Care Parking

The_Deep

bazster wrote: »

You can't defame someone in private, it's only defamation if the defamer communicates it to a third party.

In this instance the recipient of the PPC's communications has chosen to make them public, not the sender, so the sender can't be accused of defamation.

You seem absolutely certain of your ground Mr B. From my limited studies of the Law it is a lot more complicated than you assert.

I see from your signature that you are not legally trained, I hope therefore that you are not among the many on MSE fora who are wont to give ill-considered advice.

bazster

So, based on your "limited studies of the law", you are happy to advise someone that they have a case for defamation?

That wouldn't be "ill-considered advice" at all, would it?

The_Deep

So, based on your "limited studies of the law", you are happy to advise someone that they have a case for defamation?

No Mr B, read my post again. I am not giving advice, I am saying what I would do in similar circumstances.

That wouldn't be "ill-considered advice" at all, would it?

Not at all because, as explained above, it is not advice.

neilmcl

The_Deep wrote: »

So, the PPC are calling you a liar. I would not have this and cease all further contact with them. Let them put their man in court and see whom the Judge believes

The_Deep wrote: »

They have called you a liar. Are you going to ignore that? I would raise this again with them. Threatening them with defamation unless they apologise.

Contradicting yourself as well as giving the OP bad advice regarding legal issues that you clearly don't understand, and yes it definitely comes across as advice, nice one.

The_Deep

Contradicting yourself as well as giving the OP bad advice regarding legal issues that you clearly don't understand, and yes it definitely comes across as advice, nice one

I have been reading some of your old posts Neil, you are a bit of a trouble maker are you not?

neilmcl

If trawling (or should I say trolling) through someone's post history looking for any tiny inconsistency or mistake rather than admit you're wrong is the best you can do I feel sorry for you. I can tell you one thing, I've helped a hell of lot more members on this site with accurate "advice" than you ever will!

aabs

The_Deep wrote: »

So, the PPC are calling you a liar. I would not have this and cease all further contact with them. Let them put their man in court and see whom the Judge believes

I agree but I suppose that they could then argue that a mistake had been made by their parking patrol warden and that the statement had only been used internally and not produced as evidence.

Yes I am annoyed but until the statement is used as some form of evidence against me I'm prepared to wait.

The_Deep

I've helped a hell of lot more members on this site with accurate "advice" than you ever will!

Well Neil, you may think that your advice is "accurate": I for one certainly do not. I could quote several cases where you have been wrong, but I suspect that I would be accused of trolling.

Coupon-mad

aabs wrote: »

I agree but I suppose that they could then argue that a mistake had been made by their parking patrol warden and that the statement had only been used internally and not produced as evidence.

Yes I am annoyed but until the statement is used as some form of evidence against me I'm prepared to wait.

I guess you have submitted this now already but this wording below about the NTK looks to me like specific stuff about a UKCPS NTK only:


On the NTK, the 'period of parking' is not shown, only the time of issue of an alleged PCN. Also the NTK completely misinforms the rights of a registered keeper to appeal, alleging that the appeal time has 'elapsed' when it has not and wrongly restricting the keeper's options at that stage to appealing only if the vehicle was stolen. I have no hesitation is stating to POPLA that this is a lie that POPLA should report to the BPA. In addition, the wording makes this a non-compliant NTK under the POFA 2012, Schedule 4.