FAO Private Parking 1 Section 143 RTA

Sirdan

Since you assert on your invoices that keepers are committing a Section 143 RTA offence by stating they can not name a specific individual as the driver of their vehicle with regard to the invoice in question, could you please tell us this :-

How many keepers have you reported to the Police for this offence and how many have been convicted ???

I estimate that it may well fall within the range 0.0 to 0.0 !:D

AlexisV

I assume this is a reference to our friend?

Just noticed the other thread has vanished. Maybe they'll let him use the big boy new thread button when he can post like an adult.

http://winning-teams.com/recognizenarcissist.html
Freaky link or what?

vax2002

Section 143 only applies to Motorists who are required to affirm the vehicle is insured for pupropses of the Road traffic act whilst driven on the road when requested by an officer of the Law, a magistrate or Judge.
As a idiot from a council estate with a book of fake parking tickets and a lazer printer is not either of the above, they may just have spent too long pretending to have some fake authority that they may actually believe themselves to be so.
Luckily we have care in the community now, 30 years ago you would have been locked in a nut house for thinking you were an authority figure when in fact you are just a bum with a book of pretend parking tickets.

ripped_off_driver

AlexisV wrote: »

http://winning-teams.com/recognizenarcissist.html
Freaky link or what?

Spot on with this Alexis. The narcissistic rage will be bubbling up by now.

peter_the_piper

AlexisV wrote: »

I assume this is a reference to our friend?

Just noticed the other thread has vanished. Maybe they'll let him use the big boy new thread button when he can post like an adult.

Hopefully it will disappear from gargoyle as well.

trisontana

Our friend has got form regarding this matter. This from a letter sent by CPS to a RK back in 2008:-


In accordance with the courts request all parties are encouraged to settle the case before the hearing.

We note the parking charge was issued on ..... and no appeal or payment had been received, a letter was sent to yourself on ..... advising payment was due and we did not receive any response within the 7 days requested.

The file shows a standard 'internet' response was received on ......., these responses are normally obtained from various internet forums in an attempt to escape liability for a parking charge - CCTV was reviewed as a result of this letter to confirm the statement made by the ticket issuer.

The CCTV clearly shows the vehicle parking and occupants walking off towards ................., we would suggest that an average person does not allow their vehicle to be used to transport children to a party/childrens play area without knowing who is driving and without ensuring adequate insurance is in place.

We therefore would request a copy of your insurance schedule in force on this date, in order to save costs and as this is a perfectly reasonable request we would ask this be forwarded without us having to make a request to the court (we would make the request under section 31.16 and 31.17 of the CPR).

Should you refuse this reasonable request we will make the request for this order and costs incurred to be added to the claim pursuant to rule 44.3 CPR

We would also add that you are formally put on notice that if you do not respond to this letter or choose to decline to provide an answer to the question of who the driver was then we will have no alternative to treat this silence as a reliance by you upon the privilege against self incrimination.

notts_phil

Mike/perky sure does produce some rubbish

esmerobbo

Were does he dream them up?

Same rubbish on his or should I say Mrs P's other company! http://www.civilparkingenforcement.co.uk/#

esmerobbo

AlexisV wrote: »

I assume this is a reference to our friend?

Just noticed the other thread has vanished. Maybe they'll let him use the big boy new thread button when he can post like an adult.

http://winning-teams.com/recognizenarcissist.html
Freaky link or what?

I wonder if he is being binned because he is a "company rep"?

The link does seem to suit our friend!

Sirdan

AlexisV wrote: »

I assume this is a reference to our friend?

Just noticed the other thread has vanished. Maybe they'll let him use the big boy new thread button when he can post like an adult.

http://winning-teams.com/recognizenarcissist.html
Freaky link or what?

Yes ..I wonder why he hasn't answered ??? :rotfl:

peter_the_piper

trisontana wrote: »

Our friend has got form regarding this matter. This from a letter sent by CPS to a RK back in 2008:-


In accordance with the courts request all parties are encouraged to settle the case before the hearing.

We note the parking charge was issued on ..... and no appeal or payment had been received, a letter was sent to yourself on ..... advising payment was due and we did not receive any response within the 7 days requested.

The file shows a standard 'internet' response was received on ......., these responses are normally obtained from various internet forums in an attempt to escape liability for a parking charge - CCTV was reviewed as a result of this letter to confirm the statement made by the ticket issuer.

The CCTV clearly shows the vehicle parking and occupants walking off towards ................., we would suggest that an average person does not allow their vehicle to be used to transport children to a party/childrens play area without knowing who is driving and without ensuring adequate insurance is in place.

We therefore would request a copy of your insurance schedule in force on this date, in order to save costs and as this is a perfectly reasonable request we would ask this be forwarded without us having to make a request to the court (we would make the request under section 31.16 and 31.17 of the CPR).

Should you refuse this reasonable request we will make the request for this order and costs incurred to be added to the claim pursuant to rule 44.3 CPR

We would also add that you are formally put on notice that if you do not respond to this letter or choose to decline to provide an answer to the question of who the driver was then we will have no alternative to treat this silence as a reliance by you upon the privilege against self incrimination.

To the average Joe Public this seems to be quite a damning statement and would normally panic them into paying.