FAO Private Parking 1 Section 143 RTA

vax2002

PPC's take the pizz out of the British sense of fair play, decency and honour .
All perfect accolades for someone to exploit and rob you of your wages.

As soon as you get your wages you sweated and toiled to earn some crook is looking to take that money away from you without going to all the "working + sweating" bit.

Sirdan

peter_the_piper wrote: »

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

If that is verbatim it shows how little understanding these PPC morons have of the law.

My insurance schedule has no relevance as to who may drive my vehicle ..it is the drivers insurance that will cover them " to drive any vehicle with the owners permission" .

And as we all know the Rule 31 does not apply to the small claims track in County Court.

Bullpoo..bullpoo and more bullpoo...as stated on many occasions these companies are fraudsters who convince people to pay by quoting irrelevant laws ..what other industry would be allowed to get away with it ..!!!:mad:

ripped_off_driver

I noticed this gem:
"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."

What kind of mind altering substance is Perky on? He has obviously been watching too many back episodes of LA Law and does not appear to know the difference between civil and criminal law. One can well imagine why such a bozo as this would need to set up or cherry pick his claimed "wins".

The new website seems just a re-branding. The existing brand, after all the stupid stunts Perky has pulled, is fairly soiled. The new version is about as likely to be successful as the current iteration, i.e. not at all.
gl

Sirdan

ripped_off_driver wrote: »

I noticed this gem:
"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."

Well if that were actually able to be relied on in court why would any PPC need to even think about obtaining a Norwich Pharmacal Order against the keeper ??????????????????????

By the logic above if the keeper won't answer then they must be the driver ....what utter utter !!!!! ..where do these morons live ??

So in Perky world any one who won't answer a question is automatically guilty ??
Pathetic isn't it ??

RENEGADE_2

ripped_off_driver wrote: »

I noticed this gem:
"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."

What kind of mind altering substance is Perky on? He has obviously been watching too many back episodes of LA Law and does not appear to know the difference between civil and criminal law. One can well imagine why such a bozo as this would need to set up or cherry pick his claimed "wins".

The new website seems just a re-branding. The existing brand, after all the stupid stunts Perky has pulled, is fairly soiled. The new version is about as likely to be successful as the current iteration, i.e. not at all.
gl

It looks as if the antagonist is aspiring to bestow a legal contractual status on its target which the addressed automatically consents to by opening the mail. Althougn we here know this to be BS, I still suggest that when a letter arrives that can be possitively identified as coming from these semi-evolved species, send it back with the words "REFUSED, RETURN TO SENDER". It will take a few days as it goes via Northern Ireland but in the end, the message will hit home to those swines, "we have failed to deliver our message!".

peter_the_piper

Sirdan wrote: »

If that is verbatim it shows how little understanding these PPC morons have of the law.

My insurance schedule has no relevance as to who may drive my vehicle ..it is the drivers insurance that will cover them " to drive any vehicle with the owners permission" .

And as we all know the Rule 31 does not apply to the small claims track in County Court.

Bullpoo..bullpoo and more bullpoo...as stated on many occasions these companies are fraudsters who convince people to pay by quoting irrelevant laws ..what other industry would be allowed to get away with it ..!!!:mad:

You know that, we know that but this psuedo legal mumbo jumbo is not aimed at the knowledgeable but at the average driver, especially the older ones. To just look at it it seems to be a fair statement of law and not the bullpoo we know it to be. All this is why they are successful financially until they get sufficient ccj's and then they are forced to morph. The best defence is to educate friends and family until the pool of victims gets too small.

Trebor16

I wonder how many are misrepresenting section 143? I know the pie eater does ( and he thinks he knows the law) but do we know of any others who have taken this law and tried to twist it and use it against registered keepers, because it is a huge stretch to say that people are guilty of an offence if they let someone drive a vehicle knowing it is not insured to saying that the registered keeper has a legal responsibility under this legislation to know who was driving in a private parking issue.

trisontana

I don't know about that in particular, but many PPCs and their tame debt collectors/solicitors tend to word their letters in such a way that they never seem to be able to differentiate between drivers and RKs. Just take a look at some of the letters shown at the top of this forum to see what I mean.

muckybutt

Dang looks like ive missed a perky thread ?

pink_princess

Evening, I'm after some info. One of these companies have just put signs up all over the free car park I used to use. Can I just keep using it the way I always have? Free for 8 hours a week? 1 full day?
Could they ever clamp me etc? No signs mention clamping, infact they say you agree to pay a parking charge. Erm no I don't:)
Have to say thank you to all that advise on this board, saved me a £50 ticket:eek: