Are PPC's suppressing threads when they lose in court?

marleyboy

All you need is one of these in your window -



Feel free to cut at the dotted line and worry ye not folks. :D

TrickyWicky

Coupon-mad wrote: »

He brought her into the public domain, his problem. She's an adult now anyway.

No, he might of mentioned her name but that doesn't mean he's brought her into the public domain to be bashed publically.

Seriously Coupon, I have quite a lot of respect for you but in this thread you've not been your usuall self. I can partially understand it given the business/scam that perky is involved in however I never thought you'd drag someones kids into it as a weapon against them. Thats not nice at all and thats about the only thing I openly admit to agreeing with Perky on. Dragging someones kids into your fight is simply wrong.

ripped_off_driver

Don't sweat it Perky. We know you are scared of losing to a real opponent. Illegal case, yeah right! We know that your carefully constructed view of yourself will come crashing down when you are revealed to be just another wannabe armchair lawyer. We get it, let's face it - it's not personal, only business.

timwilson

ripped_off_driver wrote: »

Dress it up how you like Perky. A penalty is still a penalty even if disguised as a "charge".

OK then, I will keep an open mind.
How is anything in that example given a penalty, the price for parking is set at £85.

A company does not have to justify its costs, let me give you an example.
BA - 1st class to New York, no date changes/refunds - £4650
BA - Economy to New York, no date changed/refunds £389

So a 12x price difference, same restrictions on dates and changes.. are you telling me that 1st class is 12x better, 12x better seats, 12x more room. Do you get there 12x quicker

Of course not, but thats the price you pay because thats the price.
if you dont want to pay 1st class then you dont travel it same with parking.
My charge is £85, thats the charge - end of .. If you want the convenience of parking in this space now then thats the charge and if you dont then you can move it.

So thats my view (and ones of the court when I present cases based on that signage).

So how does your view differ ?

Coupon-mad

timwilson wrote: »

Earlier I thought we were friends when you thanked me, now you are being a nasty individual by mentioning peoples children - thats desperation for you.

Dont over flatter yourself, you know nothing, but for the record .. of course Laura does not have a proper job, shes still in full time education as most kids are at 17.

If you have a problem with me then keep it with me, I know that you have nothing of any worth to say but bringing peoples children into your vile abuse, thats low.

OK I will wait until she finishes her BTECs then.

timwilson

ripped_off_driver wrote: »

Don't sweat it Perky. We know you are scared of losing to a real opponent. Illegal case, yeah right! We know that your carefully constructed view of yourself will come crashing down when you are revealed to be just another wannabe armchair lawyer. We get it, let's face it - it's not personal, only business.

for something not personal you surely are getting personal, just look at your past posts calling me all types of names.

I thought Alexis was a 'real opponent' are you trying to say he isnt anymore and lost his elite status ?

I do not take it personally, its quite entertaining to pass a few hours - no offence taken old sport.

TrickyWicky

For a start perky you probably don't offer first class parking with pretty hostessses to drool over do you? I think its common knowledge that when you pay for first class you pay for other 'perks' (lol what a pun eh?!?!?!)

Does your parking offer more comfortable seating?

Does your parking offer more leg room?

The price you charge is not a 'price'. Your 'customers' can't pick or choose between suppliers, they can't claim a refund or exchange and you decide who to pursue and who not to pursue.

While I've defended the use of your daughter in this thread perky, what you've just said above is rubbish.

timwilson

Coupon-mad wrote: »

OK I will wait until she finishes her BTECs then.

Not that there is anything wrong BTECs (are they still called that, I thought they were all level 4/5 now !!)

BUT again you are mis informed on what she is studying and its none of your business either.

I take it from your comment that you consider BTECs to be a 'low qualification' - quite a sweeping statement.


I seem to remember a few years ago, I think it was John Majors kid or something like that getting arrested and they interviewed another politician about it and the question was asked why didnt they take the opportunity to riddicule Mr Major about it - they responded along the lines of a family life is something that should never be invaded and their disagreements are between them and policital and does not involve the family.
He also went onto say that you never know when it (or something similar) might happen to them and what goes around comes around.

Again, a word of advice - keep your issues to me.

TrickyWicky

AFAIK, BTEC is the name of the organisation not the qualification.

esmerobbo

Actually I am going to agree with Perky if that sign is on the car park were it would be assumed that anyone parking there would be unable "not to see it", I think a Judge would believe the fee should be paid. The judge might think its a rip off but if you have been told the cost of parking is £85 and you park then you accept the charge. Similar to clamping if everything is in order and you are warned you will be clamped and you are then its tough tittie!

Its a lot different then the usual penalties for overstaying or the like most PPC's issue.

When I had my pubs I charged more then the pub down the road, a business can charge what they like as long as it's advertised and open. I for one would not park in a car park if I saw a sign like that!

Ducks and awaits the flak!:p