Cps parking fine

esmerobbo

http://www.parkingforum.co.uk/adjudication_pilot

Appeals website. You have to enter your REG and charge notice ref to get any further then the first page.

1 You do not have to take part in this pilot. OK we will give it a miss till it is independent

2 If you do decide to take part the car parking company has agreed to abide by the decision of the independent adjudicator appointed for the purposes of the pilot. Any decisions that may be taken on to a court action howvever would be recognised by a judge as having been made by their peers. So you admit everything then they refuse your appeal and you have shot yourself in the foot!

3 There are no costs to you. Except getting a CCJ due to the foot damage!

4 The pilot is being run by the BPA. However, should a formal appeals service be established as a result of this pilot the service will be independent of the BPA. OK we will wait till you are independent!

perky88

esmerobbo wrote: »

So you admit everything then they refuse your appeal and you have shot yourself in the foot!

3 There are no costs to you. Except getting a CCJ due to the foot damage!

Ermmm, If the charges are unenforceable then by your very own argument no court would give a CCJ (as I presume if someone has appealed they are going to dispute when they receive court papers).

A charge is either enforceable in law or it isn't.

esmerobbo

angewick wrote: »

HI...SORRY FOR BEING A BIT "THICK" BUT COULD SOME ONE CLEAR UP A POINT FOR ME.....THESE SO CALLED FINES ARE NOT ENFORCEABLE....NOW ARE THEY ONLY NOT UNENFORCEABLE AS LONG AS a) THEY CANNOT IDENTFY THE DRIVER
b) IF THEY HAVE EVIDIENCE/ YOU ADMIT IT WAS YOU DRIVING..THEN THEY HAVE A CASE
PLEASE ADVISE......

Don't pay attention to Perky88 he is a well known troll here.

You are correct "A" Any contract they believe exists is between the driver and the PPC. Their first hurdle is to identify the driver. "B" If they have proof of the driver it only proves they can identify the driver, they would then have to prove the signs were correct, they could be seen, and the charge was for the actual loss suffered and not a penalty.

Going to court is not viable to them financially, now and again they may go after an easy win, or set up a win to try and prove they are winnable!

Last week UKCPS won at court through a technical default as the defendant could not attend. They got a judgement for £150. The goon who took this action travelled 700 miles, spent an over night stay, spent on food and drink,spent several hours working on the case. They may have their easy win to gloat over. However I don't think they will ever be entered for business man of the year!:cool:

trisontana

So Perky88 are you going to tell us how your marvellous CCTV can actually identify individual drivers? You know even the police can't do that, hence those photo appeals on Crime Watch.

esmerobbo

perky88 wrote: »

Ermmm, If the charges are unenforceable then by your very own argument no court would give a CCJ (as I presume if someone has appealed they are going to dispute when they receive court papers).

A charge is either enforceable in law or it isn't.

Except we have seen cases were a county court believed they were unfortunately.

Depends on the Judge on the day and the experience of that Judge.

perky88

trisontana wrote: »

So Perky88 are you going to tell us how your marvellous CCTV can actually identify individual drivers? You know even the police can't do that, hence those photo appeals on Crime Watch.

Our sites with CCTV are specifically set so we can see drivers etc..
If you don't believe me then a recent court case used this as evidence and the driver was easily spotted.

It would not be any point having CCTV if you couldn't see anything would it !!

http / www. shropshirestar. com/ latest/ 2010/04/07/ court-told-of-signs-in-parking-wrangle/

REMOVE THE SPACES !!

Ah, yes ... I am sure you will say that Judge got it wrong as well, just like all the others :rotfl:

Driver8

You PPC's really are getting desperate now aren't you? You only come on these board's spouting absolute tosh expecting new poster's to believe it.

All a newbie, with a fake invoice, as to do is read most of the thread's on here then they realise just what a scam you PPC's are carrying out.

It really must be hitting you all in the till's now, it must be as you PPC troll's are coming on here more often now.

What is better though is that more and more new people are posting for advice and getting it then passing it on to friend's and family and ignoring fake invoice's. Just look at the amount of view's these thread's get so think about all the other's who do not post but just sit quietly reading it and ignoring scam invoice's.

Your day's are numbered.

trisontana

perky88 wrote: »

Our sites with CCTV are specifically set so we can see drivers etc..
If you don't believe me then a recent court case used this as evidence and the driver was easily spotted.

It would not be any point having CCTV if you couldn't see anything would it !!

http / www. shropshirestar. com/ latest/ 2010/04/07/ court-told-of-signs-in-parking-wrangle/

REMOVE THE SPACES !!

Ah, yes ... I am sure you will say that Judge got it wrong as well, just like all the others :rotfl:

News Article


Mrs Rhodes-Bangham said she did not dispute the fact that she parked there but added she was stressed because she was going to have an interview at a recruitment agency.

That doesn't answer the question really. That particular woman admitted to being there and walking past the signs. So no question of the CCTV actually identifying her. As long as the RK will not tell you the identity of the driver, you have no way of establishing that identity, in spite of all your fancy CCTV

ripped_off_driver

If Perky88 really is Perky perhaps he can explain why he has shirked the Pepipoo Challenge for well over 2 years. Apparently all he can win are set up cases such as the oft quoted Combined Parking Solutions v Stephen Thomas, just about the dodgiest case ever to grace the legal books.

Go on Perky, prove Pepipoo wrong. Over there you are a total figure of fun. They don't believe that you will ever take up the challenge. Be a man and show them how good a wannabe lawyer you really are.

angewick

so perky..how on earth do you know which carpar i refer to...and my daughter that day left the carpark with a few other women in full veil....so you really know who she is and so does your cctv......i dont think so...good try though....