Warning - apcoa - must see

esmerobbo

"In the case of Thomas that esmerobbo was ready to pounce on"

Can you point me to were I mentioned the Thomas case??

It was £70 if paid within 4 days of the notification £100 if after. However they refused my offer to stop faffing about and issue proceedings. Could you perhaps explain why they declined my offer if it such a simple matter to enforce judgement.

Messrs_Arthur_and_Terry

esmerobbo wrote: »

"In the case of Thomas that esmerobbo was ready to pounce on"

Can you point me to were I mentioned the Thomas case??

It was £70 if paid within 4 days of the notification £100 if after. However they refused my offer to stop faffing about and issue proceedings. Could you perhaps explain why they declined my offer if it such a simple matter to enforce judgement.

Sorry about that, I apologise for using your nic, instead of Driver8's.

I would guess the reason they declined your offer was because they were trying it on and couldn't be bothered pursuing you?

HO87, I'm happy you can speak legalese, but I'm not sure anyone suggested precedents, tauts, statutes, etc. Do you know anything about probing your adversaries.... red herrings, if you get my drift? I could probably throw in a few latin terms too, but that would be bordering on pompous don't you think?

Now you have established yourself as an expert, perhaps you can fill us in on how Thomas and Galdwell outcomes do not constitute CCJ's as Driver8 contends? If you are indeed a degreed professional legal practitioner will you unreservedely advise people to ignore PCN's, will you indemnify them and if so will you provide your true identity for verification?

Driver8, just because you decide to set the boundaries, has little consequence on the PPC's pocket nor the judge's decison, It also does not change my advices, which contrary to the twisted logic and verballing some of you are apt to employ, still stands.

I can't believe how many trolls I am, and how many positions I supposedly hold. When challenged who I am, none of you are forthcoming in revealing you own identities, but some of you are happy to pillary me...how does that work, how brave is that?

geordieracer

Messrs_Arthur_and_Terry wrote: »

Sorry about that, I apologise for using your nic, instead of Driver8's.

I would guess the reason they declined your offer was because they were trying it on and couldn't be bothered pursuing you?

HO87, I'm happy you can speak legalese, but I'm not sure anyone suggested precedents, tauts, statutes, etc. Do you know anything about probing your adversaries.... red herrings, if you get my drift? I could probably throw in a few latin terms too, but that would be bordering on pompous don't you think?

Now you have established yourself as an expert, perhaps you can fill us in on how Thomas and Galdwell outcomes do not constitute CCJ's as Driver8 contends? If you are indeed a degreed professional legal practitioner will you unreservedely advise people to ignore PCN's, will you indemnify them and if so will you provide your true identity for verification?

Driver8, just because you decide to set the boundaries, has little consequence on the PPC's pocket nor the judge's decison, It also does not change my advices, which contrary to the twisted logic and verballing some of you are apt to employ, still stands.

I can't believe how many trolls I am, and how many positions I supposedly hold. When challenged who I am, none of you are forthcoming in revealing you own identities, but some of you are happy to pillary me...how does that work, how brave is that?

I think you will find that Driver8 accepts that in this case a CCJ was given but not for what he was asking you to prove. That CCJ did not get awarded for breach of contract.

HO87

Messrs_Arthur_and_Terry wrote: »

HO87, I'm happy you can speak legalese, but I'm not sure anyone suggested precedents, tauts, statutes, etc. Do you know anything about probing your adversaries.... red herrings, if you get my drift?

Probing adversaries red herrings? That assumes you are viewed as an adversary. You used the term "caselaws" (sic) and - as previously alluded to - this has a precise legal interpretation. From a legal point of view a CCJ does not amount to "case law" nor, necessarily, vice versa and neither of the judgements mentioned have established any legal precedent.

Messrs_Arthur_and_Terry wrote: »

Now you have established yourself as an expert, perhaps you can fill us in on how Thomas and Galdwell outcomes do not constitute CCJ's as Driver8 contends?

I have not argued at any stage that the cases of Gladwell (Galdwell?) and Thomas are not recorded County Court Judgements. I have simply stated that although they may be CCJ's this does not automatically transmute them into case law and have explained the legal basis for that argument - stare decisis. I'm not sure that driver8 has attempted to suggest that they weren't CCJ's either.

It is tempting to conclude that your invitation for me to establish my bona fides might in some way be linked with the final comment in my initial post regarding the coincidence of the claimants in the cases of Thomas and Gladwell but, I have no doubt, you would suggest that was wishful thinking. You will recall that the comment was not in anyway connected to a poster and, as such, was simply a statement of truth.

Adversaries, probing and red herrings come to mind?

dacouch

Steve Pullen

sassy_one

I am still amazed that two posters here AKA one certain poster under two different posting names STILL has yet to provide any evidence or support against and regards there claims re a Private Parking Company issuing invoices and how they can prove they could be enforced; to which, it's simply, they can't.


After so many requests to provide such still has it yet to be provided, I can only guess that maybe just maybe, without sounding not to believe there claims, they can't provide such, or maybe they just don't want too - Who knows: You decide :T

taffy056

Those two cases above won by the ppc doesn't mean ccj's were issued, they have a set number of days to pay the judgement, providing they have done so there is no ccj, so give us proof of this, and the other proof or sod off as I said above, you don't make a very good troll, I know this because sassy hasn't closed the thread

sassy_one

taffy056 wrote: »

Those two cases above won by the ppc doesn't mean ccj's were issued, they have a set number of days to pay the judgement, providing they have done so there is no ccj, so give us proof of this, and the other proof or sod off as I said above, you don't make a very good troll, I know this because sassy hasn't closed the thread

I have given up reporting certain posters, as they only go off and make a new posting user-name and then post writing in a different manner!

Strange how if you look at a certain posters posts they are some very very close statements and manner of writing along with another said user.


Lastly, I'm bored of feeding the trolls, oops mistyped I meant 'troll' as they get fed daily, or at least think they do, by issuing endless amounts of invoices, to which I saw 9 cars today with them on at a private car park, quite amazing that the person putting them on is NEVER seen :rotfl:

He slaps the invoices on the screen and runs off into the day, I have no doubt that they even check these days if anyone has even paid for a display ticket.


Regards proof, don't hold your breath as you'll go blue before you get any answers, that question is one that is always avoided, and as a employee of a Private Parking Company, they are not only very good at doing just that, avoiding facts but also have deep training in such.


I say, give up it's only a matter of time everyone gets onto these invoices and that they can't be enforced!

Messrs_Arthur_and_Terry

taffy056 wrote: »

Those two cases above won by the ppc doesn't mean ccj's were issued, they have a set number of days to pay the judgement, providing they have done so there is no ccj, so give us proof of this, and the other proof or sod off as I said above, you don't make a very good troll, I know this because sassy hasn't closed the thread

They are one of a few CCJs freely viewable on the net....Google is your friend. I presume, if you are indeed Welsh as your nic implies, your indignant rage is welling up. LOL

I don't know what "other proof" you need. The CCJs are freely available to view, they are judgements based on breach of contract. Surely you aren't naive enough to actually think Driver8 and his ilk have any idea of such things?

taffy056 wrote:

I have no doubt, you would suggest that was wishful thinking

Actually I had no wish to that affect. I know an impossible request when I write one, but I needed a foil to demonstrate the hypocrisy of of members hiding behind a nic.

You evaded the real implied question and main theme of the thread that Sassy is championing. Your professional thoughts on the legality of PPC charges and consequences of ignoring demands?

Driver8

Messrs_Arthur_and_Terry wrote: »

They are one of a few CCJs freely viewable on the net....Google is your friend. I presume, if you are indeed Welsh as your nic implies, your indignant rage is welling up. LOL

I don't know what "other proof" you need. The CCJs are freely available to view, they are judgements based on breach of contract. Surely you aren't naive enough to actually think Driver8 and his ilk have any idea of such things?





Actually I had no wish to that affect. I know an impossible request when I write one, but I needed a foil to demonstrate the hypocrisy of of members hiding behind a nic.

You evaded the real implied question and main theme of the thread that Sassy is championing. Your professional thoughts on the legality of PPC charges and consequences of ignoring demands?

Prove it.

Go on, prove it.


Just cause the Thomas fella got fined for lying (what the judge thought anyway on balance of probabilities) does not mean he got a CCJ at all, it mearly mean's he got fined and if he paid his fine within the allotted time he would not get a CCJ.

Also you say, one of a few, freely available on the net. Where?

You still have not answered the question of, give unequivocal proof a PPC as won in court with their Contractual Agreement's, because you CANNOT.

Can you? If you could you would be all over this thread like a rash with it.

There you go, people who read these boards, proof if proof were needed. PPC company's are just scamming parasites.