Honest John - Telegraph paper

sassy_one

Honest John is more than honest, he is a muppet!

Ignore any invoices or contact regards a private parking charge - it's money extortion

backfoot

Still smarting on behalf of LBC, and just repeating the same thing over and over.:T

All the legal speak and technicalities in the world won't change the view that:

In reality all PPC notices will fail because they will fall short of meeting all the tests applied to them in law.

In reality a part payment is a naff idea because the PPC's don't understand 'the counter offer' concept. They will just use it to further their scam.

In reality the idea of a part payment is out of touch with the winning formula which is to completely ignore the scam.

Look they got it wrong.You do yourself no justice keep on hammering the point of principle on behalf of HJ, LBC and yourself.

Quentin

murdomaguire wrote: »

So can anyone point out to me how that differs from Honest John's much insulted advice?

MSE Martin isn't a specialist motor lawyer! LBC says she is.

MSE Martin gives diplomatic advice, and doesn't claim to be a professional lawyer. (Some MSE msmbers would be happier taking the "pay what you think" route than taking the hard line as they would feel uncomfortable getting into the unpleasant demanding/threatening letters which we know is the stock in trade of the private parking scam)

LBC gives so called professional legal advice.

There are some differences for you.

(And we recall that LBC despite her "professional" credentials wasn't averse to coming here and trying it on by abusing MSE no advertising rules and spamming her website - would you really want to do take advice from such a rogue?)

AlexisV

murdomaguire wrote: »

Can somebody challenge on the substantive point rather than the periphery.

1. A parking company can establish a contract by signage if the terms of the contract are clear and unambiguous and the signage is frequent and unmissable.

Correct (depending on the terms of the contract).

2. A contract can be enforced if the terms of the contract are not in any way punitive.

There has to be a valid contractual offer. To say "No parking. If you park you agree to pay £50" is not a valid offer. It is attempting to offer something it is forbidding. So you'd have to go down the route of breach of contract, for which the sum must be a pre-estimate of loss incurred and not a contractual penalty.

At danger of repeating myself:

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.

I've never seen the full transcript. Usual PPC response is "get it from the court yourself", which both sides could state.

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.

Two issues:

1. Was the defendant the driver? Yes he was, move on.
2. Was the sum the result of a valid contract or a reflection of actual losses incurred?
Note that in the summing up that the judge tries to tot up the costs incurred from running a car park on a church. In the end, in effect, the sum he came up with happened to be the amount the alleged contract was 'agreeing'. If you deprive a worshipper a parking space, are you depriving the church of revenue? Perhaps a nominal amount. Issues regarding the price of tarmac are a bit of a red herring in my opinion, but could the defendant have caused the church £30 or £40 worth of loss? Perhaps. How about the amount awarded? I would say no. And plenty of other judges would agree. And other judges may have awarded £10,000. That's the nature of the lowest rung of the justic system.

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.

Charge or actual loss incurred?

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.

Yes. There is no point trying to duck out of being the driver when there are so many other defences beyond this angle.

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.

It depends on the judge. Personally, in this day and age I think it's 100% valid. Any evidence can be faked, but it is just taken that both sides tell the truth. Cases in county court would take forever if all evidence had to verified.

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.

Ok...

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.

Assuming a legally unenforceable contract is a contract at all.

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

It's not an issue of reasonableness, it's one of legal enforceablity and then of demonstrable loss.

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

I read it as the losses incurred were around the same as was 'agreed' in the 'contract'. I think the amount of loss is wrong, but that's just my view.

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

In theory, only the facts should matter. Alleged dishonesty over the identity issue should not impact on the black and white legalities of contract law. In practice it may have been different, which would be wrong.

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".

No, it's an invoice for the amount allegedly agreed in the alleged contract. A genuine offer to settle for contract breach would be backed up with proof of loss incurred.

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.[/quote[

No, you should always ignore until you receive a valid invoice. They seem strangely reluctant to send such correspondence though strangely.

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.

Yes, but you're talking one or two pounds at most. £10 is too high (jn 99% of cases). And you would be better putting this in writing before sending off any money. Since they will always tell you to sling your hook, you have saved yourself a pound.

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.

The problem is that you are dealing with scamsters. They don't stop sending letters, whatever you do. And if you start talking money with them you will get harassed more than if you just ignored.

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 hope this reply helps

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.

As on any forum, you're going to get misunderstandings and disagreements. I think the vast majority of people are right to berate these companies when 99.99% of cases are legally unsound money making scams.