Warning - apcoa - must see

geordieracer

geordie_taxi wrote: »

so can we deside if you get ticketed by apcoa (private) you can ignore it but if u get ticketed by an official railway bloke u need to contest it and not ignore

that is the jist of it..

geordie_taxi

Messrs_Arthur_and_Terry wrote: »

My advice is that you ignore any ticket at your peril. I suggest members read the BPA Approved Operator Scheme Code of Practice to get an idea of what they are up against.

thank you for ur advice but to b honest I think you wrong I would prefer to take me chances with the advice give on this forum

dacouch

I'm guessing Sassy has been busy hitting the abuse button for most of the previous few posts since his outburst, MSE must love him...(As he would say FACT)

dacouch

sassy-one wrote: »

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.

I'm [STRIKE]Stigy[/STRIKE] Sparticus

anewman

Sassy is a "he"?

dacouch

anewman wrote: »

Sassy is a "he"?

Yes he is a geezar and has a mondeo that does 170mph FACT

backfoot

Messrs_Arthur_and_Terry wrote: »

My advice is that you ignore any ticket at your peril. I suggest members read the BPA Approved Operator Scheme Code of Practice to get an idea of what they are up against.

Have you been involved in the drafting of this document? Have you ever worked as an Advisor to the BPA or litigants from the Parking Companies.

I think it is only fair that you put on record any 'interest ' you have which MSE members can take into account when reading your advice.

It obviously comes with a lot of background knowledge. Yet you have appeared on this forum with a different viewpoint after sitting in the sidelines for a long time. Then you have chosen to use an alternative name.

You,ve also been active in looking for 'solutions' to the parking problem.

It's all still a bit curious if you ask me.:)

Coupon-mad

Messrs Arthur and Terry are not Murdo Maguire, his posts were good IMHO!

The former is clearly a PPC employee, I believe it's Peter Haswell the office teaboy at UKCPS but if I am wrong I am sure he/she will correct me when he can tear himself away from reading fictional Codes of Practice.

KittyLady

Messrs_Arthur_and_Terry wrote: »

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.

Much as I hate to crash a party, this has just had me in stitches laughing with my husband...

SIA VI is a course that my husband has done, it enables you to work as a vehicle immobiliser.

And as for me, I hold a coveted blue badge. Shockingly the SIA who regulate the private security industry had nothing to do with it whatsoever. It was issued by the council after discussion with my doctor about my inability to walk. Oh and even more shocking, I have no benefits, I don't claim any.

The only link between the SIA and my blue badge is that you might see me limping from our car to a shop while a security guard stands there with his pretty yellow armband.

Messrs_Arthur_and_Terry

My interest is only to advise members to caution. We are all aware of the internet experts who have a friend who is a top legal counsel. The advice is inavraibly skewed to the damages argument, contract law, statute, precedence, etc.

The five main "bulletproof" defences are:

1. Driver identity
2. A contract is intent, agreement and consideration
3. The claim is a penalty and therefore illegal
4. Signage is inadequate.
5. The internet says so

but, the law is a moving feast and each of those defences can be disputed:

1. The balance of probabilities will identify the owner as the driver in the absence of admission
2. The consideration of the contract is fulfilled by using the carpark...there's no such thing as a free lunch
3. The claim is not a penalty, but an agreed charge
4. The onus is on the driver to read the signage, not ignore it
5, Citing internet folklore is an insult to the court

Example Case: Oldham County Court heard the case of Combined Parking Solutions (CPS) versus Stephen Thomas, of Chadwick Street.

I suggest members look up the actual monthly rate of cases where drivers have had judgements against them. It's quite a few and they are generally around the 300 pound mark.