Catoninetails in da house!

BenefitMaster

enfield_freddy wrote: »

lets give it its full name

remember round 2 is on the 31st , coach booking are being taken

(don't forget your passports )

It's rumoured that I might be there...

BenefitMaster

catoninetails wrote: »

And where is the prosecution, where is the charge?, where is the conviction?

Do you understand the difference between Illegal and Unlawful?

every time a charge is thrown out in court, that means the ticket was issued unlawfully. If it was Lawful (that is, full of law) then the judge could not throw it out even on a technicality.

BenefitMaster

catoninetails wrote: »

Granted one of the few prosecutions but there has been no conviction or plea yet so we should reserve judgement on this before everyone on here gets excited.

Do you really think that Trading Standards would seek to prosecute if they didn't have evidence of an offence?

Let me give you a clue - the Prosecutors Code requires that there is sufficient evidence (on the balance of probability) that an offence has been committed before a prosecution can be brought.

That means that there is enough evidence for a CIVIL court to decide a fraud is occurring. Remember your law of contract and trespass is all Civil law.

BenefitMaster

catoninetails wrote: »

This forum is often a laughing stock in the industry. Not because you help people with tickets or do all and sundry, but due to the fact you make everything appear so much more important than what it really is.

So much a laughing stock that ParkingEye hired Hill Dickinson who threatened to sue MoneySupermarket, then backed off when the members here proves the truth of their comments.

So yes, you are trolling, and you should go and find a real job (c) 2015 Coupon-Mad

trisontana

BenefitMaster wrote: »

So much a laughing stock that ParkingEye hired Hill Dickinson who threatened to sue MoneySupermarket, then backed off when the members here proves the truth of their comments.

So yes, you are trolling, and you should go and find a real job (c) 2015 Coupon-Mad

Not forgetting those silly solicitor's letters sent to Parking Prankster by Parking Eye. They threatened all sort of dire consequences but nothing happened. They even told him they had reported him to the police.When he asked for a crime number, answer came there none. Typical act of a bully.

BlackSpangle

BenefitMaster wrote: »

So much a laughing stock that ParkingEye hired Hill Dickinson who threatened to sue MoneySupermarket, then backed off when the members here proves the truth of their comments.

Hill Dickinson? Threaten to sue for libel over statements which turn out to be true after all?

Nonsense. That just never happens.

My problem with Co9T's posts to date is that too many of them are brief one-liners about how someone is talking rubbish, and should stop giving bad advice, etc. Yet never taking the time to explain why someone is incorrect, or what evidence to the contrary might exist.

It doesn't give the impression of someone wishing to engage (even adversarially) with the community here, but rather just attempting to wind up folks, which is kinda trolly, IMO.

The_Deep

OK kinda trolley, but if we are a bit nicer to him/her, (and why not), he might engage more fully.

matttye

BenefitMaster wrote: »

Do you really think that Trading Standards would seek to prosecute if they didn't have evidence of an offence?

Let me give you a clue - the Prosecutors Code requires that there is sufficient evidence (on the balance of probability) that an offence has been committed before a prosecution can be brought.

That means that there is enough evidence for a CIVIL court to decide a fraud is occurring. Remember your law of contract and trespass is all Civil law.

Actually there has to be a reasonable prospect of conviction to charge. CPS full code test guidance:

http://www.cps.gov.uk/publications/code_for_crown_prosecutors/codetest.html

It's a bit more in depth than 'on the balance of probabilities.' They consider admissibility of the evidence gathered, likely defences, etc.

esmerobbo

It would be interesting to see how many of these managed car parks actually send out charges to car park abusers. By that I mean people who park up and don't use the facilities offered on site, or in a residential area have no business at the residential premises.

These PPC's offer to manage these car parks, yet don't they simply penalise people. I would guess that 70/80% of tickets issued are to legitimate customers/guests/contractors using the site.

I don't think many here have much sympathy for car park abusers, even though the amount charged simply can not be justified. However these companies cant exist if they don't issue charges, so they simply make conditions that they know people will breach, usually unintentionally.

They are not managing nor freeing up space, they are in most circumstances simply punishing people who have a legitimate cause to be on the car park.

The_Deep

BlackSpangle wrote: »

Hill Dickinson? Threaten to sue for libel over statements which turn out to be true after all?

Nonsense. That just never happens.

Oh dear, Mr Schnapps appears to have set fire to his drawers.

A day or so ago he said

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-31901533" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Does anyone see a remarkable similarity between the behaviour of Mr Pantsonfire as PPCs?

Is not such conduct unbecoming to a Right Honourable Gentleman? Should he still enjoy the confidence of the Prime Minister?