Judge Ackroyd 2008 Oldham court

happyshopper1973

Hi
I received a parking eye invoice with pics of my vehicle entering and leaving crown wharf priviate car park in walsall a couple of weeks ago. I responded stating I was not the driver on this day and that I was not prepared to disclose who the driver was as I was not obliged to by law. I also stated that I had since visited the car park and found that there was no clear signs anywhere stating that the car park had recently changed from one where you collect ticket at barrier to a pay and display (driver thought the machine at barrier was broken!)

I have received a 2nd letter today saying my appeal was unsuccessful and failing to state who driver was is a breach of the car parks terms and conditions.
letter then goes on to state Judge Ackroyd 2008, Oldham court, combined parking solutions versus Mr Stephen Thomas, in the case where Mr Thomas claimed not to be the driver, but did not state who was, ruled that on the balance of probability he was the driver and ordered the Charge to be paid plus additional court costs!

Where do I stand? Really am annoyed with these people
Cheers for any assistance:(

trisontana

They are still quoting this very old and rare case where a PPC won. This was a special one-off and not typical. The defendant kept denying he was the driver, even though he had boasted of this fact on an internet forum. The judge did not like that attitude and found against him.

What they fail to mention is the subsequent cases where parking companies have lost in court. If they can only dredge up this one case you can see how desperate they are. County Court cases do not set a precedent.

From now on just ignore these clowns and you will be OK.

funkycoldribena

The fact they are quoting a 2008 case should give you a clue.

happyshopper1973

Thanks, I did think it strange they were quoting a 3 year old case lol

scheming_gypsy

I'd be tempted to write back and tell them that i wasn't appealing but telling them to shove it up their arse. Although it's not the right answer . As said, just ignore them.

happyshopper1973

Ha ha I could be tempted!

Sirdan

happyshopper1973 wrote: »

Ha ha I could be tempted!

Let's be absolutely clear about this once and for all.

Stephen Thomas was not found to be the driver because he refused to name the driver, the FACT is he implicated himself as the driver and this evidence was used by the PPC.

funkycoldribena

Wonder what year they'll eventually stop quoting this case,its starting to look silly now, let alone in 2015.

Trebor16

Don't forget that a case in county court does not set a legal precedent. Rumour has it Mr Thomas was also set as a patsy by the pie eater.

esmerobbo

Not parking spy but another PPC tried that one on me, stating a Judge would find in all probability I was driving as I was the keeper! My answer to them was OK then the Judge would have to accept that at that time they would have to find I was driving and parking 13 vehicles at the same time, as I was the RK for them on that date!

AlexisV

I understand Mr Thomas was a repeat 'offender' who repeatedly deprived the church of a parking space for their parishioners. The judge totted up the amount of loss they had potentially suffered, and found against. Personally I wouldn't agree with the penalty conclusions he came to, but then so wouldn't the vast majority of other district judges going by what has happened in the years since.

The case the other month saw a verbal exchange, it wasn't through signage alone. I was told (I have no proof either way) that the facts of this verbal exchange were fabricated. On the face of it, a verbal contractual offer carries more weight than signage. I'm also told the judge didn't even look at the defence and just went through CPS's bundle on his desk.

Cue Perky and Scottie getting their knickers in a twist, but this is what I was objectively informed of by the defendant.