Dispatches: Channel 4 at 8pm Tonight

Scunnyrigman

Hi all, I received a PCN last November at Humberside Airport, when somebody picked me up,"Not saying who was driving" and parked for less than a minute in the bus lane. I received the normal letter with pictures of the back of my car. As everybody say's on here ignore it, I did and then got the second one, which got the same treatment as the first one. Went in the bin. The initial fine was for £60. Then went up to £100.
The next letter was from their debt recovery agency for £160. I sent them and Vehicle control services e mails, stating that I would not be paying them anything so take me to court, bearing in mind they have not got a good record in S!!!!horpe in front of Judge Mc Ilwayne.
I received a phone call last night from the managing director of Humberside Airport informing me that he has stopped the case from going to court and my penalty has been reduced to £80. I am not paying these bunch of leeches anything. I still want my day in court with them and have put a counterclaim against VCS for harassment.
This has got me thinking now, Why would the top guy from Humberside Airport contact me at seven o clock at night, unless he is worried about something.
Could it be this. The airport is having a new Hilton Hotel built on the grounds, and any bad publicity would not be good news for them. Because I will go to the newspapers, and the TV stations.
I look forward to my day in court with VCS.
£160 penalty, reduced to £80, my court cost's are only£42. Even if I lose, which I very much doubt Iv'e still saved money.
Don't let these people win. Fight them.

Mike172

Sounds like a hoax call to me. Start your own thread btw..... Advice isnt to ignore.

youreds

See Barry on GMB early this morning here:

http://www.itv.com/goodmorningbritain

Strange they never refer to PE by name..

Umkomaas

I look forward to my day in court with VCS

Whether VCS will risk a court case in the context of airport 'no stopping' tickets is debatable. What isn't debatable is 'having your day in court' isn't about having a rant via the judge about how unfair all this is; if that's the plan, I don't think 'your day' will turn out too well.

You need to get all your legal ducks in a row, so if it were to come to a court case, don't take this lightly and rely on your ad lib lines with the judge or an underestimation of the PPC-paid lawyer.

salmosalaris

Cornucopia wrote: »

The problem with that argument is that it looks only at a narrow definition of loss: the car-park is free, therefore if I am parked too long, the only consequence is that someone else cannot park there for free. Therefore zero loss.

However, that's a very driver-focused way of looking at it. If you consider a car-park near a station that is persistently abused, such that it deters genuine customers, then would you want errant drivers to be liable for lower rents for the shop units, because of reduced trade?

I don't necessarily agree with HHJ Moloney's reasoning on all of the points he made, but all credit to him for exploring the issues very thoroughly (including this one).

I completely agree with HHJ Moloney ( nearly ) ,other than the landowner may have commercial justification to issue deterrents , or reverting to recognised law may have suffered a loss . PE on the other hand do not and have not as miscreants cause them only profit and they have suffered no loss .