Response from Steve Clark @ the BPA

benham3160

Can you imagine anybody of any legal authority posting like this on a website?

For somebody who prides himself on his professionalism, it's all quite sad really, especially as his website and his posts are riddled with "Key-stage 2" spelling errors.

It makes him even less scary when he does this, it's an ideal illusion for him to have "I'll make people scared of MY company", that's a reputation you just can't buy.

ManxRed

benham3160 wrote: »

For somebody who prides himself on his professionalism, it's all quite sad really, especially as his website and his posts are riddled with "Key-stage 2" spelling errors.

Not his fault.

You couldn't buy exam papers in those days.

The_Slithy_Tove

notts_phil wrote: »

1 Protection of Freedoms Act - Impact Assessment

We were asked to provide our best estimate in a very short timescale of the numbers of cases that our members took to Court. The research that we were able conduct indicated that 2% of tickets issued were taken to Court and we applied this to the total number of tickets issued (c. 1.8million), and this was then communicated to the DVLA/ DFT on a 'best estimate' basis. As such I don't agree with the contention that we 'misled Government' or that we are 'liars'. The figures following FOI look extremely low to me and we may seek to review them with the MoJ.

So, as well as lying, they're lying about lying.

Look at it like this. The BPA is made up of representatives of the PPCs. So the BPA have to ask themselves about the percentage of tickets that go to court, and they tell themselves 2%, which they know to be false, but makes a good story. So, they blatently lie to themselves, and then peddle the same lies to the government, and then lie about it when their trechary is revealed.

Has the fact that blatent and complete falsehoods have been presented to and used by the government to push through Schedule 4 been presented back to them? I know several of us had bland and pretty-much duplicate letters from Norman Baker, so I presume he is in many ways responsible. Should he be held account for failing utterly in his resposibility of due diligence around the information presented to him? Either he hasn't done his homework (i.e. not done his job) or he's deliberately decided to accept the word of a single vested interest party without question. Both resigning matters, surely?

ripped_off_driver

qazwsxedc4564 wrote: »

will take a look

Ha , ha, the thicko registered twice to try to big himself up.

No Perky, we are not all as dense as you. Thanks for providing the entertainment again.

Perky's dimwit response says:

"our charges are for a parking charge agreed in advance and the enforcement via the courts is not because any condition has been breached but for non-payment of the charge imposed."

This is exactly what the Tribunal considered and rejected. He is obviously too thick to read and understand the ruling and instead rushes out this nonsense. Thinks he is Perky Mason and completely unable to read and take in a simple court judgement. Total fail as usual, even leaving out admitted propensity to cheat.

trisontana

This is what Perky posted over on CAG:-

It does make sense though, if the landowner explicity gives them approval to enforce charges that they issue then that would allow them to enforce the charge.

Except that the court ruled that:-

only the landowner can take the matter to court and not people acting as their agents (VCS) and that the landowner then has to prove damages.

So no matter how much "permission" is given by the landowner to the PPC it still does not entitle them to institute a court claim.

ripped_off_driver

This is the key part of the UT ruling. Anyone of reasonable intelligence will see that the game is up. The PPC has no possessory interest in the land and therefore cannot contract with the motorist.

God help the BPA if they are listening to plonkers like Perky:

"On the facts of this case we do not consider that any offer was made by VCS that was capable of forming the basis for a contract between it and the motorist. VCS was not in a position, by virtue of its limited licence, to make any offer of a right to park. The ability to offer such a right was not conferred by the contract with the client, either expressly or by virtue of the nature of the interest in the car park conferred on VCS. That interest did not amount to a licence to occupy, or give VCS any right to possession. It merely conferred a right of entry to perform VCS’s obligations under the contract.

The warning signs erected in the car park do not assist VCS in these circumstances. The reference in those signs to the fact that the motorist is entering into a contractual agreement cannot create a contract where there is no relevant offer from VCS that can be accepted.

We agree with Mr Singh that no right to park could have been, or was, offered by VCS to the motorist. Motorists who parked in the car park were generally already permitted to park by the client, the landowner, to whom permits had been given. Those motorists already had the right to park, subject to the permit conditions, without fear of an action for trespass by the landowner in any event. We were referred to the parking permit itself. Although the terms and conditions of use are in the form of a letter from VCS to the user, and the permit itself is titled “Parking Permit VCS”, this does not show that it was VCS, as opposed to the client, who made any offer of the right to park. VCS had no right to make any such offer, and accordingly could not have made it. In this context we note that the contract between VCS and clients requires VCS to issue parking permits to clients on request. It is the client that determines the number of permits that are in issue and the motorists to whom they are issued.

Nor does the fact that the permit conditions may be altered by VCS without prior notice assist VCS’s case. Such a provision is not inconsistent with the right to park on the relevant conditions having been conferred by the client. It is perfectly possible for a right to be granted by one person on terms that may be set by another person, acting on behalf of the first.

We accordingly find that, contrary to the finding of the First-tier Tribunal in this respect, there was no contract between VCS and the motorist."

Simple as day .. except for Perky.

Coupon-mad

Nice decision as well for everyone who wants to sue a clamper and landowner/agent. :T

People clamped by a private knuckledragger within the last few years could pretty much cite the UT case and say to a County Court judge:

''No contract can have existed with Mr Clamper, therefore it's negligence and harassment by the owner/occupier to allow such a firm to mislead and harass and extort money with menaces and pretend there was a contract when no offer to park can legally have been made by Mr Clamper. Therefore damages and costs and interest at 8% are sought from these parties who are both liable'' (mainly the owner/occupier as the clampers will be defunct by October).

BTW what is the Singh case? I have only seen the Ibbotson case this week?

Trebor16

AlexisV wrote: »

Simon must be kicking himself. Good job he's got MP to show him what he's been doing wrong.

I can only think of the line in Pulp Fiction by Harvey Keitel when they have just finished cleaning up the car and think they have it sorted.

MP to SRS." I think we are in the clear with this tax tribunal ruling, we can still fine people"

SRS to MP "Well, let's not start sucking each other's d ic ks quite yet"

notts_phil

Perky obviously short of cash as insists on using an 0871 number....

ripped_off_driver

Trebor16 wrote: »

I can only think of the line in Pulp Fiction by Harvey Keitel when they have just finished cleaning up and think they have it sorted.

MP to SRS." I think we are in the clear with this tax tribunal ruling, we can still fine people"

SRS to MP "Well, let's not start sucking each other's d ic ks quite yet"

Or with apologies to Austin Powers:

Quartermaster Clerk: [returns Perky's personal effects after the reanimation process] One decision of the Upper Tribunal torpedoing PPC claims.
Perky: That's not binding.
Clerk: One Act of Parliament stating that the decision is binding, signed by the Queen.
Perky: I'm telling ya baby, that's not my contract!
Clerk: One contract by Perky Pipsqueak Parking Company in exactly the same terms as the other.
Perky: I don't even know what this is! This sort of thing ain't my bag, baby!
Clerk: One book, "We are all screwed as a result of VCS and that plonker SRS: (This Sort of Thing Is My Bag, Baby)", by Michael Looplotty Perkins.
Perky: Ah.
Clerk: Just sign the form.
Perky: Okay, thank you, handy man. I'll sign here, just to get things moving. [laughs] You know.