A Man of Many Talents (And Jobs)

Stroma

More lies and deceit by a parking company, to go with all the other lies this so called industry abides by. This is fraudulent and designed to swindle people out of money!

Custard_Pie

Stroma wrote: »

More lies and deceit by a parking company, to go with all the other lies this so called industry abides by. This is fraudulent and designed to swindle people out of money!

Pranky doesn't say whether it's been used in court though.

That moves everything into a whole new realm of alleged purgery.

Only one PCC needs to do that and the whole industry would be tarnished.

Folkiedave

Putting two and two together - it seems they have been submitted to POPLA; I work that out from the fact they have been copied to Henry Greenslade.

It is still a disgrace and I reckon if any of these were ever used in court they would be in serious trouble.

At the same time it does enable anyone faced with this sort of thing from other companies (we know there were other "fiddles" in the past whereby they were photocopied) to insist on the private parking company producing full unredacted copies of their contract in court.

Custard_Pie

Folkiedave wrote: »

Putting two and two together - it seems they have been submitted to POPLA; I work that out from the fact they have been copied to Henry Greenslade.

It is still a disgrace and I reckon if any of these were ever used in court they would be in serious trouble.

At the same time it does enable anyone faced with this sort of thing from other companies (we know there were other "fiddles" in the past whereby they were photocopied) to insist on the private parking company producing full unredacted copies of their contract in court.

Pranky said that they were used at PoPLA, just wondered if they had been used in Court as well. We know PCC's prefer to use witness statements then the actual contract. Alledgedly lying to PoPLA is one thing, doing it in a court process is another.

Anyway, I bet PoPLA are over whelmed at being taken for mugs over and over again.

HO87

[crystal ball mode]PRESS RELEASE
After careful examination of the written evidence presented to him Mr Greenslade has determined that this has all arisen as the result of a gross misunderstanding of the intended purpose to which witness statements were to be put and the sources from whom they were acceptable.

Following a period of staff re-education CEL will now be offered an opportunity to re-submit evidence in the relevant cases which will then be re-considered.[/mode]
Phew, that was close lads.

Still. Trebles all round.

EDIT: It might be prudent to throw into the mix the offence set out in s.3 Forgery & Counterfeiting Act 1981.

It is an offence for a person to use an instrument which is, and which he knows or believes to be, false, with the intention of inducing somebody to accept it as genuine, and by reason of so accepting it to do or not to do some act to his own or any other person’s prejudice.

For the purposes of this section, let me assure you, a statement is most certainly an "instrument".

Coupon-mad

Custard_Pie wrote: »

Pranky said that they were used at PoPLA, just wondered if they had been used in Court as well. We know PCC's prefer to use witness statements then the actual contract. Alledgedly lying to PoPLA is one thing, doing it in a court process is another.

Anyway, I bet PoPLA are over whelmed at being taken for mugs over and over again.

AFAIK the only CEL case that proceeded to court was the McCafferty case they lost. But...how many people have paid when threatened with court or when they got Court papers from CEL?

IamNotAllowedToUseMyName

HO87 wrote: »

[crystal ball mode]PRESS RELEASE
After careful examination of the written evidence presented to him Mr Greenslade has determined that this has all arisen as the result of a gross misunderstanding of the intended purpose to which witness statements were to be put and the sources from whom they were acceptable.

Following a period of staff re-education CEL will now be offered an opportunity to re-submit evidence in the relevant cases which will then be re-considered.[/mode]
Phew, that was close lads.

Still. Trebles all round.

EDIT: It might be prudent to throw into the mix the offence set out in s.3 Forgery & Counterfeiting Act 1981.


For the purposes of this section, let me assure you, a statement is most certainly an "instrument".

or the Fraud Act 2006, where the simple act of making a statement you know to be untrue for gain (whether it is actually gained or not) is an offence.

Simply put, there are laws against making false statements, and if the head of POPLA is aware that this person has been operating in this way and does nothing about it, he becomes a party to the offence.

POPLA need to make sure that they are squeaky clean on this, as the courts are involved - using the POPLA system has been recommended as a way to avoid the courts and if it is demonstrated that the parking companies have corrupted that process with false statements and POPLA does nothing about it - the system that is supposed to save the courts' time is not fit for purpose.

This signature business is only one way in which witness statements to avoid producing contracts have been abused - Prankster has got the email trail showing how another parking company was essentially writing witness statements for a client and presenting them as if they were the client's.

HO87

IanMSpencer wrote: »

or the Fraud Act 2006, where the simple act of making a statement you know to be untrue for gain (whether it is actually gained or not) is an offence.

Simply put, there are laws against making false statements, and if the head of POPLA is aware that this person has been operating in this way and does nothing about it, he becomes a party to the offence.

POPLA need to make sure that they are squeaky clean on this, as the courts are involved - using the POPLA system has been recommended as a way to avoid the courts and if it is demonstrated that the parking companies have corrupted that process with false statements and POPLA does nothing about it - the system that is supposed to save the courts' time is not fit for purpose.

This signature business is only one way in which witness statements to avoid producing contracts have been abused - Prankster has got the email trail showing how another parking company was essentially writing witness statements for a client and presenting them as if they were the client's.

Well aware of the FA offence but as far as s's.2-4 are concerned one has first to prove dishonesty and then show that the gain/loss was a financial one. Any loss, as far as an appeal to POPLA is concerned, may ultimately have had the effect of incurring a loss but the immediate loss is that of an appeal - something intangible that cannot be expressed financially. From that point of view the F&CA offence has far more potential traction - especially from an investigative standpoint.

As an aside, the FA is not known by that acronym for nothing - because it really did FA about addressing the problem it was intended to correct, namely the Theft Act 1978. The shame of it was that in attempting to deal with the dog's breakfast that was the TA 1978 it took with it s's.15 & 16 of the Theft Act 1968 as well. A sorry loss given what they were replaced with.