Honest John - Telegraph paper

murdomaguire

Now you are calling for a debate on licensing and appeals for private parking. Hmm, the clear language of the BPA. In fact music to their ears. Certainly not language that a defender of motorists would be expected to be using.

So what is your agenda? Come clean and you might be surprised how much respect you will get.

I don't have any agenda. I am not in the parking industry and no longer defend parking cases. I am also not obsessed with a minor parking case that set no precedent and took place in 2008.

However I do have a good knowledge of the business as to how it pertains to law and common sense suggests you clearly can't have a free-for-all where everyone can park where they like.

In your world someone can come and park in my drive causing me intense aggravation and all I can recover is the diminution and that seems OK to you.

As I see it the problem with private parking regulation as it stands at the moment is not the principle that there should be regulation but the way it operates in practice.

I personally think that there needs to be some way for McDonalds to stop 20 Gatwick taxi drivers buying a cup of coffee and parking up for free for three hours. But I don't want Civil Enforcement sending threatening letters demanding £70 or whatever from a family because they didn't eat their hamburgers quickly enough.

The main problem with private parking is the industry is largely run by a combination of (either or all) get-rich-quick spivs, refugees from the clamping business who failed on the CRO and couldn't get on the SIA register, wannabe bailiffs or idiots who heard it might be a good thing to be in - probably in a pub.

Furthermore to "earn" their keep the vast majority are not paid a fee for administering the car parks they "manage" but instead rely on the overstay charges they collect. So the incentive is not to "manage" the parking at all but to entrap as many people as possible and extract as much from the ones they do as possible.

On the "customer" side you have the "I know my rights - FU" parkers who just want a free ride and don't care who they inconvenience, the "daffies and old dears" who wander around in a daze generally and certainly cannot park a car straight, other "genuine" people who missed the signs because they were not obvious/did not know they were breaching any rules and people who were "victims of events" and overstayed because of reasons beyond their control.

I would broadly like to see some form of regulation which sees the "daffies" and the "genuine" lifted out of the equation and has some leeway on the "victims of events".

As to the FU parkers I believe there needs to be a proper mechanism to make them pay up. If you think that means I am acting as some foil for the BPA in this then that is up to you.

The failings to me are in that there is no proper appeals process coupled with unregulated charging on one side and no proper way of punishing resilient transgressors on the other.

Lucy's suggestion seems to me to be eminently sensible but I don't see it happening.

Rather I think any supermarket or retail park with a parking problem will put in barrier parking with a free period on a stamped ticket based on purchases but with a penalised overstay so if you don't pay you don't get out.

HO87

murdomaguire wrote: »

In your world someone can come and park in my drive causing me intense aggravation and all I can recover is the diminution and that seems OK to you.

This is being a little unfair to RippedOffDriver who has made no such suggestion and, in any event, conflating the so-called management of car parks with someone parking on your drive for the purposes of creating a stark comparison is something of a cheap shot IMO - though I understand the underlying argument.

murdomaguire wrote: »

As I see it the problem with private parking regulation as it stands at the moment is not the principle that there should be regulation but the way it operates in practice.

The real issue is that there is no regulation of private parking at present unless you are suggesting that the monopoly position the BPA occupies (in terms of it being the only DVLA Approved Trade Association able to use the "electronic link" to obtain registered keeper details) applies some form of constraint by default.

murdomaguire wrote: »

I personally think that there needs to be some way for McDonalds to stop 20 Gatwick taxi drivers buying a cup of coffee and parking up for free for three hours. But I don't want Civil Enforcement sending threatening letters demanding £70 or whatever from a family because they didn't eat their hamburgers quickly enough.

I suspect that the vast majority of members here would agree with you. However, where landowners have delegated the day-to-day running of their car parks to organisations that would appear to be motivated by monetary gain alone then the penalising of otherwise innocent parties as a consequence is entirely to be anticipated.

murdomaguire wrote: »

The main problem with private parking is the industry is largely run by a combination of (either or all) get-rich-quick spivs, refugees from the clamping business who failed on the CRO and couldn't get on the SIA register, wannabe bailiffs or idiots who heard it might be a good thing to be in - probably in a pub.

Quite.

murdomaguire wrote: »

Furthermore to "earn" their keep the vast majority are not paid a fee for administering the car parks they "manage" but instead rely on the overstay charges they collect. So the incentive is not to "manage" the parking at all but to entrap as many people as possible and extract as much from the ones they do as possible.

Exactly. The erection of signs and the issuing of charges can hardly be described as management which implies some ongoing process beyond what is better characterised as "harvesting". This deters a proportion of people but establishing a level of deterrence can't be classed as management.

murdomaguire wrote: »

On the "customer" side you have the "I know my rights - FU" parkers who just want a free ride and don't care who they inconvenience, the "daffies and old dears" who wander around in a daze generally and certainly cannot park a car straight, other "genuine" people who missed the signs because they were not obvious/did not know they were breaching any rules and people who were "victims of events" and overstayed because of reasons beyond their control.

I would broadly like to see some form of regulation which sees the "daffies" and the "genuine" lifted out of the equation and has some leeway on the "victims of events".

Regulation is not going to achieve this as attempting to legislate for the application of discretion - which is what you seem to be hinting at - will limit it and thereby negate it.

murdomaguire wrote: »

As to the FU parkers I believe there needs to be a proper mechanism to make them pay up. If you think that means I am acting as some foil for the BPA in this then that is up to you.

And I'm afraid that with this comment you may just have fallen into the common "hammer them" trap. The FU-parkers, as you describe them, are just another manifestation of the very small and more feral component of our society who will pay little heed to such charges and will simply allow unsatisfied CCJ's to rack up against them in exactly the same way as they do at the moment.

murdomaguire wrote: »

The failings to me are in that there is no proper appeals process coupled with unregulated charging on one side and no proper way of punishing resilient transgressors on the other.

For the last eight years (or so) the parking "industry" has impressed on those who have come into contact with it that it was properly using either the law of contract and/or trespass to pursue matters. The truth of the matter is that many such cases as are presented are poorly constructed and with a mounting number of defeats in the courts in recent times the industry wants to move the goal posts. Now, either its interpretation and application of the law as it stands is correct (as it continues to assert) - and it gets its house in order and uses the competent remedy in the County Court - or it is wrong. What the industry is actually saying is, in effect, people have twigged what we have been doing and as a result we're not making as much money. We want to change the game and move to an independent appeals process and an adjudicator where we won't need to prove that a contract was or was not formed first. Oh, and we will therefore be able to make even more money.

murdomaguire wrote: »

Lucy's suggestion seems to me to be eminently sensible but I don't see it happening.

Rather I think any supermarket or retail park with a parking problem will put in barrier parking with a free period on a stamped ticket based on purchases but with a penalised overstay so if you don't pay you don't get out.

Ah. I think that's what would normally be called management. Isn't it?

At the risk of dredging up the argument again I am not persuaded that the use of Norwich Pharmacal Orders would succeed as a strategy. Suggesting that one may be applied for obviously represents a significant threat and that is, I would suggest, what it is intended as rather than a practical solution.

The additional preparation required of the applicant; the necessity for at least a further day in court - which is going to lift the case out of the fast-track route in the SCC (where the vast majority of PPC cases have been heard); the obligation for the applicant to cover the defendant's costs coupled with the necessity to satisfy the public interest test and show a proprietary right (rather than simply a monetary one) will, I suspect, see the NPO suggestion whither. Besides the fact that pursuing NPO's in each contested case is likely to bring the process to a grinding halt.

taffy056

How can it be called management when all they are doing is placing a camera at the entry/exit of a car park? And then sending out tickets!!

There is no parking problems at a vast majority of car parks until the PPCs turn up, then they harrass the clientele of said businesss by issuing tickets for simple things like a wheel touching a line, a disabled badge upside down on a dash board, overstaying whilst shopping at said establishments, and so on.

They don't actually do anything constructive, and are only there to make money out of unsuspecting drivers, most people are considerate drivers and parkers and will not flout rules if they are fair and clear, there is a tiny minority who doesn't give a monkeys but if you listen to the bumph from a ppc they are the majority.

PPCs are not neeeded, put a barrier up on entry/exit and pay on the way out just a multi-storey, if its a retail park with free parking the same principle but people get a ticket/token to leave, its not rocket science! On parking over lines, they are customers, its that simple, on disabled bays and kids bays, most people will not park there.

murdomaguire

At the risk of dredging up the argument again I am not persuaded that the use of Norwich Pharmacal Orders would succeed as a strategy. Suggesting that one may be applied for obviously represents a significant threat and that is, I would suggest, what it is intended as rather than a practical solution.

I was not talking of Norwich Paramacal Orders.

Rather a system mirroring PATAS but for the priovate sector:

To protect people such as he there 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 them accessing the DVLA data should be at least £10 to prevent fraudulent or false requests for data (when people have not oversstayed).
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.

ripped_off_driver

HO87 wrote: »

The Oldham Chronicle simplified matters, IMV, but herewith transcript of the judgement so that those who are so minded can draw their own conclusions:


IN THE OLDHAM COUNTY COURT

Claim No. 8QT03984

Tuesday, 14th October 2008

　

Before:

DISTRICT JUDGE ACKROYD

Between:

COMBINED PARKING SOLUTIONS

Claimant

-v-

STEPHEN JAMES THOMAS

Defendant

______________________

Representative for the Claimant: MR PERKINS

Representative for the Defendant: MR LARGE

______________________

JUDGMENT APPROVED BY THE COURT

Transcribed from the Official Tape Recording.

JUDGMENT

1. THE DISTRICT JUDGE: This is a claim by Combined Parking Solutions of Wolverhampton against Mr　Stephen James Thomas. It is for a parking charge of £135 plus some interest, totalling £136.86.

2. The background to this case is that Combined Parking Solutions and the vicar or minister of St Andrew’s Methodist Church on Smith Street, Rochdale

This is not the genuine transcript. It has been significantly altered presumably by Perky to hide the fact that the online forum posting was the crucial decider. If you read paras 11 to 15 it all sounds plausible and good for the defendant. Then in para 16 the judge says he has "absolutely no doubt" that the defendant was driving. !!!!!!! It does not compute. How could the judge say this on the evidence he has recited? How would he know this for certain? The missing information about the forum posting makes sense of it. The judge says:

"This defendant has run, in respect of the issue of identity, a disingenuous issue."

Disingenuous = lie. There was no way back from this. Why Thomas would lie is another issue that has never been answered.

The clue to the doctored transcript is in para 12: "This is a case where this claimant has been doing some investigation, it has been doing some homework in order to try and get its case home"

Homework = trolling consumer sites for incriminating onformation. The criucial deciding factor. At least Perky had some return for all the thousands of hours he put in, the saddo.

Proof once again that you should never believe everything you read on the Internet and especially when it comes from well known disingenuous moron Perky.

ripped_off_driver

The argument that someone could come and park on your drive has been used time and time again by the PPC industry. It is almost a DNA marker for them. The fact that the number of times strangers actually come and park on someone's drives must be as rare as hen's teeth does not seem to matter.

The BPA craves licensing and regulation because it lends legitimacy to private parking tickets, which at the moment have none. The BPA is well aware that currently PPC invoices are pretty much unenforcable, as CEO Troy admitted in Parliament. If you have licensing it means that you can say the system is vetted and policed lending legitimacy. There is already an independent appeal to the County Court but is is the PPCs that have to exercise it when the invoice recipient is in the know and ignores. That is clearly a problem for PPCs as they are too scared to go down the court line and would like to place the burden of appealing on the motorist. Why should an invoice recipient be encouraged to appeal when the begging letter he or she has received has no validity in the first place?

Look at what licensing achieved for clamping regulation. Nothing. In fact it significantly hampered things as it legitimised a form of extortion and bullying, which is now having to be outlawed as a result.

ripped_off_driver

real1314 wrote: »

Is there anywhere that can unequivocably, accurately and unbiased ly (?) show what was the basis of the judgement for this case?

Apply to the judge for the judgement transcript. It will not be the same as the transcript posted on the net by Perky. I have seen it but unfortunately no longer have it.

I am extremely surprised that murdo, although telling us that he made every attempt to discover the truth behind the case, did not ever attempt to get a copy of the genuine transcript.

buglawton

peter_the_piper wrote: »

Real council ones or confetti ones?

In the Church instance I described in Post #141, it was the Council, using the loophole that to reach the verge (private land), one must have driven over the pavement first, hence the ticket-able offence. Actually they might not get away with that in today's militant-motorist climate.

Hadeon

murdomaguire wrote: »

It's an application for a Norwich Pharmacal Order.

murdomaguire wrote: »

I was not talking of Norwich Paramacal Orders.

By all means correct me if I am wrong, but was it not your very mention of NPO's in the first instance in your inaugural posts which, among other 'statements', prompted the subsequent flurry of renewed recent activity on this thread?

HO87

ripped_off_driver wrote: »

This is not the genuine transcript.

I cannot confirm whether it is or isn't genuine (can't now recall where I obtained it although it is likely to have been copied from here, CAG or PePiPoo) but it only purports to be the transcript of the judgement not the full hearing and would not therefore contain the detailed exchanges being referred to. I have the following comments:

1. I recall a lot of debate at the time (particularly on PePiPoo) as to the reasons for Thomas's case failing and this hinged on what the defendant had disclosed in forum posts produced by Perky.
2. Specifically I recall that the defendant had admitted driving his car into the church car park in his original post and yet in court had attempted to claim that he could not remember.
3. That the judge appears to sum up this aspect of the case in the statement "This defendant has run, in respect of the issue of identity, a disingenuous issue" is, I submit, as diplomatic but straightforward means of expressing his conclusion as might be found.
4. I can see nothing wrong with the verbal artefact - the "homework" comment - referred to at para. 12 and mirrors similar turns of phrase I have read in other judgements and transcripts.
5. This judgement set no precedent - despite the fact that Perky tried for many months to suggest that it did - and from that point of view is pretty irrelevant. Let's therefore keep things in perspective.

Finally, I find this document entirely consistent and believable but would be happy for it to be demonstrated that it has been altered or even completely concocted. I could then happily delete it - even if it would only free up 90kB of hard drive space!