Napier parking shysters ticket after 12 seconds

The_Deep

So, what is being permanently deprived here?

Read the link which you provided and you will see

http://www.staffordshire.police.uk/i...crime/bilking/

As details of the vehicle have been left (the numberplate) no criminal act has occurred

So if someone leaves their number plates on a petrol station
CCTV camera and drives off without paying that's alright them? You will have to explain that to me as I do not see it.

esmerobbo

I know someone who has actually done that 3 times at their local Tesco. Twice the Police said go back and pay and that's the end of it. Third time they said Tesco simply want paying but if they have to attend again they will nick him whatever Tesco wished. If not for theft then for wasting police time.

If he goes there now he has to prepay!

The proof of the pudding would be the permanent deprive of property you could argue if you meant to deprive would you leave your reg? I however would not wish to test it out!

But were going way of tac here which if anything would be obtaining a service by dishonest which I believe would be against the fraud act? However for 40P :eek:

The_Deep

...you could argue if you meant to deprive would you leave your reg?

But did you "leave your Reg"? You certainly did not enter it into a machine as you did not go near a machine.

They may have acquired it, but you certainly did not offer it to them on a plate.

You may think that this is veering off topic, but if people make misleading or incorrect statements, they need to be corrected.

fisherjim

Probably talking utter rubbish, but surely the 40p charge is to park the car, but the car did not leave the site before the PCN was issued so the analogy to shop lifting etc is irrelevant?

The_Deep

I think that you probably are.

fisherjim

The_Deep wrote: »

I think that you probably are.

Thanks for that I'm in good company though;)

esmerobbo

The_Deep wrote: »

...you could argue if you meant to deprive would you leave your reg?

But did you "leave your Reg"?

If we want to be pedantic actually you do leave you're reg at most sites, as it normally says something about you being recorded whilst on site.

However we need to differentiate between entering anywhere with the intent on obtaining something without paying, and leaving without paying by mistake. Or with the intention to make good!

Even if the intent of the OP was to use the car park and not pay, whatever Napier want him to pay would be far beyond anything resembling their loss and recovery.

Lets remember we can have fixed penalties issued for criminal acts for £60 £80 £100. If the OP bilked Napier let them complain to the Police.

The_Deep

No, I do not want to be pedantic, and I am not being pedantic.
It's just that your arguments do not stand up to scrutiny.

You do not "leave your registration" when you are photographed by ANPR cameras.

The thread is entitled "Parking ticket after 12 seconds" and implies wrongdoing on the part of the landowner, but the landowner alleges that the ticket was issued to a bilker. The landowner makes a good case and castes doubt on the integrity of the poster, in my opinion he succeeds.

I am not in favour of the way PPCs operate, but I am in favour of landowners protecting their property from trespassers.

We have agree that bilking is either fraud or theft, but that the landowner's remedy is to sue for losses not attempt to profit from it.

Stroma

The_Deep wrote: »

A polite and informative to reply from Mr. de Savary to what I thought was a rather intemperate attack by PP.

It would appear that the OP may have been, perhaps, "truthfully economical" in his/her narrative, allegedly.

Perhaps Stroma can shed more light on the matter.

I stand by words, the parking company and their owner is a shyster! And The Deepp how the hell was I supposed to know the FOI request was incorrect? I put the second like on here

The_Deep

I stand by words, the parking company and their owner is a shyster!

That may well be, just as what you have written may be libellous

.. how the hell was I supposed to know the FOI request was incorrect? I put the second like on here

I do not understand that last bit.