Honest John - Telegraph paper

ripped_off_driver

HO87 wrote: »

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!

This doctored transcript was placed online by Perky himself. I have seen the original and there has been significant amendment, due no doubt to Perky's embarrassment that the real reason for the decision becoming known. As PPCs all over the place were lying about the case at Perky's urging it was important to keep real reasoning under wraps. If you obtain a copy of the original you will find the differences between it and this Perky-doctored version very illuminating.

Agree it's no big deal and it was posted in good faith but it has been shown time and again that you cannot trust anything PPCs will say.

Coblcris

There is more than sufficient existing law which covers the 'private sector'.

backfoot

In my best Lloyd Grossman voice. 'Let's have a look at the evidence'.

HJ writes some utter tosh in a newspaper. A reader alerts MSE.
MSE'rs point out the error of his ways. Some MSE'rs write as such on the HJ website under LBC's legal section.She don't like it as she isn't welcome on MSE as she spammed and got chucked out.

LBC is p!!!ed off ,so recruits her pal Murdo to enter the fray. She daren't,they would eat her alive. Although essentially singing from same hymn sheet as MSE he wants to shut this thread down.'Put up or shut up' is his cry for a while.

Doesn't work it just unsettles the natives even more.Someone spots Murdo's background.He changes tack and gets all legal and technical but it's all the same end result. (Don't pay). A few side discussions about who is the best lawyer,trespass,Pinky and Perky.

Because the MSE'rs have it under control, Murdo tries the Regulation thing. We can't have Joe Public winning these law things...it's for the Pro's.MSE'rs don't want regulation,the scammers have had their day,MSE are winning.

Murdo gone quiet. Didn't really want to be here, he doesn't get paid for this stuff. Nasty MSE'rs such a rude bunch, he grumbles.

So there you have it, folks, who is through the keyhole .:rotfl::D

AlexisV

Funny how we never hear of anyone getting CPS tickets any more.

backfoot

We put up. He shut up. :rotfl:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qcm0nmhlZik

worried_jim

Just so I've got this right, The copy of the judgement at the top of the page is from a real case but the result has been doctored and the defendant won the case in reality and never had to pay the £136. Have I got this right?

bargepole

worried_jim wrote: »

Just so I've got this right, The copy of the judgement at the top of the page is from a real case but the result has been doctored and the defendant won the case in reality and never had to pay the £136. Have I got this right?

No, the defendant lost the case, and had to pay the £136.

But in the real transcript (not the Perky version) it hinged on the fact that the defendant posted on the CAG forum that he was the driver. Perky printed out the thread, and produced it in court when the defendant claimed not to know who was driving - hence the Judge took a dim view of the defence.

Perky later posted on that forum using the alias "Stephen Thomas" saying that he wished he'd not ignored the letters and paid up in the first place, all complete baloney of course. The whole thing looks and sounds extremely fishy.

murdomaguire

HJ writes some utter tosh in a newspaper. A reader alerts MSE.
MSE'rs point out the error of his ways. Some MSE'rs write as such on the HJ website under LBC's legal section.She don't like it as she isn't welcome on MSE as she spammed and got chucked out.

LBC is p!!!ed off ,so recruits her pal Murdo to enter the fray. She daren't,they would eat her alive. Although essentially singing from same hymn sheet as MSE he wants to shut this thread down.'Put up or shut up' is his cry for a while.

Doesn't work it just unsettles the natives even more.Someone spots Murdo's background.He changes tack and gets all legal and technical but it's all the same end result. (Don't pay). A few side discussions about who is the best lawyer,trespass,Pinky and Perky.

I haven't been here for a week because I have a day job.

On the veracity of the judgment I don't have a clue whether it was the original or not but I think it somewhat surprising given the fervour surrounding this case that no one on our side of the argument seems to be able to produce an original when several people on this thread alone claim to have seen it.

Whether or not the judgement was edited by a third party it is clear that if it is substantially complete the judge found that there was a contract and that on the balance of probabilities Mr Thomas had been the person who parked there and found against him.

I am not saying this is a common occurrence - it is not - but it shows that a contract can be established - and hence breached by parking and that a court can rule that a charge is payable.

I was told at the time by a colleague who discussed the case with the reporter Mr Thomas was a young man and the key point in the judge's decision was that no-one else was insured to drive his vehicle. That seems a reasonable contention to me.

In my experience judges don't go to big on evidence copied off the internet because it is so easy to fake. I would be very surprised if the judge gave any weight whatsoever on some person posting under the name Stephen Thomas in the CAG forums. Perhaps some one can disabuse me and post the original and undulterated judgment - put up or shut up as I have been known to say.

If the driver can be identified on the balance of probability by being the only driver insured for the car (and the court will accept this is likely unless some other driver is produced) then the next key issue in these cases comes down to signage.

If the signage is legally bang-on and unmissable then there can be a contract. Very little signage put up by parking companies is legally correct but they are getting better at it.

Whether the charge made under the contract is then "reasonable" would be up to the court.

In this case the judge clearly thought it was - if we believe the judgment and the newspaper report.

Mostly they decide it is not and the judge may have been particularly harsh on Mr Thomas because of the honesty and credibility issues.

To go to the Honest John advice on paying a small sum, the letter from the parking company is not an "invoice" as some people frequently claim in forums but in legal terms is an "invitation to settle a breach of contract out of court".

As has been pointed out here you are perfectly free to ignore that invitation and it (probably) won't go anywhere - save for "debt" collectors who will probably give up eventually. I would strongly advise you should do so if you did not overstay and were not the driver.

However if you did overstay and were the driver (and you believe the signage to be correct) you are also at liberty to make a "counter offer to settle out of court" for a relatively trivial sum - the Honest John line - and providing you get the offer-letter right and they bank the cheque then they are effectively stuffed on the court route and you can invoke protection against harassment legislation against them if they continue chasing.

As I have said it is not the way I would do it but it is perfectly reasonable advice from a legal standpoint if somebody is of a more nervous disposition or cannot be bothered with the hassle.

Lastly I don't think forums work particularly well when the consensus is such and the attack-dogs so aggressive as to abate others from raising a point, challenging anything or even entering the discussion.

I have a thick skin and I know my stuff so I can rebuff the insults, taunts and challenge the twaddle but I do think many other people would be repelled by it and go elsewhere.

More politeness and a more welcoming attitude might get you further in terms of getting people willing to contribute.

taffy056

Whether its twaddle or not, the fact is that most parking places in places like supermarkets are free to use, so there is no loss to speak of, I said it before and say it again, parking bays in private car parks are advisory only, terms and conditions of car parks need to be fair and clear, and they must be agreed to on entry of the car park, so do they make provision for people to read these signs which are normally 15ft up a lamppost covered by foliage and not lit up?

Whilst the legal aspect of this is open to interpretation, the consensus is to ignore all letters and communication with the PPC and the so called debt collectors who go by such names as Court Proceedings Ltd as their threats are baseless, the tickets are dressed up to look like council tickets, and one company claimed that it could be deemed possible that the councils have copied their tickets not the other way round

So your term below is explained in layman's terms, and agreed by the head of the BPA when questioned by MPs

invitation to settle a breach of contract out of court = invoice

darich

taffy056 wrote: »

Whether its twaddle or not, the fact is that most parking places in places like supermarkets are free to use, so there is no loss to speak of, I said it before and say it again, parking bays in private car parks are advisory only, terms and conditions of car parks need to be fair and clear, and they must be agreed to on entry of the car park, so do they make provision for people to read these signs which are normally 15ft up a lamppost covered by foliage and not lit up?

Whilst the legal aspect of this is open to interpretation, the consensus is to ignore all letters and communication with the PPC and the so called debt collectors who go by such names as Court Proceedings Ltd as their threats are baseless, the tickets are dressed up to look like council tickets, and one company claimed that it could be deemed possible that the councils have copied their tickets not the other way round

So your term below is explained in layman's terms, and agreed by the head of the BPA when questioned by MPs

invitation to settle a breach of contract out of court = invoice

Isn't an invoice a bill for goods or services that have been recieved/ordered?
If the above is true, then how can an invoice be the same as an invitation to offera nominal sum of money?