OPC Guilty and Fined

NeverAgain_2

...plenty of courts have actually thrown out the PPCs cases because they are in fact a penalty!...

True, I just think it's a pity Wolverhampton Trading Standards have gone after this company for unclear signs, rather than going after them for their illegal attempts to fine people.

The message seems to be: "The signs have been put right, so if you stay more than two hours, you have to pay £100."

backfoot

NeverAgain wrote: »

True, I just think it's a pity Wolverhampton Trading Standards have gone after this company for unclear signs, rather than going after them for their illegal attempts to fine people.

The message seems to be: "The signs have been put right, so if you stay more than two hours, you have to pay £100."

Oh dear it would be Never Again, who could find a problem in a fantastic outcome.:o

Trading Standards cover the Criminal Law and have found significant breaches largely in untested waters for PPC's. They don't cover matters of Civil Claims which is what you are referring to.

They have used various pieces of legislation to come up with a significant set of penalties for this serial offender outfit and an individual Director.

The signage was only one part of the prosecution.

Tell me what offence/s you think they have committed which hasn't been prosecuted and under what legislation Trading Standards could or should have brought an action against OPC?

NeverAgain_2

Oh dear, it would be backfoot who tries to over analyse my post.

You have the point, but I will repeat it anyway.

Yes, it's great the scam parking company has been fined, but the outcome will legitimise their activities in the eyes of some.

As regards a suitable criminal charge, how about obtaining property (in this case money) by deception?

The offence is described simply here as 'tricking someone into handing over their money':

http://www.law-glossary.com/definition/obtaining-by-deception.html

Described more fully here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deception_offences

I accept a couple of websites, particularly Wiki, cannot be relied upon.

But on the face of it obtaining could be a goer.

I reckon a jury could be convinced that a parking scam man 'knew or ought to have known' his £100+ demand was no more than an attempt to trick the recipient into parting with their money.

I'd vote guilty, so if the scammer was acquitted, it would only be via a majority and not unanimously.

SodG24

backfoot wrote: »

They pleaded to 2 charges of Misleading Ommission by failing to inform a driver as to the identity of a 'debt collection business' that was part of their own organisation, Reg 6 CPRs. They also pleaded guilty to 10 charges of failing to properly disclose the legal identity of their debt recovery arm to drivers, Reg 6&7CdtRs.

This is an interesting one as G24 haven't once admitted the debt collection agency they have set upon me is actually their own company ( which clearly it is ).

peter_the_piper

NeverAgain wrote: »

...plenty of courts have actually thrown out the PPCs cases because they are in fact a penalty!...

True, I just think it's a pity Wolverhampton Trading Standards have gone after this company for unclear signs, rather than going after them for their illegal attempts to fine people.

The message seems to be: "The signs have been put right, so if you stay more than two hours, you have to pay £100."

You don't use all your arrows at once. Its quite likely they were saving this for others as they already had enough to go on.

backfoot

NeverAgain wrote: »

Oh dear, it would be backfoot who tries to over analyse my post.

You have the point, but I will repeat it anyway.

Yes, it's great the scam parking company has been fined, but the outcome will legitimise their activities in the eyes of some.

As regards a suitable criminal charge, how about obtaining property (in this case money) by deception?

The offence is described simply here as 'tricking someone into handing over their money':

http://www.law-glossary.com/definition/obtaining-by-deception.html

Described more fully here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deception_offences


But on the face of it obtaining could be a goer.

I reckon a jury could be convinced that a parking scam man 'knew or ought to have known' his £100+ demand was no more than an attempt to trick the recipient into parting with their money.

I'd vote guilty, so if the scammer was acquitted, it would only be via a majority and not unanimously.

I suggest that Wolverhampton Trading Standards were closer to all the facts of the case, the evidence from motorists and a legal team who considered the best chances of success. You have just read the headline reports above and now come up with your wiki theory. I know whose judgement I prefer.:p

The Company pleaded guilty to all the charges and significant fines and costs have been levied.

It's not actually clear from your post whether you are saying the circumstances of issuing a claim for £100 in this case alone was deception, or whether you are widening it as a general principle?

As it seems to be the rule rather than the exception to issue such invoices,then proving such a deception case, would be difficult and entirely groundbreaking and impinge on the Civil Claims arena.

Would Trading Standards have powers to prosecute for deception? Presumably,they would have to inform the police and the CPS decide.

I am happy with the current outcome and it is a warning to other PPC's who try it on for claims with no apparent foundation whatsoever.

Everyone else seems to be celebrating the outcome.Why don't you join in.

muckybutt

Wheres firebird when you want him to comment ????

firebird........LOOSER :rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

NeverAgain_2

...Why don't you join in...

Because the message this case sends out to a Wolverhampton motorist is: "The signs, and therefore the tickets, were dodgy. The company was prosecuted and they have since put the signs right.
"If I get a ticket now, it must be legal, so I have to pay."

Put another way, if I were the parking company, I would hand out copies of the newspaper report to parkers and tell them: "You can see we were fined for incorrect signs, but they are correct now, so you have to pay the ticket."

Bear in mind one man - and occasionally his dog - reads this thread.

The newspaper report, and probably local telly coverage, will be seen by hundreds of thousands of people.

Most of whom, I reckon, will be left with the impression these tickets are now legal.

trisontana

muckybutt wrote: »

Wheres firebird when you want him to comment ????

firebird........LOOSER :rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

Don't you mean "loser"?

backfoot

NeverAgain wrote: »

...Why don't you join in...

Because the message this case sends out to a Wolverhampton motorist is: "The signs, and therefore the tickets, were dodgy. The company was prosecuted and they have since put the signs right.
"If I get a ticket now, it must be legal, so I have to pay."

Put another way, if I were the parking company, I would hand out copies of the newspaper report to parkers and tell them: "You can see we were fined for incorrect signs, but they are correct now, so you have to pay the ticket."

Bear in mind one man - and occasionally his dog - reads this thread.

The newspaper report, and probably local telly coverage, will be seen by hundreds of thousands of people.

Most of whom, I reckon, will be left with the impression these tickets are now legal.

Good grief :eek:. You must lead a glass half full life. Sorry make that a quarter.:beer:

Tickets can be legal. Tickets/parking charges may not be enforceable. Thought you would be up to speed by now.

OPC did lots of naughty things and were smacked hard for it. :T Be happy.