Warning - apcoa - must see

Messrs_Arthur_and_Terry

Hadeon wrote: »

You appear to have a short and very selective memory.

Anyway, more than happy to oblige with the archive. I have read it thanks, and suggest you may wish to refresh & do the same

Your very first post on this thread, timed at 11.11am on 3rd Nov, can be found via the following link:

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:J3hYz1sMWDUJ:forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php%3Fp%3D38278638+/search%3Fhl%3Den%26biw%3D1276%26bih%3D576%26q%3D%2Bsite:moneysavingexpert.com%2BMessrs%2BArthur%2Band%2BTerry&cd=4&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk


Must add that your distortions and hypocrisy are quite breathtaking.

BTW, for the record, your post was deleted because I (there may well have been others), strongly objected to your use of the 'N' word against another contributor.

There you go, you just confirmed my assertion. You see those two little inverted paraphrasing marks either side of the words/strings? Now look back a few threads and find the OP who used the Nazi slogan.

I can't make excuses for your lack of comprehension (or posssible humour lobotomy for that matter), but I guess once you put on those tunnel vision goggles, there isn't any room for anything, but your own bias and furious keyboard indignation.

What member did I call a Nazi? Howse your memory?

My goodness and they've been spending so much money looking for intelligent life on Mars.

What are your thoughts on caselaws such as CPC Vs Gladwell 2009, Thomas 2008? These are fairly public CCJs and must have been talked about on this site.

Post edit: you found my post so offensive you have reposted it for everyone to see it again? HaHaha

Messrs_Arthur_and_Terry

taffy056 wrote: »

As if you would go for that, in one single swoop all the ppc's going out of business because I can tell you one thing a bunch of lying scamming shysters will not get a contract to adminster said car parks for the councils, they would do it themselves !

Wouldn't worry me in the slightest. The councils would issue licences and the operator would have statute on his/her side. just like Stigy does.:D

Messrs_Arthur_and_Terry

esmerobbo wrote: »

Err wasn't that an attack.

As for regulation personally I would welcome it. However given the over inflated charges PPC,s charge I doubt that they would.

Compared to what?

Driver8

Messrs_Arthur_and_Terry wrote: »

There you go, you just confirmed my assertion. You see those two little inverted paraphrasing marks either side of the words/strings? Now look back a few threads and find the OP who used the Nazi slogan.

I can't make excuses for your lack of comprehension (or posssible humour lobotomy for that matter), but I guess once you put on those tunnel vision goggles, there isn't any room for anything, but your own bias and furious keyboard indignation.

What member did I call a Nazi? Howse your memory?

My goodness and they've been spending so much money looking for intelligent life on Mars.

What are your thoughts on caselaws such as CPC Vs Gladwell 2009, Thomas 2008? These are fairly public CCJs and must have been talked about on this site.

Post edit: you found my post so offensive you have reposted it for everyone to see it again? HaHaha

Ah Ah, i did say to you as soon as you use that case where Thomas was allegedly lying about who the driver was and he got caught you would lose. He did not get a CCJ but a fine. Unlike what PPC's think, they just can't "apply" for a CCJ. There is due process of which they do not do.

You are proving to people reading these posts that PPC's just do not do court because they will get spanked. Keep on posting and keep reassuring people that PPC's are just scamming thieves.

You still have not provided proof that any ONE PPC as taken people to court and won on their so called "Contractual Agreement's" because you can't can you? No thought not.

Just have a look at the sticky on top of the thread and read some of the letters the PPC scamsters send out, in the main to frighten, intimidate and bully people.

The more people read posts by you, the more they realise it is just a scam. You cannot provide proof of ONE court case a PPC as won legitimately. Not one.

The scam is collapsing around them the more people are getting aware of it. yes it is a scam.

esmerobbo

Messrs_Arthur_and_Terry wrote: »

Compared to what?

Depends on where you live. If I park in a official council car park or bay were I live and contravene it would cost me £35 up to £60 [I have never had one BTW] However a PPC sent me an invoice for £70 up to £100. As the RK.

Then of course the council employ people to issue tickets and you have a right of appeal.

Most PPC,s have a camera that someone watches and sends out invoices. They offer an appeal but how many are successful as opposed to the Council tickets.

Messrs_Arthur_and_Terry

Driver8 wrote: »

Ah Ah, i did say to you as soon as you use that case where Thomas was allegedly lying about who the driver was and he got caught you would lose. He did not get a CCJ but a fine.

So what is the General Form of Judgement or Order 8TQ03984 that that states is was a Judgement in the Oldham County Court? Is not a judgement a judgement?

Messrs_Arthur_and_Terry

esmerobbo wrote: »

Depends on where you live. If I park in a official council car park or bay were I live and contravene it would cost me £35 up to £60 [I have never had one BTW] However a PPC sent me an invoice for £70 up to £100. As the RK.

Then of course the council employ people to issue tickets and you have a right of appeal.

Most PPC,s have a camera that someone watches and sends out invoices. They offer an appeal but how many are successful as opposed to the Council tickets.

Didn't they offer the opportunity to pay half? I'm not sure how the crown apportions labour cost, but I'd assume it's a fixed overhead and therefore difficult to quatify loss of income.

In the case of Thomas that esmerobbo was ready to pounce on, he was ordered to pay the PPC 135 pounds plus interest and ~121 pounds to the court for their effort. I guess compared to judges, PPC's are cheap.:)

peter_the_piper

Messrs_Terry_and_June_ wrote: »

In the case of Thomas he was ordered to pay the PPC 135 pounds plus interest and ~121 pounds to the court for their effort (15 minutes). I guess compared to judges, PPC's are cheap.:)

That was as much for lying to the judge as anything else. Had he not done so its unlikely he would have lost.
Moral of the story? Don't lie to the beak.

This one gets trotted out regularly but there has not been one other that ppc's can use despite all the claims they make. Had there been any more they would have surfaced by now.

Driver8

Messrs_Arthur_and_Terry wrote: »

Didn't they offer the opportunity to pay half? I'm not sure how the crown apportions labour cost, but I'd assume it's a fixed overhead and therefore difficult to quatify loss of income.

In the case of Thomas that esmerobbo was ready to pounce on, he was ordered to pay the PPC 135 pounds plus interest and ~121 pounds to the court for their effort (15 minutes). I guess compared to judges, PPC's are cheap.:)

You have LOST all credibility. I told you this and the Shelley case are the only ones you can spout.

Just answer the question asked. PROVE that a PPC as taken ANYONE to court and WON on their contractual agreements. Go on, answer it without spouting the two cases above and almost certainly one of them was a PPC set up.

Go on answer the question. You can't can you?

Keep posting and prove to others reading the threads that PPC's are just scammers who do not do court as their scam will be exposed.

HO87

Messrs_Arthur_and_Terry wrote: »

What are your thoughts on caselaws such as CPC Vs Gladwell 2009, Thomas 2008? These are fairly public CCJs and must have been talked about on this site.

May I make something clear. Neither Gladwell nor Thomas represent "case law". Both were heard at County Courts (Telford 2009 and Oldham 2008, respectively) and, as the principle of stare decisis does not apply to the lower courts, neither have established any precedent nor do they have any pursuasive influence on any other courts whatsoever.

To refer to them in this way is, at best, misleading, especially to the first-time visitor to the forum, and does no justice to the PPC debate regardless of which perspective it is viewed from. There may have been matters of interest raised in the cases but this does not get away from the fact that from a legal standpoint they are as so much chaff on the wind.

This follows something of a trend in this thread where terms with specific legal meanings are bandied around in such a way as they are likely to confuse those who are unaware and, importantly, to the detriment of any argument.

Some may interpret the fact that both of the quoted cases involved a certain Mr Perkins as being significant. Others may not.