Two PPCs killed with one stone in Court today

bargepole

We had a Lay Rep up in Blackpool today, for a TESGB court case against Miss L. (Case no. B4GF891C), this was for 20 x tickets incurred for no permit on an industrial estate, £3,600+ claimed.


That case was listed for 11:30, but in the same court at 10:00, there was Parking Eye v Mr C (B9FC691N) which was a classic double-dip, with two separate visits being counted as one long overstay. Our man sat in on that one, and PE were asked to prove it wasn't a double dip, which they couldn't. Claim dismissed, costs to defendant.


Then on to the TESGB case, in which the 'contract' exhibited by the Claimant was in a completely different name, and there was no evidence of any agency relationship. The Judge said that the claimant's 'statement of truth' was provably false, and dismissed the claim with costs to defendant. Another Gladstones flagship sunk.


So not a bad day out by the seaside.

bazster

What on earth is the point of Gladstones if they represent someone but don't even bother to check the paperwork before the hearing? I suppose it's done on the cheap like ParkingEye where there's no budget to prepare a case and the court rep knows nothing about it until showing up on the day.

trisontana

bargepole wrote: »

. Our man sat in on that one, and PE were asked to prove it wasn't a double dip, which they couldn't. Claim dismissed, costs to defendant.

So much for Parking Eye's much vaunted ANPR system that's supposed to go through numerous checks before they issue their fake fines.

The biter is bit. On several occasions PE have asked a motorist to show they have not broken the PPC's rules- i.e the impossible task of trying to prove a negative. Now PE have been asked the same thing by the judge.

Ivor_Pecheque

Fantastic news. 'spose those nineteen quality assurance checks need looking at :-)

HO87

Ivor_Pecheque wrote: »

Fantastic news. 'spose those nineteen quality assurance checks need looking at :-)

Absolutely

Check 1 = Do we have any images that show the vehicle in question?

Check 2 = Do we have any images that show the vehicle in question?

Check 3 = Do we have any images that show the vehicle in question?

Check 4 = Ditto... continued ad infinitum, except PE probably just do it 19 times.

Hot_Bring

HO87 wrote: »

Absolutely

Check 1 = Do we have any images that show the vehicle in question?

Check 2 = Do we have any images that show the vehicle in question?

Check 3 = Do we have any images that show the vehicle in question?

Check 4 = Ditto... continued ad infinitum, except PE probably just do it 19 times.

I think you give Parking Eye too much credit. More like -

Check 1 = Do we have any images that show the vehicle in question?

"OK Doris, just tick that check 19 times, no need to waste time REALLY checking it that many times"

peter_the_piper

What sanction is there on a ppc or their representative if they send a "provably false" statement of lies? If none, why not?

fisherjim

peter_the_piper wrote: »

What sanction is there on a ppc or their representative if they send a "provably false" statement of lies? If none, why not?

Don't be silly it was just an "admin error" no need for any action!

peter_the_piper

Silly me, of course it was.

trisontana

In another court case yesterday (a successful CCJ set-aside) Trev and his motley crew are confinced that ANPR can sue for trespass even though they are not the landowners.

Good luck on that one Trev:-

My CCJ was set aside.
but I have 14 days to make a proper defence.

Mr Pat Crossley requested I refrain from social media and had all the information from this thread and MSE, and that the people of this forum and MSE are trying to mislead the courts (but not me in-particular).
This was not passed by the judge though.

Upon mentioning they are unable to take someone to court for trespass on behalf of a land owner, the judge said where did you find that, I think you may find it's not correct.
Mr Crossley tried to show the judge and showed me a document which was something like
"Road and traffic act 56 section 2 (all i could remember from looking at it)" which makes this un true. something like 56 section 2, road and something?
Has anyone got any information on whether this is correct or not? the judge wasn't interested at this time though.
of course, this is just 1 thing in my defence.

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=99143&st=80

esmerobbo

Confirms what we already knew Pat Crossley sole director of Expedition must work for ANPR Ltd, or he has been naughty and represented at court without right of audience.