Warning - apcoa - must see

sassy_one

Stigy wrote: »

I don't read things properly? No, I DO NOT work for a PPC, and fail to see how anything I've written states otherwise. Yes, there are rules that govern the issue of a PF, but if a PF goes unpaid, it's the byelaws (usually 18.1) that are used to prosecute the non-payment. So you're not being prosecuted for not paying the PF, but for not haveing a ticket in the first place.

NO, Somebody probably found this farce by way of a Google search and realised this thread is full of barrack room lawyers.

Amazing really, how people supposedly savvy with the law, know pretty much nothing about it, and simply use the fact that they pretty much all support the same cause and are in their own sad little group, in order to brush over really quite large and important aspects of the law.

Seriously guys, get over yourselves.

Think I need to make myself completely clear for you.

The facts stated in this thread are correct, the posts you have made are not.

I use to work in a law firm, I saw a lot of civil proceeding cases as well as advice seeked from clients on private parking charges.

A long with this the firm also represented Criminal law, hence why I have deep criminal law knowledge a long with complete civil law.

The fact that I use to work in a law firm in no way states I am or was a solicitor.

I now provide advice part time and drop in appointments at a department I work for to which we offer advice to those whom have received a PPC, or a Council ticket, as well as speeding fines.

I think it's fair to say Stigy, through 50 cases I have personally dealt with in the last 6 months, all 50 of those PPC were never enforced, and 7 of which were bylaw offences to which we defended on behalf of our client and the driver could not be proved.

I think you really need to take a step back from this thread if you are going to continue to post off topic and try and debate over facts, when clearly I am in a legal position to offer such advice.

Coblcris

"Ithe firm also represented Criminal law".
"I have deep criminal law knowledge a long with complete civil law."

Then I would expect your use of language to not be so appalling.

"complete civil law" - a clearly preposterous claim, the canon is huge.

Former_MSE_Andrea

Hi everyone

We've removed several posts from this thread. Please let's get it back on topic without resorting to name calling.
Thanks!

taffy056

MSE_Andrea wrote: »

Hi everyone

We've removed several posts from this thread. Please let's get it back on topic without resorting to name calling.
Thanks!

Wouldn't it be better to close the thread ? Really its not going anywhere at all, its not offering constructive advice as certain people are just arguing about god knows what, I can't be bothered going back 10 pages in this, just in case it makes me lose the will to live

Thanks!

dacouch

taffy056 wrote: »

Wouldn't it be better to close the thread ? Really its not going anywhere at all, its not offering constructive advice as certain people are just arguing about god knows what, I can't be bothered going back 10 pages in this, just in case it makes me lose the will to live

Thanks!

The only problem with closing the thread is that we will miss out on the "My dad's bigger than your dad" posts that are inevitable at this rate...

Messrs_Arthur_and_Terry

Coupon-mad wrote: »

. Let's scare vulnerable disabled people into paying extortionate amounts', that's the motto isn't it, allegedly?
.

I think you are adding an unecessary layer to the conversation, but oddly enough you are actually pushing it in Stigy's direction. Disabled people who display the blue badge and fail to obey the carpark rules actually breech the SIA VI licensing conditions that enabled them the benefit in the first place. If any group should have no excuse it's the blue badge holders.

sassy_one

MSE_Andrea wrote: »

Hi everyone

We've removed several posts from this thread. Please let's get it back on topic without resorting to name calling.
Thanks!

Thank you Andrea for again looking at this thread.

sassy_one

Guys, I have been in touch again earlier this morning with Site Admin.

I have brought to there attention a number of issues I personally have with this thread and 'one or two' certain users posting attempting to disrupt this thread.

This thread will remain active, until such a time I feel it becomes necessary to close this thread, arguing or alike will not cause me to have this thread closed, so any attempt to do such will fail.


This thread was started to warn others, weather they are already registered here on MoneySavingExpert or coming from a search engine that they do not have to pay any invoice nor one which is issued under the limited few station car parks that are covered by the railway bylaw, as this would need to prove whom the driver was at the said time and date, which in most cases, would not be able to prove.

Please may I request that posters in this thread stick on topic of this thread, i.e APCOA and railway station car park 'invoices'.

Failure to do so from this point will give me no other choice than to report any posts that do not respect this rule to this thread.


To others, please ignore the certain posters who believe they are know it all,s Site Admin are fully aware and are monitoring the situation.
Please can we free the MODS up for real things and ignore those who wish to post statements they clearly do not know the true correct facts and those who are ill-informed.

We are here to help and advise others that they do not have to be extorted for monies or feel/be threatened into paying any invoices, to which is unenforceable.


I hope I have explained the circumstances and made my point clear that anyone name calling, posting insults or off topic posts will be reported to site admin without further warning.


Back on topic:

Any invoice you receive in a Private car park cannot be enforced and is completely unenforceable by all means, the company do not have any powers on there side.

If you receive a invoice at a train station car park that is not covered by a bylaw section 14, ignore it.
If the station happens to be covered, post in a new thread your circumstances and others will help you and advise you the best way to deal with the matter; although even if covered by section 14 bylaw, it can rarely be enforced as they must prove whom was driving at the said time, something I know too well is very hard for them to do if there are more than two people living at an address!

sassy_one

mcjordi wrote: »

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

Ignore it, I promise nothing will happen

:A

Messrs_Arthur_and_Terry

sassy-one wrote: »

Failure to do so from this point will give me no other choice than to report any posts that do not respect this rule to this thread.


To others, please ignore the certain posters who believe they are know it all,s Site Admin are fully aware and are monitoring the situation.

Well now that is closing the gate on anyone else's freedom to express an opinion.

Surely, as an article clerk or similar, you are not advocating obsequious, even sycophantic obedience to you own point of view?

So far I have seen nothing from your posts that would gurantee a postive outcome for any member challenging the rights of a property owner (public or private) when the car park operator seeks remedy at law to recover payment demanded.

Your indignation is tantamount to a rally call to encourage members to disobediance rather than contest the matter through the courts as it should be.

You, yourself have used inflammatory posts under the guise of being a legal practicioner to cajole members into spiteful posts against another member ( Stigy), then seek relief from a moderator when someone like myself intercedes to impress upon members to understand the rights of all parties.

Would you be so willing to offer advice if you were to go guarantor in the event a member was successfully prosecuted for payment? If not your opinion is just that and just as (in)valid as anyone elses.