UKCPS Hammered in Court Again

give_them_FA

sarahg1969 wrote: »

Precisely. And this is why the PPCs never appeal. There was talk of Excel appealing the Hetherington-Jakeman case, but they wouldn't want a precedent to be set, would they?

No they wouldn't. An adverse judgment could kill the industry off. And they know full well that once they have to come up before senior judges they won't have any chance of pulling the sort of fast ones that they occasionally get away with in small claims.

vax2002

An accurate and well put together list of losses could go a long way to killing off these chancers.

trisontana

On the subject of appeals, don't forget the famous OPC V Thurlow case. The motorist lost their initial case but appealed. This appeal was heard by a district judge who found against OPC, ruling that the money they were demanding amounted to a penalty which did reflect the actual that had been suffered.

Although this was in the small claims court I would have thought that a ruling by a district judge would carry some weight when similar cases are heard.

Half_way

If the above had happened to me, i would go ballistic contacting all parts of the media that i could.
With PPCs recently featuring on watchdog, maybe they may be interested?
and then theres the local press, forget that it was the ppc, tell the press it was an ilegal fine from the shopping centre, and hundreds of motorists could have been scammed by the shopping centres employees ( the ppc)

HO87

Many cases do get reported by local press - even national press - occasionally. The difficulty is that our argument is beleagured by generally poor, or at least sloppy, levels of reporting.

Invoices are consistently referred to as "fines" and many articles give off the impression that the recipient of the invoice (aka fine) escaped by exploiting some loophole. Having reported the story from the recipient's viewpoint space is frequently given over not just to the PPC concerned but also to the BPA which only perpetuates the myth that this trade protection society is some form of regulator or at least an independent body when neither descriptions could be further from the truth.

Few people beyond these forums (and then not everybody here - with the greatest respect to all) actually understand the truth about the PPC business model and getting that over is the biggest problem. I have spoken at considerable length to several reporters from the print and broadcast media who have all been very willing to focus on individual cases but did not have the time, resources, and sometimes the interest, just to bend their heads around the situation.

At the moment Watchdog are providing the only longer term interest and I suspect that will wane before too long.

HO87

We now have an account from Hedwig - the OP in the Pepipoo thread - describing their victory over UKCPS

Read it here (this links directly to their description but I recommend reading the entire thread which is now some 12 pages long)

I am slightly confused by the judge's apparent reliance on Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking (adequate warning must be given of an exclusion clause) especially as the overall application of that was in many respects overtaken by Vine v LB Waltham Forest. However, he reportedly put our old friend Mr Haswell on the spot with regard to the breakdown of the charges. Mr H failed to offer any explanation beyond it being an agreed term and the judge therefore dismissed them as being an unenforceable penalty.

give_them_FA

I think that is the important point. I have found, IMHO, that where the Judge is going to dismiss a claim, he nonetheless offers some comfort or sop to the losing party by not caning him too hard. Because claiming this £100 is the common thread of ALL of Haswell's claims, he is going to be plainly in extreme difficulty pursuing the other claims he has started. He continued regardless of the same finding in Parking Eye v Smith. Whilst there may not be 100%consistency in the way the junior judges interpret the facts, there is really only one decision that can be made on this issue of penalty charge. Whilst there is no doubt he has had a bit of short term success between default judgments obtained through non-service of claim, and people who may have caved in that we are unaware of, it may well prove to have been a serious error in the long run. Especially if he persists in the remaining defended cases.

But one thing's for sure, he won't be taking our advice. Will you, Peter?

vax2002

Fa, if you could start a list of know losses, you will be for ever immortalised.

HO87

I think Alexis has something of a running total but I don't know how accurate it is.

AlexisV

Something like 31 PPC losses out of 40. Will dig out proper figures at some point.

By the way, UKCPS details for this case were as follows if anyone needs:

Case no. 1QZ30035
Judge Brightwell
Burnley county court 10/4/12