Response from Steve Clark @ the BPA

ripped_off_driver

Steve Clark of the BPA, which receives an increasing amount in fees from PPC members, does not have time to look into a binding court decision which renders virtually all PPC tickets unenforcable. Now if I had the lack of morals needed to be in that organisation I might be a little angry with that.

Unless of course it's a load of old baloney, like ol' Steve tried to spin yesterday. Even Perky accepts that the decision is binding, although he deludes himself that his company is not caught by it.

esmerobbo

Or Tariq Aziz, "what I see no American tanks"!

benham3160

ripped_off_driver wrote: »

I see Perky has put himself back on the dating sites:

http://www.makefriendsonline.com/profile.cfm?member=looplotty

There is no end to the man's hilarity. Statements such as "Body Build Voluptuous" and "Weight Ask me later" are priceless. His dateability index of 17% is higher than I thought it would be (17% higher to be precise)

Perky, I don't think the "lucky" lady will be asking anything about your weight when she finds out what voluptuous means in your case.

Anyone want to set up a hot date with Perky? It is tragic to see him so lonely.

If you read my thread on here called "PPC Weekly News" or something, you will find the BPA did an interview in their trade magazine with somebody called "Paul "Pinky" Crimson" who sounds VERY much like Perky.....

Regards,
Andy

dacouch

Could anyone who is fully conversant with the recent developments eg court rulings / vat etc update the BPA wiki entry...

benham3160

dacouch wrote: »

Could anyone who is fully conversant with the recent developments eg court rulings / vat etc update the BPA wiki entry...

Nice touch, shame you can't put a ciatation on Facebook (well, I can see why) but I have a quote from a BPA staff member, when questioned about continuing to pursue tickets after the recent case:

"The simple fact is, no one has a definitive answer at present and we are mindful of putting out the correct information for the public, which we will do in due course."

Seems not even the BPA "sing from the same hymn sheet" on these matters.

Regards,
Andy

give_them_FA

I would have thought that a definitive ruling by a superior Court of Record that an Agent cannot form a contract with any third party in respect of the Principal's land is fairly.... ummmm.. definitive.

However, less than convenient for the BPA.

Had the ruling gone the other way, would they have been refraining from putting up comments, lest they misled the public, or would they be shouting it from the rooftops?

Answers on a postcard...

ripped_off_driver

Maybe when PPcs try on their usual lies and bluff - take you to court, ruin your credit rating, send bailiffs, steal your kids etc we should simply reply in the immortal words of that Little Britain character:

"Upper Tribunal says No!"

I'm guessing they have not put out a statement because they know they are in deep doo doo, that no amount of spinning will get them out of. And who landed them there? BPA Board member Simon Renshaw-Smith. A fitting irony.

ManxRed

give_them_FA wrote: »

Had the ruling gone the other way, would they have been refraining from putting up comments, lest they misled the public, or would they be shouting it from the rooftops?

Oh, oh, oh, I know this...

...is it the second one?

Yes, final answer, the second one.

esmerobbo

give_them_FA wrote: »

I would have thought that a definitive ruling by a superior Court of Record that an Agent cannot form a contract with any third party in respect of the Principal

That sort of flattens RK liability aka the freedoms bill don't you think.

Although we knew it anyway!