Two PPCs killed with one stone in Court today

waamo

Indeed it would be usefull to know in what capacity Pat was there as.

patman99

Having an A level in English Contract Law, I would just say that trisontana is correct with regards to the Law of trespass. As far as the RTA is concerned, it doesn't cover private land (which is why speed limits are not enforceable on private roads).

waamo

I don't think the RTA covers trespass either.

trisontana

The sillier end of the PPC "industry" sometimes does get its undergarments in a twist when trying to bolt traffic law onto contract law. UKCPS's Peter Haswell (whatever happened to him?) tried quoting the road traffic act in one of their court cases, only to be told by the judge to shut up, as it was all irrelevant and nothing to do with the case.

hoohoo

bazster wrote: »

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.

Gladstones have their own particular take on the law, which is that a parking company does not need to prove the right to issue charges and that the burden of proof is on the defendant. This filters through to the IPC and it is no surprise that the carefully chosen baristas who provide the IAS service also have the same world view.

This works well in their own cosy little world, allows the IPC to tempt the bottom feeders away from the BPA and the PPCs are happy when IAS verdicts bounce their way (boing boing).

It all comes unstuck when they go up against real lawyers and it seems like the judge wasted no time in appraising the bottom feeder of the true legal situation.

No doubt the bottom feeder was on the phone to Gladstones later on asking what the **** was going on, to which they will have been able to placate them by explaining that is it all a numbers game, of course they may lose in court against someone who knows what they are doing, but the true value is in the 90% who just pay up when they get a claim.

hoohoo

esmerobbo wrote: »

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.

That should be the first question.

Are you here representing Expedion, because this piece of paper seems to suggest you are a director of same and have been writing me letters chasing up the alleged debt?

Ah right, so if you are an employee of Expedion, what is your right of audience to represent ANPR.

Ah right, so you are an employee of both. So you pass the case between yourself to artificially inflate costs?

Northlakes

I think you will find that Gladstones will make a very nice living easily persuading a PPC they have a valid court case. The reality check comes of course when these cases come a real court.

The Gladstones run IPC appeals system is no more than a procedural sifting operation seeing which PPC they can take some money off.

Hot_Bring

Northlakes wrote: »

I think you will find that Gladstones will make a very nice living easily persuading a PPC they have a valid court case. The reality check comes of course when these cases come a real court.

The Gladstones run IPC appeals system is no more than a procedural sifting operation seeing which PPC they can take some money off.

In other words the conners and been conned :rotfl:

hoohoo

Northlakes wrote: »

I think you will find that Gladstones will make a very nice living easily persuading a PPC they have a valid court case. The reality check comes of course when these cases come a real court.

The Gladstones run IPC appeals system is no more than a procedural sifting operation seeing which PPC they can take some money off.

Ring Ring
Hello Gladstones here
> I just lost in court. What the *** is going on
I'm sorry to hear that. Better luck next time
> But I paid £25 for the IAS appeal, £18 for your debt collector letter, £50 for you to file my claim, £200 for my witness statement and £200 for a solicitor to come along and look legal.
I know. Thanks for all that. We'll have a drink to you at the staff party.
> I don't care what you do at Christmas, I want justice now.
The monthly staff party, but whatever, and we're all very grateful to you and your buddies for funding it. But back to the question; it looks as though you did get justice, so what is the problem?
> But, but what about your legal advice? What about my case?
Ah well, it's not advice as such. You can't really expect that at those prices can you. Ho ho ho. It's not cost effective is it? I mean, it has to be proportionate. If the case is over a £100 parking charge all we can really do is churn out a template letter.
> But I've spent a lot of money. I want to shout and swear at someone.
Oh no problem, we have a new department for that, based on recent demand. I'll just put you through. We charge £100 an hour for this service.
CLICK

Northlakes

In the natural world most predators has a larger predator and it looks like that in the PPC world too.