Warning - apcoa - must see

Coupon-mad

That's not what Patrick Troy says.

And that's not what most PPCs think at all, to mention just a few : Euro Car Parks, Britannia, Town & City, Parking Eye are typical in that they NEVER go to Court.

Pinky, Perky, or Peter, whoever you are, you are not convincing anyone.

And I noticed you ignored my request to name a car park for your 'challenge' and you ignored Driver8's request for you to show just one real (not set up nor default) case where a PPC actually won the contract argument against a driver or a registered keeper - seeing as PPCs don't care who they pursue.

Driver8

Messrs_Arthur_and_Terry wrote: »

What's the saying about the devil's biggest deception being the one where he convinced everyone he didn't exist.

I would suppose the more people who flout the posted rules the greater the potential income through users buckling at the last hurdle and paying. Once the inconvenience of attending court becomes apparent, it's often cheaper to pay the demand.

On the balance of probabilities it's more than likely profitable for the PPC to pay the fee to the county court to have the matter heard and just not show up, hoping the intervening period will result in payment from the perp.

You didn't answer my question.

On the balance of probabilities, a PPC would NOT pay court charges whatsoever as they know have not got a leg to stand on. You know that too.

peter_the_piper

Don't forget that ppc's of the clamping variety also ignore ccj's on them.

Stigy

peter_the_piper wrote: »

Was that a reply to my post? I was trying to get him to show where we had said ignore Them to anyone other than a ppc (in this context)

I was refering to the legal guru that is Sassy-Kins. I'll admit it wasn't in this context, otherwise it would be pointless me having said anything really, as I wiped PPCs from the equation when I made my last post. I seem to recal him telling somebody to ignore a NIP from a TOC for a breach of byelaw. I promptly put him right, and was quickly called a bully for doing so.

backfoot

Messrs_Arthur_and_Terry wrote: »

What's the saying about the devil's biggest deception being the one where he convinced everyone he didn't exist.

I would suppose the more people who flout the posted rules the greater the potential income through users buckling at the last hurdle and paying. Once the inconvenience of attending court becomes apparent, it's often cheaper to pay the demand.

On the balance of probabilities it's more than likely profitable for the PPC to pay the fee to the county court to have the matter heard and just not show up, hoping the intervening period will result in payment from the perp.

It's quite incredible that Perky is even so dumb here as to reveal a bluffing strategy. :doh:Can we quote you on this one, Mr. Office Manager. :whistle:

Has anyone else noticed how many times he says 'on the balance of probabilities'. :rotfl:He'll be sitting his Articles soon ya know.

HO87

Stigy wrote: »

I was refering to the legal guru that is Sassy-Kins. I'll admit it wasn't in this context, otherwise it would be pointless me having said anything really, as I wiped PPCs from the equation when I made my last post. I seem to recal him telling somebody to ignore a NIP from a TOC for a breach of byelaw. I promptly put him right, and was quickly called a bully for doing so.

Could you specify what you mean by the term NIP?
Could you detail what authority a Train Operating Company uses to issue a Notice of Intended Prosecution?

peter_the_piper

High speed parking? I, probably incorrectly, thought that NIP's were moving traffic offences and am confused how this applies to ppc's.

Stigy

HO87 wrote: »

Could you specify what you mean by the term NIP?
Could you detail what authority a Train Operating Company uses to issue a Notice of Intended Prosecution?

Be it right or wrong terminology due to a TOC not being a Government agency, that's what it is, is it not? If TOC sends you a letter saying they wish to prosecute for a breach of byelaw etc etc, is that not, to all intents and purposes a Notice of Intended Prosecution? If not, I apologise and will reiterate what I said, to read something like the following "...A poster was advised to ignore all correspondence with a TOC after reported for a breach of byelaw"

peter_the_piper

Well if they did say that then they were in the wrong, its only the ppc hired by TOC that should be ignored. I hope that clears things up.

HO87

The only notification that it would be necessary for any one to receive, were they to be dealt with (at court) for an alleged breach of a byelaw, is a Magistrates Court summons. Should a TOC chose to write a letter to someone they intend to prosecute to that effect then that is all it is - a letter. It is not a NIP - Notice of Intended Prosecution as defined. Such a notice has a very specific meaning and effect at law and has nothing whatsoever to do with railway byelaws or whether a TOC is a government agency.

As a letter, such as you seem to suggest, is purporting to be simply informative then it could safely be ignored without fear of consequence - together with every other item of correspondence from the TOC. As any summons would originate from the court, not the TOC, (and is the only document that need be responded to) then the advice stands and is entirely valid.