UKCPS Hammered in Court Again

ripped_off_driver

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=58542&view=findpost&p=687705

Apparently this was the second time Hasbeen was beaten, having originally failed against the Defendant's husband. As the Defendant admitted being the driver, it also shows that the PPCs who believe keeper liability will solve all their problems are living in cloud cuckoo land.

Trebor16

What a great result! I remember reading about that case and seeing Hasbeen issue proceedings against the wife when it was revealed the RK was not the driver. I am so pleased to see that he has lost twice on the same "fine".

bargepole

Trebor16 wrote: »

What a great result! I remember reading about that case and seeing Hasbeen issue proceedings against the wife when it was revealed the RK was not the driver. I am so pleased to see that he has lost twice on the same "fine".

There are two key points to take out of this:

1) Signage - the defendant's initial argument was that the signs weren't clear or easily visible. This cut no ice with the Judge, and previous cases show that you're unlikely to win with the "we didn't see the signs" argument.

2) The "parking charge" of £100 - UKCPS failed to provide any evidence as to how this was calculated, and it was ruled that it was an unlawful penalty, not a genuine pre-estimate of losses. This is why they lost the claim.

So Mr Hasbeen has now had to take two separate days out of the office, to attend court hearings, and on both occasions has been sent home with his tail between his legs and diddly-squat £s to show for it.

His employers must love him.

robredz

ripped_off_driver wrote: »

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=58542&view=findpost&p=687705

Apparently this was the second time Hasbeen was beaten, having originally failed against the Defendant's husband. As the Defendant admitted being the driver, it also shows that the PPCs who believe keeper liability will solve all their problems are living in cloud cuckoo land.

Superb, keeper liability is a fatally flawed concept, especially for vehicles with more than one possible driver.

AltheHibby

Well done. You've made my day.

Sir_Roger_deLodger

Any comments Perky?

treeboa

hopefully its left a real big rip in the company accounts paying for this one, needs to be posted all over the place as another home goal for conning scam merchants

vax2002

It will not make much difference, these idiots know they can not collect an illegal penalty, they just hope that they get a stupid judge.

give_them_FA

Never mind signage or any other issue.

The fact is this is the worst possible result for PPCs. The judge has said that what they try to charge is in itself unlawful, never mind the circumstances under which the ticket was issued. If that becomes a consistent finding there is no way back for PPCs. Hasbeen has other cases in the pipeline and we are now clear on what to press hardest in defence.

Consistent with the Parking Eye case last year, certainly.

vax2002

Someone needs to start a list of losses by PPC and put it on a stickey

notts_phil

I wonder if Hasbeen will grace us with his presence?

No doubt he stormed out of court with his tail between his legs.....