Parking board feedback

fil_cad

Thank you for your reply it was most welcome (:

HO87

FM's reply is far more fullsome than I'd expected and directly addresses the principal issues without "blowing" any legal "gaff". I may not agree with the sentiment in parts but I suspect that is due to the influence of cautious legal-types. However, it is clear that a degree of thought and consideration has been given and for that I'm grateful.

As for the posts by persons we suspect are linked to certain PPC's my view is that if they feel the need to spend an inordinate amount of time on forums, including here, scouring through posts then I couldn't be happier. Surely the behaviour is as good a litmus test of the general thrust of advice here as anything else? That assumes that that they were not the product of mischief and I am not convinced that wasn't the case on occasion, but enough said.

bazster

I can't see a PPC ever bringing a case for libel as a result of being called "scammers". If they did so, then the defence would be that it's true, they are scammers. The court would then be obliged to rule on whether or not the PPC are indeed operating a scam.

Can't see them wanting to go there!

bargepole

bazster wrote: »

I can't see a PPC ever bringing a case for libel as a result of being called "scammers". If they did so, then the defence would be that it's true, they are scammers. The court would then be obliged to rule on whether or not the PPC are indeed operating a scam.

Can't see them wanting to go there!

A certain PPC did get some heavyweight lawyers to write to Pepipoo's site owners threatening a libel writ along these lines. The response was pretty much along the lines of Arkell v Pressdram (1971), but in order to avoid costly and time-consuming legal battles, the decision was taken that the word "scam" in reference to a particular company should not be used, unless said company had been convicted in court of a criminal activity.

bazster

Threatening is one thing, actually taking it to court is another thing entirely. Something the PPCs know all about!

bazster

It's not just happening here! The ladies on the Marriage and Couples board were having an enthusiastic discussion about their orgasm experiences earlier, it was well into three figure of posts, and now it's gone!

It was getting a bit fruity! Much more entertaining than anything that got deleted here!

Former_MSE_Forum_Manager

Plushchris wrote: »

Not meaning to pick holes but surely "cowboys" cant be that much of a problem... http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/reclaim/private-parking-tickets

Hi Plushchris,

This is the verdict of our legal team:

"A claimant must prove that the defamatory statement refers to him or her. A claimant who has not been referred to by name must prove that the words complained of were understood by some readers as referring to him or her.

The claimant can rely on the fact that he or she was a member of a class or group of people included in the defamatory statement. However a member of a group or class of people can only sue in relation to a defamatory allegation referring to the group as a whole, if the group is sufficiently small that the allegation would be understood to refer to him or her personally.

So, if our article refers to all private parking companies as “cowboys” then it is unlikely to be defamatory of individuals unless the number of private parking companies in the market is sufficiently small. In the context of the forum it is harder to be so black and white as it will often depend on the exact context and the juxtaposition of the content in question with other content on the thread."

I think it's fair to say that you have a point, however my advice (for what it's worth) is this, regarding the forum: The more cold, clinical and factual a post is, the harder it is for a party to get it removed. If you choose to use terms like "cowboy", "scam" or similar, it is weakening the defence we have to keep it up to whatever degree related to context. If it contains these words, and our legal team advise for it to come down, we'll take it down as I can't run the risk of the way a court might interpret it. We might, of course, choose to keep it up based on the context.

However, this is one where you're helping me to help you. Watertight, factual, unemotional posts have a vastly better chance of staying up than ones using certain words. Think of it as giving them as little leverage as possible.

I can't really be much clearer than that - I hope you get what I'm saying and that this helps.

Former_MSE_Forum_Manager

Hi Trebor16,

This is the response of our legal team (in blue):

Dear Trebor16,
FM has asked me to look into the legal points you raise and let you know my thoughts. I have added my comments in blue below

Thanks for the informative reply but some of the points you have raised do need correction.

1. There has been no witch hunt or concerted effort to pursue one individual or company. In fact the reverse is true with one individual persistently coming to MSE and posting using multiple identities to pursue an agenda designed to confuse members, especially those coming here for the first time having been on the receiving end of an unwarranted demand for payment by a PPC.

2. What evidence has the PPC in question provided to say that a contract given to a defendant in a country court case is a priviliged document? The document itself is covered bythe long standing principle of open justice, CPR 5.4C (and Practice Direction5A) and CPR 32.13, and I suspect the PPC in question is fully aware of this.

CPR 5.4C says that a person who is not a party to proceedings may obtain from the court records a copy of a statement of case (i.e. the claim form and particulars of claim) and a judgment or order made in public.

The court's permission is needed to obtain from the court records any other documents (for example documents filed with or attached to a statement of case).
Practice Direction 5A(4.2) allows a party to proceedings to obtain a copy from the court file.
CPR 13 allows the inspection of witness statements during the course of the trial.

I don't agree that we ought to conclude from these provisions that the contract is a public document. We were not a party to the proceedings. If the contract was attached to the statement of case, as a non-party we would require the court's permission to obtain a copy. If it was annexed to a witness statement, our right would have been to inspect it during the trial. The right of inspection would not extend to posting the contract on our forums.

3. The recent ruling by the Upper Tier Tax Tribunal is very pertinent to the contract in question and it gave an example of how PPC's contracts are written and how they will be affected by the UTT tribunal ruling.

This is useful but doesn’t helps us when deciding whether we can allow publication of the contract on our forum

4. The board member being pursued by the PPC in question is not being pursued for publication of the contract but for other reasons. Your understanding that the disclosure of the document is at the heart of the court case is incorrect. [/QUOTE]

We have had sight of the Particulars of Claim from which we concluded that the question of publication of the contract is an issue in the case.

Former_MSE_Forum_Manager

BASFORDLAD wrote: »

I have sent you a detailed email, i look forward to your reply sometime shortly

Just to say I've spoken to Basfordlad on email today and I think my responses were seen as fair and understood (although naturally I'll let Basfordlad answer that if he wishes to confirm).

halibut2209

Excellent responses from MSE here. I'd like to thank you for taking the time and trouble to answer the questions. I see exactly where you are coming from, and your stance is both clear and fair.