Honest John - Telegraph paper

maninthestreet

Honest John just gives his own opinion in any reply to a query - that doesn't mean it is considered the 'correct' response by everyone else.

Jeff_Bridges_hair

maninthestreet wrote: »

Honest John just gives his own opinion in any reply to a query - that doesn't mean it is considered the 'correct' response by everyone else.

If your answering such a question like this in a national news paper then you have to give the right advice.

lucylucky

maninthestreet wrote: »

Honest John just gives his own opinion in any reply to a query - that doesn't mean it is considered the 'correct' response by everyone else.

As long as he has a disclaimer at the end of his column and on his website which states....

"The information and advice given here is not always necessarily correct or legally informed and you would do well to ignore it"

... then readers should be under no illusion that he is indeed posting nonsense.

Coupon-mad

It's frankly ill-informed to suggest an approach that admits liability where there is clearly NO liability.

The bogus ticket is issued by the private parking company of course, not the Supermarket so there is no consideration between the PPC and the registered keeper of a car, however you look at it.

The fact that the occupants of a car may have made some purchases with, say, Tesco is irrelevant because the purchases are made with a separate company, are completely unrelated to any parking terms and in any case, the purchases may not have been made by the driver but by a passenger.

And if the motorist parks in a free car park then they haven't even paid for the parking so there's no contract there either. Such car parks are maintained and provided by the landowner or retail occupier (not the parking co) so there's not even the argument that the PPC has 'provided' the parking space because they haven't. They provide no worthwhile service whatsoever to anyone.

All they do is 'patrol' a parking area that doesn't belong to them having stuck up some signs that do not create any contract with drivers, then they add insult to injury by pursuing an unrelated person = the registered keeper! They cannot possibly allege a contract with the RK, only (tenuously) possibly with the driver - who hasn't signed anything anyway. The RK has no legal obligation to inform them of who the driver was (unlike criminal offences) and consequently cannot be liable for any penalty in the absence of any proof by the claimant as to who was driving.

And of course finally, the amount is an illegal penalty as has been upheld in Court:

http://www.chad.co.uk/news/local/local_news_2_9302/judge_says_excel_parking_fines_illegal_1_701811

IMHO It's seriously not a good idea to admit liability by paying scammers 10p, let alone £10!

Tim Cary was 100% correct with his advice on Watchdog. It's safe to ignore bogus tickets and ignore the illegal, threatening, harassing debt collector letters; it's been a tried and tested method on forums for several years.

lucylucky

Coupon-mad wrote: »

It's frankly ill-informed to suggest an approach that admits liability where there is clearly NO liability.

The bogus ticket is issued by the private parking company of course, not the Supermarket so there is no consideration between the PPC and the registered keeper of a car, however you look at it.

The fact that the occupants of a car may have made some purchases with, say, Tesco is irrelevant because the purchases are made with a separate company, are completely unrelated to any parking terms and in any case, the purchases may not have been made by the driver but by a passenger.

And if the motorist parks in a free car park then they haven't even paid for the parking so there's no contract there either. Such car parks are maintained and provided by the landowner or retail occupier (not the parking co) so there's not even the argument that the PPC has 'provided' the parking space because they haven't. They provide no worthwhile service whatsoever to anyone.

All they do is 'patrol' a parking area that doesn't belong to them having stuck up some signs that do not create any contract with drivers, then they add insult to injury by pursuing an unrelated person = the registered keeper! They cannot possibly allege a contract with the RK, only (tenuously) possibly with the driver - who hasn't signed anything anyway. The RK has no legal obligation to inform them of who the driver was (unlike criminal offences) and consequently cannot be liable for any penalty in the absence of any proof by the claimant as to who was driving.

And of course finally, the amount is an illegal penalty as has been upheld in Court:

http://www.chad.co.uk/news/local/local_news_2_9302/judge_says_excel_parking_fines_illegal_1_701811

IMHO It's seriously not a good idea to admit liability by paying scammers 10p, let alone £10!

Tim Cary was 100% correct with his advice on Watchdog. It's safe to ignore bogus tickets and ignore the illegal, threatening, harassing debt collector letters; it's been a tried and tested method on forums for several years.

Thank you for one of your, many, and considered and sensible posts.

taffy056

Coupon-mad wrote: »

It's frankly ill-informed to suggest an approach that admits liability where there is clearly NO liability.

The bogus ticket is issued by the private parking company of course, not the Supermarket so there is no consideration between the PPC and the registered keeper of a car, however you look at it.

The fact that the occupants of a car may have made some purchases with, say, Tesco is irrelevant because the purchases are made with a separate company, are completely unrelated to any parking terms and in any case, the purchases may not have been made by the driver but by a passenger.

And if the motorist parks in a free car park then they haven't even paid for the parking so there's no contract there either. Such car parks are maintained and provided by the landowner or retail occupier (not the parking co) so there's not even the argument that the PPC has 'provided' the parking space because they haven't. They provide no worthwhile service whatsoever to anyone.

All they do is 'patrol' a parking area that doesn't belong to them having stuck up some signs that do not create any contract with drivers, then they add insult to injury by pursuing an unrelated person = the registered keeper! They cannot possibly allege a contract with the RK, only (tenuously) possibly with the driver - who hasn't signed anything anyway. The RK has no legal obligation to inform them of who the driver was (unlike criminal offences) and consequently cannot be liable for any penalty in the absence of any proof by the claimant as to who was driving.

And of course finally, the amount is an illegal penalty as has been upheld in Court:

http://www.chad.co.uk/news/local/local_news_2_9302/judge_says_excel_parking_fines_illegal_1_701811

IMHO It's seriously not a good idea to admit liability by paying scammers 10p, let alone £10!

Tim Cary was 100% correct with his advice on Watchdog. It's safe to ignore bogus tickets and ignore the illegal, threatening, harassing debt collector letters; it's been a tried and tested method on forums for several years.

That just sums it up very nicely imo, thanks for posting it coupon, perhaps somebody could forward it onto HJ, he needs the advice!

king100

You are being obtuse.
I suggest your read up on The Law of Contract.
HJ

His reply

Jeff_Bridges_hair

king100 wrote: »

You are being obtuse.
I suggest your read up on The Law of Contract.
HJ

His reply

good lord... I wonder what he will write in his paper this weekend.

Jeff_Bridges_hair

Jeff_Bridges_hair wrote: »

good lord... I wonder what he will write in his paper this weekend.

Though check this from his website http://www.honestjohn.co.uk/faq/parking-fines

lucylucky

king100 wrote: »

You are being obtuse.
I suggest your read up on The Law of Contract.
HJ

His reply

You may well be many things but "obtuse" you are not.

HJ however is clearly an idiot