked on this verge and found a slot. The warning notices were tiny and far from each other. The wardens waited till everyone had parked and gone into the church, then issued all the tickets. It's so easy to get a sense of injustice from theese events, isn't it?