OPC Lose in Court.....Again

Orford

From CAG:
OPC lost their parking ticket claim today, in Sheffield district court, and have been ordered to pay me aproximately £120 in costs.

What was unexpected was the legal approach taken by OPC. In court, their possition was that there was no contract between myself and OPC and that they were collecting a debt. By claiming no contract, it effectively sidestepped the arguments about unfair contract terms, and OPC's entitlement to offer a parking contract. However it did leave open the question then about how the debt came into existance for which OPC failed to provide clarity on.

The judge decided that the signage was not sufficient, both on there being no signage at the boundary between the two car parks, and secondly, that the principle signs where not clear in making it clear that this was not part of the pay and display car park.

Without a contract, there was still the issue of the debt comming into existance as a valid pre-estimate of loss for trespass. The Judge stated that the logic used by the appeal case in worcester was legally binding on her as law, and so she had to apply the same logical reasoning to this sign, and in this case the judge decided it was an unenforcable penalty.

In otherwords, on every issue of substance before the court, the judge decided in my favour.

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?302070-parking-OPC-taking-me-to-court...&p=3519313

peter_the_piper

Are they heading for a Darwin award? They don't know when to give up. Got to be well over 30 tries and all of them losses, not even bright enough to put up a stooge. If they did I would still expect them to lose.

Driver8

Nice one. I wonder if the imbeciles at OPC are still going to go down this route? remember to use the law to YOUR advantage now if they refuse to pay what you are due, turn the tables and get them to do some work for a change. Love it.

I would love to see their fat faces when they look on this and other forums advising people to ignore i honestly would.

I bet they hate us, tough. Hopefully they will be out of business very very soon.

trisontana

It's always strange that PPCs and their tame debt-collectors talk about a "debt", when no money has been lent, no service has been paid for, and no credit agreement has been signed.

To add to the good news, PePiPoo are reporting that somebody has successfully sued a clamper (Wolf Security Services) and landowner. These are the main points from the Judge's ruling:-


- Signage - he ruled that they were not in positions where they could be clearly seen (positioned next to visitor bays) and also there was no sign at the entrance to the car park. Furthermore he said that as the signs reference permits then they could not relate to residents as we aren't issued permits. No signs on site state that a resident can be clamped.
- Unmarked Bay - he said I would have no way of knowing being "the new boy" that the unmarked bay I parked in was another residents. He fully accpeted I was not parked in my own bay but, as someone else was parked in my space, he felt I took the correct option in the circumstances to park where I did.

He also used the words "agent" and "principal" on several occasions so was clued up on the law of agency.

esmerobbo

Further proof that a good defence and a Judge that understands the law will always scupper the PPC's. Good to see the Judge in OPC's case agreed that they could not argue against a higher Judges decision.

jlsmith_2

trisontana wrote: »

These are the main points from the Judge's ruling:-


...


He also used the words "agent" and "principal" on several occasions so was clued up on the law of agency.

I'd be pretty worried if a judge wasn't clued up on the law of agency to be honest.

esmerobbo

jlsmith wrote: »

I'd be pretty worried if a judge wasn't clued up on the law of agency to be honest.

The problem is a lot of them aren't, they are not experienced Judges some are solicitors with as little as 4 years in practice which could have been in any field!

trisontana

Alexis has just posted this on PePiPoo regarding the above case:-

On a final note, transcripts from Combined Parking Solutions were submitted by OPC and dismissed.

So Perky's so-called expert opinion is not worth the paper it's written on. Back to the pie-shop Perky.

And this:-

The interesting thing is that while there will be many differences between different car parks, different signs, different circumstances, the key issue was the line of reasoning the judge used to make his ruling in Thurlow ie. that the amount is an unenforceable penalty for breach of contract, not related to actual loss incurred.

The judge in the present case is more or less saying that the Thurlow case (because it was heard by by district judge) now sets a precedent for future cases.

HO87

trisontana wrote: »

Alexis has just posted this on PePiPoo regarding the above case:-

On a final note, transcripts from Combined Parking Solutions were submitted by OPC and dismissed.

So Perky's so-called expert opinion is not worth the paper it's written on. Back to the pie-shop Perky.

And this:-

The interesting thing is that while there will be many differences between different car parks, different signs, different circumstances, the key issue was the line of reasoning the judge used to make his ruling in Thurlow ie. that the amount is an unenforceable penalty for breach of contract, not related to actual loss incurred.

The judge in the present case is more or less saying that the Thurlow case (because it was heard by by district judge) now sets a precedent for future cases.

Indeed and, importantly, it does so because OPC chose not to appeal the decision. Hoist by their own petard, methinks?

It would be as well to ensure that the links - from pepipoo to the Thirlow judgment are made available here in a sticky perhaps?

Page 1
Page 2
Page 3

trisontana

HO87 , I think you've shown page 2 twice.

HO87

trisontana wrote: »

HO87 , I think you've shown page 2 twice.

Ta. Duly corrected.