New cobblers from Perky

Half_way

Would anything on that website raise the eybrows of the DVLA in regards to an extended ban?

fb1969

It all honesty, this bit could possibly be true:

"Combined Parking Solutions has been busy replacing all tickets and signage to comply with the requirements of the act"

Afteralll they probably haven't much else to do recently :rotfl:

BASFORDLAD

fb1969 wrote: »

It all honesty, this bit could possibly be true:

"Combined Parking Solutions has been busy replacing all tickets and signage to comply with the requirements of the act"

Afteralll they probably haven't much else to do recently :rotfl:

Yes Perky towers will be very quiet

BASFORDLAD

What he is saying on his signs is that if you dont have a permit you agree to pay a set amount for a 24 hour period

Coupon-mad

BASFORDLAD wrote: »

What he is saying on his signs is that if you dont have a permit you agree to pay a set amount for a 24 hour period

Exactly! The very point I was making. If he sticks with that then he can't use POPLA and can't rely on rk liability either. He's out of line with the 'industry'!

jkdd77

BASFORDLAD wrote: »

I love this bit:

"much to the annoyance of various online anti-parking consumer forums who continue to supply worthless defences to assist people in avoiding payment – Combined Parking Solutions are pleased to have a 100% success rate in court actions where these defences have been submitted." , thats a bit of a porky as it was proved they lost a couple of cases and they didnt reply when asked about them. Perky telling a porky, well i never!!

He was obviously reading pepipoo as he says "It is also a criminal offence under Section 2 of the Fraud Act 2006 (Fraud by misrepresentation) if a keeper dishonestly gives an incorrect name or address of a driver which is publishable by a term on upto 10yrs and a fine upon conviction upon indictment"- Again Perky has been spending to much time at Solihull law school

He has a cheek to mention fraud by misrepresentation- falsely and dishonestly claiming a 100% success record in court in order to mislead people into paying an invoice that is unenforceable surely constitutes an misleading commercial practice, and therefore a criminal offence under the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008. It may also be a breach of the very same section 2 of the Fraud Act 2006 which he so brazenly refers to.

That said, I don't advise or condone deliberately providing false driver details to PPCs, even though, in my opinion, the risk of criminal prosecution is incredibly remote.

trisontana

jkdd77 wrote: »

He has a cheek to mention fraud by misrepresentation- falsely and dishonestly claiming a 100% success record in court in order to mislead people into paying an invoice that is unenforceable surely constitutes an misleading commercial practice, and therefore a criminal offence under the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008. It may also be a breach of the very same section 2 of the Fraud Act 2006 which he so brazenly refers to.

That said, I don't advise or condone deliberately providing false driver details to PPCs, even though, in my opinion, the risk of criminal prosecution is incredibly remote.

I don't think there is much to worry about on that count, but on the evidence of this reply I received from Norman Baker:-

"The alternative option was to make it a criminal offence for the keeper to refuse to name the driver in charge of the vehicle. This was discarded because criminal sanctions were deemed a disproportionate sanction to a parking charge on private property."


It's probably better to refuse to name the driver instead of giving a false name.

bazster

Tris, I'm dying to know what happens if the RK gives a real name, and that person then denies they were the driver. You could easily set this up such that no-one could ever find out the truth. F'r'instance, me and my OH are both insured to drive both our cars (I'm the RK for both), so what happens if I finger her as the driver, and she denies it? If we're both "in" on it, how could anyone ever establish the truth? A judge would have to sort it out on the balance of probabilities, so it would be an absolute lottery for the PPC as to which party to take to court - and if they were that unsure, presumably their case could be struck out on the grounds that it's a fishing trip.

(This is purely hypothetical BTW, in actual fact she is congenitally incapable of telling a porkie - unlike me!)

ppc_guy

Bazster in this case you give above I would assume (and it is just an assumption) that the PPC would attempt to take you both to court.

bazster

ppc_guy wrote: »

Bazster in this case you give above I would assume (and it is just an assumption) that the PPC would attempt to take you both to court.

On what grounds? You have to believe that the person you are suing is the correct person, you can't sue someone speculatively, just in case they're the correct person!