Judge Ackroyd 2008 Oldham court

torontoboy45

Sirdan wrote: »

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.

another reminder that posters should never disclose details that could beat a path to their doors; it's an established fact that PPC's trawl boards like this - so keep your nose clean.

zonal

Can I be finally clear about this. I have received the standard Judge Ackroyd letter and by all posts above just ignore all further correspondence from ParkingEye. Is this true and what will will be there next action if do?

ManxRed

It is true, you should ignore them.

Their next action will be to send more letters grovelling for your money, when in actual fact if they had such a cast iron case, you would expect them to simply take court action. Funny that they don't though, they just send more letters.

hillcats

They have no teeth and they know it.
Which just leaves them to bluff and bull hoping you pay up.

It is a scam which has been long uncovered, and people are wise now.

Coupon-mad

zonal wrote: »

Can I be finally clear about this. I have received the standard Judge Ackroyd letter and by all posts above just ignore all further correspondence from ParkingEye. Is this true and what will will be there next action if do?

You've bumped a really old thread about a very old stooge court claim which didn't even involve Parking Eye!

There are loads and loads of more relevant current threads about Parking Eye on here.



Do not ignore a private parking ticket - from 2013 onwards things changed in England/Wales.

If yours is Parking Eye then they are suing people and so are some other PPCs.

You must appeal and with current forum advice, you will win at popla - we win 100% of appeals in 2014.

Please click to page one of the forum, get off this old thread. See my signature below for where to click to read current advice. Please read the NEWBIES thread at the top of this very forum.

Did I say STOP reading this ancient thread, NOW??!!

vax2002

The impersonation of authority scam works by tempting you in to a fight.
The smart bunny just IGNORES them.
You decide who wins then !

Stephen_Leak

As - for obvious reasons - there isn't a great amount of case law, it's still a moot legal point as to whether, by choosing to demand an unlawful "penalty" you effectively waive your legal right to any actual lower amount. I get the impression that the judge awarding this was similar to people being awarded libel damages of 1p.

sarahg1969

Just to clarify, the Thomas case did not involve Parking Eye; they just refer to it in their correspondence.

As far as I know, the only Parking Eye case was the one where Pannones tried for damages of £240 and costs of almost £4.5k and got £15 plus fixed costs.

It was Combined Parking Solutions (who use the same initial as the Crown Prosecution Service) who took Thomas to court.

taffy056

Yeah quoting something from 4 years ago, relying on a competitor company's judgement to try and scam money off you. If they truly were taking people to court they could quote some of their recent wins for you, I mean they must have dozens, or hundreds, or thousands even.

The simple fact is that they have none, zero , zip cases won because they never go there. The one case mentioned above where they tried to get £4.5k costs for a claim of circa £200 is frankly absurd, they lost a small fortune, and they won't go there in a hurry. Parking Cry are a pathetic scamming company who try and swindle money off people.

esmerobbo

I wonder why they don't quote Parking Eye V Smith Manchester County Court??????