parking

ManxRed

mikey72 wrote: »

However, usually the immediate advice is for employees to tell employers that car park PPC tickets are unenforcable, and can be ignored, so effectively telling the employer to give the employee authority to breach third party contracts. As I said, there are enough regulars on here proud to collect tickets, if would be interesting for some of them to start harrasment procedures, rather than advise new posters who are worried enough about the ticket to do it. Many then put up a template letter with a suggested amount to go for when you win?

But that doesn't make the employer liable.

You're making an unbelievably tenuous link between an employee advising an employer that they are not liable for contracts that they are not a party to, and somehow this making the employer liable, when clearly it doesn't.

Tobster86

juejuejools wrote: »

hi can any body please help i got a fine of £60 pound from cps car parking , because my front tiyer , was over white line bye 2in, they, said iwas stoping some one else parking , but there was only 4 cars in there an there room for about 50 cars , any advice do i appeal , or pay the fine please help thanks julia

Do you have any cats?

I find PPC letters make really good litter tray liners when you run out of newspaper.


PeterPudding, I'm sure you'll share an example court case with us where a PPC successfully claimed compensation against someone who parked 2in over the line?

mikey72

ManxRed wrote: »

But that doesn't make the employer liable.

You're making an unbelievably tenuous link between an employee advising an employer that they are not liable for contracts that they are not a party to, and somehow this making the employer liable, when clearly it doesn't.

So, tenuous, but still there. As I said, someone needs to try it, and post up the results, then advising others to follow on.

ManxRed

No. Tenuous and not there at all. By using 'tenuous' I meant in your own mind. You cannot honestly believe you have established a legal route to proving a principal/agent relationship between a driver and a registered keeper (even an employee) do you??!!!??

You really don't understand contract law at all, do you?

mikey72

You admitted it was tenuous. If I don't understand contract law, do you understand english? - Tenous Very weak or slight: - How do you get the jump to not there? And if you are so sure you're right, why do you encourage newbies to be the guinea pigs? Go on, take a chance yourself! Talk the talk, walk the walk! Live up to the user name. Post it back up, you'll have won easily. This would be a monumentous feather in your cap!

ManxRed

mikey72 wrote: »

You admitted it was tenuous. If I don't understand contract law, do you understand english? - Tenous Very weak or slight: - How do you get the jump to not there? And if you are so sure you're right, why do you encourage newbies to be the guinea pigs? Go on, take a chance yourself! Talk the talk, walk the walk! Live up to the user name. Post it back up, you'll have won easily. This would be a monumentous feather in your cap!

Quoted to prevent deletion.

See how tedious that is?

1. The tenuous description applied to the link as created in your own mind - as in, surely you don't think that's a very strong argument? (as in, in reality it is completely useless).

2. I understand English, it's your posts that tend to contain the spelling and grammatical errors.

3. Where have I asked a newbie to be a guinea pig? We're talking about whether you can establish a link between an employee driver and a RK who could be an employer or lease company. No need to ask a newbie to be a guinea pig there.

If you think I'm wrong, why not contact the BVRLA (The British Vehicle Rental and Leasing Association, who agree with me on this point, and not you.

Not being rude, but I'll ask again - why are you on here?

You do not post advice to anyone (thank God, you know nothing), you simply try to pick arguments with people. You're not here to learn (certainly no evidence of that), you simply adopt the polar opposite view of people who clearly have infinitely more subject matter knowledge than you do, and then go quiet once loads of background info has been supplied to rubbish your assertions, only to appear on another thread the following day trying to forward hopeless theories on how contract law works.

You clearly have some kind of agenda, although I can't work it out yet.

Interesting though that you should push this theory of RK responsibility through a principal/agent relationship. You may be interested to learn that one Mike Perkins also likes to espouse this particular theory, and has forwarded it on a number of occasions. No one else gives it the time of day (including many PPCs) but Mike keeps going on this one.

Mike is the ex Director of Combined Parking Solutions. He's about, oh, forty-ish, so he would have been born around 1972 ish.

Just thought you might like to know.

Anyway, as far as I can see, you are serving no useful function on this board other than to try and wind people up, so now is the time for me to hit the ignore button.

Bye bye.

LincolnshireYokel

mikey72 wrote: »

monumentous

!!!!!!!!!" Monumentous"? Thats not in any dictionary I own, Collins, Websters or OED.

I suppose inventing words that no one knows the meaning of is one way to bluff a debate win. Immanuel Kant tried the same thing in Critique of Pure Reason, (1781) didnt he.....

mikey72

LincolnshireYokel wrote: »

!!!!!!!!!" Monumentous"? Thats not in any dictionary I own, Collins, Websters or OED.

I suppose inventing words that no one knows the meaning of is one way to bluff a debate win. Immanuel Kant tried the same thing in Critique of Pure Reason, (1781) didnt he.....

Sadly sir, you are lacking a dictionary that truly supports the occasion in history we shall be bearing witness to.