UKCPS Court Claim Trashed By Judge

bargepole

Link to Judgment here: https://www.dropbox.com/s/xw9hqmb3ag35el2/UKCPS-v-Gaskell.pdf
This was an unusual case, because not enough time was allocated at the hearing. So the Judge heard brief submissions from both sides, sent them away, and said he would read all the papers and send on his Judgment.

There are some real gems in this, which rubbish not only UKCPS, but the whole PPC industry.

Perhaps the most telling is this bit: 'So it is difficult to see where there is actual loss resulting from the non-payment of this demand; and therefore it is difficult to see how high a figure as £100 (or,indeed, any figure) can be a genuine pre-estimate of loss.'

salmosalaris

I laughed all afternoon at this

kirkbyinfurnesslad_2

Was a such a good read while munching on Easter egg

esmerobbo

Oh what a gem a "Genuine pre-estimate of cost document" that showed a £700 a Qtr profit!

No Easter egg for Pete more like a gob full of feathers!

lifesarainbow

Just finished reading all through. Thanks bargepole, what a fabulous start to the day . I think you're right about the judge's comment
" So it is difficult to see where there is actual loss resulting from the non-payment of this demand; and therefore it is difficult to see how high a figure as £100 (or,indeed, any figure) can a genuine pre-estimate of loss. "
I wonder if that could be quoted in future appeals .. ?

Dee140157

I read this just now with a cup of tea. It was a fun read. I love the Yorkshire Connection theme! I am now secretly (wickedly?) hoping that UKCPS fail to pay the £51 by the set date and further action can be taken against them, although for the OP's sake, I hope that do pay up.

Umkomaas

Dee140157 wrote: »

I read this just now with a cup of tea. It was a fun read. I love the Yorkshire Connection theme! I am now secretly (wickedly?) hoping that UKCPS fail to pay the £51 by the set date and further action can be taken against them, although for the OP's sake, I hope that do pay up.

It won't be first time The Sheriffs have knocked on the caravan door!

A stunning summation by the Judge, so good, you wonder whether he is a regular contributor from here?

Not to good a day for Mr Hash-well .

bazster

Beautiful, just beautiful.

What a shame the defendant didn't question UKCPS' locus standi, I'm sure the judge would have had some trenchant views on that also!

I love how he said he needn't consider the question of GPEOL, and then went on to consider it anyway!

I'll bet Hasbeen is chewing the manky carpet in the Potakabin! Wonder if he really will apply for leave to appeal? Difficult to see it being granted in the light of a judgement like that!

Ivor_Pecheque

Great stuff, interesting how he ruled on there being no contract, and then went on to rule on the loss issue. Some cases I've seen seem to rule on just one aspect, and then don't rule on the others.

The Judge obviously got straight to the fact that the parking companies make money on defaults, therefore, it's in their interest for a default to occur.

It taught me one other thing-don't mess with Yorkshiremen.

HO87

It was the judge's methodical approach that impressed me most. As systematic dismantling of UKCPS's - indeed any PPC's case as I have ever read. At this time of day.

lescm19

Classic.
I like how the DJ Dawson felt he had to pass comment on the GPEOL point even though he had already found on another point.