Warning - apcoa - must see

Coupon-mad

'Large and important aspects of the law'...someone overstaying in a car park?!

Stigy

Coupon-mad wrote: »

'Large and important aspects of the law'...someone overstaying in a car park?!

I was thinking more along the lines of the following actually...Or the law in general.

Driver7 wrote:

Under questioning? Under caution? Who the hell do you think you are? You are a PCSO wannabe, you get a yellow jacket with them not a vest oooh and a cheap looking cap.

Real1314 wrote:

What caution do you use?
How do you record the interview?
How do you offer the "suspect" a copy of the interview record?

atrixblue wrote:

cannot caution and cannot detain! if you tired cautioning me in a carpark id laught at you and then call the police to report you for impersonation of a police officer, i would then walk away from you, if you tried to detain me in any way i would have you arrested for common assualt.

The following is really the post of said Barrack Room Lawyer, and the very fact that Sassy had to justify his apparant knowledge just proves this.

Sassy-Kins wrote:

You really do talk some real utter rubbish, Stigy!

You have no authority and even by doing so, it would not stand in a court of law within the United Kingdom - I have studied law and I know what I am stating and this statement I'm about to make is 100% correct: You are wrong.

You really think that you can come here and make all these false claims and people will be stupid enough to roll over and believe it?!....

I'm supprised nobody's chimed in with this old chestnut "You can't possibly conduct an interview without offering the interviewee the choice to have a solicitor present"

Generally speaking, when somebody says "I've had several years of legal training a few years ago", that basically translates to "I've had no legal training whatsoever, and haven't got a clue the the hell I'm talking about"...Hence, Barrack Room Lawyer. There's plenty more posts I could quote. Just to re-cap, I'M the one who knows nothing, merely because I don't know every last piece of legislation, word for word. Yeah right.

Coupon-mad

But you are posting on a parking board, so we are interested in parking tickets here. Even fake ones like yours are of interest too because people fall for the scam and we care enough to advise them not to pay.

You are not always right.

Firstly you wrongly said that you issue Penalty Charge Notices, then you asked why someone could not be 'prosecuted' for not paying a fake PCN. Never mind the small matter of proving who was driving and actually parked that car on arrival in the car park!

Stigy

Coupon-mad wrote: »

But you are posting on a parking board, so we are interested in parking tickets here. Even fake ones like yours are of interest too because people fall for the scam and we care enough to advise them not to pay.

You are not always right.

Firstly you wrongly said that you issue Penalty Charge Notices, then you asked why someone could not be 'prosecuted' for not paying a fake PCN. Never mind the small matter of proving who was driving and parked that car on arrival in the car park!

I believe I said in an earlier post that if you question somebody and they admit to parking the car there that morning, that's all the evidence you need. Foolish admission? Maybe. Unlikely admission? Maybe not. Bear in mind I was talking about reporting for the offence as opposed to issuing an invoice at the time.

Coupon-mad

Reporting for the offence? You REALLY think it's so important that someone travelling on the Railway and paying an arm an a leg for the privelege, deserves to be prosecuted for a parking overstay or overlapping a line on private land?

Ever seen Parking Pataweyo on Harry & Paul? :rotfl:

Stigy

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Reporting for the offence? You REALLY think it's so important that someone travelling on the Railway and paying an arm an a leg for the privelege, deserves to be prosecuted for a parking overstay or overlapping a line on private land?

Ever seen Parking Pataweyo on Harry & Paul? :rotfl:

The idea of the PCN as it were, is took keep matters from going to court, surely? I wouldn't usually think about reporting for a parking offence, unless a dangerous one, unless I was 'disturbed' so to speak, and the offender got shirty with me and became threatening etc. I can take a bit of stick, but threatening behaviour annoys me slightly, as I wouldn't go to yours or anybody elses work place and start shouting at you, so what gives others the right to do so with me?

Coupon-mad

Stigy wrote: »

The idea of the PCN as it were, is to keep matters from going to court, surely?

Yes, but not in the way you are thinking of - not to make it easier for the motorist that's for sure! It's to make it easier for the PPC to collect fake 'fines', it's a licence to print money and sadly it still works on some credulous/uninformed people.

PPCs issue fake PCNs because they know some people will be scared enough to pay up. They know there's almost no chance of Court with these things because the PPCs almost invariably lose, they cannot prove who was driving plus there's a whole host of other issues that they can't be bothered to prove. Plus the monetary amount of these 'charges' is extortionate.

The PPCs know and the BPA admits that they don't have much of a hope in Court (except in the very odd occasion with a dim judge and/or dimmer defendant).

As long as punters keep coughing up and are scared these PPCs are quids in - protection rackets run along the same lines don't they? That's why we protest so much about this issue, it is sharp practice, obtaining money with menaces and extortion!

Messrs_Arthur_and_Terry

Hey what happened to my post?

You guys call Stigy a jobsworth, but obviously you're pretty quick to ask a moderator to be one too!


There are many parts to this, which Sassy will no doubt agree, being a lawyer and all that.

You can be taken to court by the company for either payment of a claim (invoice) or breach of contract damages. The first is fairly easy for a civil court to rule in favour of the company, provided the terms and conditions of use are clear (e.g. signage). The breach is more difficult because the magnitude of damage must be quantified.

Stigy doesn't have to identify the driver, he merely has to provide the car details to his superior and the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency will provide the owner's name on request. The courts will then weigh the balance of probabilities of the owner being the driver, in the circumstance the owner declines to declare the driver's identity.

Coupon-mad

Messrs_Arthur_and_Terry wrote: »

You can be taken to court by the company for either payment of a claim (invoice) or breach of contract damages. The first is fairly easy for a civil court to rule in favour of the company, provided the terms and conditions of use are clear (e.g. signage). The breach is more difficult because the magnitude of damage must be quantified.

Stigy doesn't have to identify the driver, he merely has to provide the car details to his superior and the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency will provide the owner's name on request. The courts will then weigh the balance of probabilities of the owner being the driver, in the circumstance the owner declines to declare the driver's identity.

Yes, it's so easy to get judgments against Premiership footballers isn't it? :rotfl:

You really are deluded - I reckon you are Peternet, the Office Junior from UKCPS. 'To hell with finding out who the driver is, let's just pretend we are a Local Authority and can rely on the Blue Badge scheme. Let's scare vulnerable disabled people into paying extortionate amounts', that's the motto isn't it, allegedly?

If not then let's hear from you properly, or is the PPC position (as we suspect) indefensible? Protection rackets are illegal you know.

mcjordi

Driver8- have you been parking my roller in asda again i seem to have gained a couple of invoices off stiggy again:rotfl: