UKPC charge, embarrassed

Irnbru_3

Saw this on their site:

Court Case Against Internet Forum Advice - Parking Company Won

Hi All,
Firstly an apology if you have already received this ... I only did part of the BPA Distribution list yesterday ...
Just an update - As some of you may remember back in May 2008 we commenced a legal action against a defendant who parked on private land and received a parking charge notice.
The defendant used many of the internet forums to gain advice and submitted a 'robust and unbeatable defence' to the court - The comments made by the sites such as Consumer Action Group and PePiPoo amongst others was along the lines of "a good defence will always defeat the private parking companies and their un-enforceable invoices"
Although our website contains details of a few past cases taken to court (including judgements), they have always been questioned by the so called experts on internet forums as badly defended etc... This case yesterday proved that even with their excellent/fail proof defences a PPC can and will win.
The case dealt with the 4 major issues that face EVERY private parking ticket issued:
The identity of the driver, The defendant always denied/never accepted being the driver and said many people have access to his car and at times indicated his brother was driving as they are very similar in looks - There was no CCTV of the area and the issuer did not see the driver ... The court found that on the balance of probabilities he was the driver
The signage was inadequate for any person and not sufficient to form a contract if the person did not see it, Various case law was quoted and the court ruled from the evidence of ourselves that the signage was there to be seen and the fact it was not seen (or claimed not to have been seen by the defendant) was not sufficient and the court found in favour of ourselves.
There was no consideration (an integral part of a contract) ... The court heard various case law and whilst there was no physical consideration the court found that the consideration was in fact the use of a facility and nothing is free in life - so the court ruled in our favour.
The charge is a penalty .. The defendant used various case law (Dunlop, Clydebank Shipping, Price v Easton) .. We used the McAlpine-v-Tilebox and comments at the end of Arthur-v-Anker with details of our charges and breakdown ... The court found that the charge was NOT a penalty but an agreed charge and awarded in our favour.
The court was very critical of the methods used by the defendant and by his taking advice by the internet forums - The judge described the defendant as "Disingenuous".
The case lasted some 3.5hrs and could have a major impact for private parking enforcement in the courts.
I have attached a press release that has been sent to local newspapers in the Manchester Area, BBC Breakfast (who did report on private parking last week), ITV in Manchester and BBC Manchester.
This has been reported by local press (links below) and details sent to the nationals, hopefully they will be interested ...
So, a very high profile and successful case by ourselves and the private parking industry in general.

Coupon-mad

But it wasn't UKPC - and one deluded judge in one Small Claim doth not an enforceable PCN make...:)

oldone_2

Irnbru wrote: »

Saw this on their site:

Court Case Against Internet Forum Advice - Parking Company Won

Hi All,
Firstly an apology if you have already received this ... I only did part of the BPA Distribution list yesterday ...
Just an update - As some of you may remember back in May 2008 we commenced a legal action against a defendant who parked on private land and received a parking charge notice.
The defendant used many of the internet forums to gain advice and submitted a 'robust and unbeatable defence' to the court - The comments made by the sites such as Consumer Action Group and PePiPoo amongst others was along the lines of "a good defence will always defeat the private parking companies and their un-enforceable invoices"
Although our website contains details of a few past cases taken to court (including judgements), they have always been questioned by the so called experts on internet forums as badly defended etc... This case yesterday proved that even with their excellent/fail proof defences a PPC can and will win.
The case dealt with the 4 major issues that face EVERY private parking ticket issued:
The identity of the driver, The defendant always denied/never accepted being the driver and said many people have access to his car and at times indicated his brother was driving as they are very similar in looks - There was no CCTV of the area and the issuer did not see the driver ... The court found that on the balance of probabilities he was the driver
The signage was inadequate for any person and not sufficient to form a contract if the person did not see it, Various case law was quoted and the court ruled from the evidence of ourselves that the signage was there to be seen and the fact it was not seen (or claimed not to have been seen by the defendant) was not sufficient and the court found in favour of ourselves.
There was no consideration (an integral part of a contract) ... The court heard various case law and whilst there was no physical consideration the court found that the consideration was in fact the use of a facility and nothing is free in life - so the court ruled in our favour.
The charge is a penalty .. The defendant used various case law (Dunlop, Clydebank Shipping, Price v Easton) .. We used the McAlpine-v-Tilebox and comments at the end of Arthur-v-Anker with details of our charges and breakdown ... The court found that the charge was NOT a penalty but an agreed charge and awarded in our favour.
The court was very critical of the methods used by the defendant and by his taking advice by the internet forums - The judge described the defendant as "Disingenuous".
The case lasted some 3.5hrs and could have a major impact for private parking enforcement in the courts.
I have attached a press release that has been sent to local newspapers in the Manchester Area, BBC Breakfast (who did report on private parking last week), ITV in Manchester and BBC Manchester.
This has been reported by local press (links below) and details sent to the nationals, hopefully they will be interested ...
So, a very high profile and successful case by ourselves and the private parking industry in general.

If this has only just been circulated, why are they refering to a 3 year old case. Had this case produced a "major impact for private parking enforcement in the courts" why not list all the RECENT wins, unless of course there aren't any. So much for a major impact.

trisontana

And they don't list the cases they have lost.

esmerobbo

Says a lot when a company use someone else's case to try and intimidate. It may carry some weight if it was their own case, yet the best they can do is the CPS V Thomas!

Kite2010

As some of you may remember back in May 2008 we commenced a legal action against a defendant who parked on private land and received a parking charge notice.

But what they forgot to mention is that as soon as the defendant put in a defence they dropped the case

Either that or they are using the set-up, sorry Stephen Thomas "case" again

Irnbru_3

Got a letter today saying my appeal had failed basically, as I was parked in a disabled bay with no badge showing, making me feel bad as there are 8.5 million disabled people in this country etc, and have photo evidence of the vehicle (not included), shall I ignore it or do they have a case in the small claims regarding disability bays?

slyracoon

irnbru wrote: »

got a letter today saying my appeal had failed, basically as i was parked in a disabled bay with no badge showing, shall i ignore or do they have a case in the small claims regarding disability bays?

ignore it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!11

trisontana

The blue badge scheme does not apply to private car parks.

Coupon-mad

Irnbru wrote: »

Got a letter today saying my appeal had failed basically, as I was parked in a disabled bay with no badge showing, making me feel bad as there are 8.5 million disabled people in this country etc, and have photo evidence of the vehicle (not included), shall I ignore it or do they have a case in the small claims regarding disability bays?

NO because the blue badge scheme does NOT apply. IGNORE THEM.

If you feel bad about it then why not make a donation to a charity of your choice (but not Disabled Motoring UK as they are in the pockets of several PPCs).

Please stop thinking your 'case' is different. In fact your SCAM is no different.