Help! Ukpc have 'photographic evidence' which isn't real

Half_way

A few interesting pooints raised on the prankster blog, apparently the PPC has said that there's a software bug, and the parking foot soldiers using this faulty software provided by their employers have been sacked.
somethings not right there

Also extreme pressure should be put on the landowners
from the PP blog

Tritton Road Retail Park is owned by LaSalle Investment Management. The contact agent is James Curson. james@cspretail.com.

peter_the_piper

trisontana wrote: »

Another thing that has happened in the last few years is the misuse in my opinion of the Small Claims Court by PPCs. When it was introduced it was supposed to be cheap and informal means for the "ordinary" person to take on the big boys such as large companies and organisations.

Instead, the PPCs use these courts as a a debt collection agency. As for the "ordinary" citizen. They now find themselves in these courts having to defend themselves with no or very little help compared to the paid professionals the PPCs us.

Do I remember correctly that apart from the blatant lie about the numbers of cases brought, (thousands according to BPA, hundreds in reality) the BPA said the number would actually come down saving the courts work and costs?

The_Deep

I am sure that the SCC is still pretty much a level playing field. Judges are not fools, they know that PPCs should not pit QCs against members of the public for £125, and make allowances accordingly.


If you overstayed your time by ten minutes because you ten year old had the trots, m'learned friend is going to have an uphill battle to convince a judge of the merits of his disreputable client's case, no matter how many hundred year old cases he quotes.

Ivor_Pecheque

Reading through the various cases, the whole County Court thing does sometimes appear to be a bit of a lottery.

Reading between the lines, however, it almost seems that the judges are almost willing the "little man" to win, and often seem to steer him, or her, in the right direction.

The legal system, rightly or wrongly, is adversarial, but the judges appear to respect those who go in, and don't try and pull the wool over their eyes.

trisontana

What happens before the actual court case can be more intimidating than the court appearance. With the likes of PE sending out whole forests of paperwork quoting obscure legal precedents and cases then the average person will just cave in and pay or fail to turn up in court.

bazster

The_Deep wrote: »

I am sure that the SCC is still pretty much a level playing field. Judges are not fools, they know that PPCs should not pit QCs against members of the public for £125, and make allowances accordingly.


If you overstayed your time by ten minutes because you ten year old had the trots, m'learned friend is going to have an uphill battle to convince a judge of the merits of his disreputable client's case, no matter how many hundred year old cases he quotes.

I'm afraid that's not the case TD. Just look at the number of cases being stayed pending Beavis when instead, if he chose, the judge could hear the case on the basis of the non-GPEOL arguments and then only stay it if there were no other reason to dismiss it.

What do you think will happen to those cases if Beavis loses? I predict they will be found en masse for ParkingEye (or other PPC as applicable) regardless of any defence not relying on the narrow point at issue in Beavis.

The_Deep

But Beavis only applies to a limited number of cases Mr B. Those where the car park is free for a certain amount of time, with no facility to pay for extra time, and where there is a commercial justification in imposing a penalty.


This rules out P&D car parks, hospitals, universities, flats ands estates, airports, railway stations, contractual charge car parks, parking on hatched areas, on white lines, in disabled bays, parent and child bay, staff only spaces, etc.

nigelbb

The_Deep wrote: »

But Beavis only applies to a limited number of cases Mr B. Those where the car park is free for a certain amount of time, with no facility to pay for extra time, and where there is a commercial justification in imposing a penalty.


This rules out P&D car parks, hospitals, universities, flats ands estates, airports, railway stations, contractual charge car parks, parking on hatched areas, on white lines, in disabled bays, parent and child bay, staff only spaces, etc.

The overwhelming majority of cases we see are in free car parks like Chelmsford Riverside in the Beavis case. In fact monitoring free car parks with cameras is most of the business & profit of the largest & most litigious PPC i.e. ParkingEye.

hoohoo

The_Deep wrote: »

But Beavis only applies to a limited number of cases Mr B. Those where the car park is free for a certain amount of time, with no facility to pay for extra time, and where there is a commercial justification in imposing a penalty.


This rules out P&D car parks, hospitals, universities, flats ands estates, airports, railway stations, contractual charge car parks, parking on hatched areas, on white lines, in disabled bays, parent and child bay, staff only spaces, etc.

This is not how the judges view it. We have already had one defence struck out without a hearing "Because of Beavis" even though this was a CEL case and the defence is completely different to Beavis (eg the money has been assigned to DEAL, so CEL no longer have an interest in the whole amount)

enfield_freddy

hoohoo wrote: »

this is not how the judges view it. We have already had one defence struck out without a hearing "because of beavis" even though this was a cel case and the defence is completely different to beavis (eg the money has been assigned to deal, so cel no longer have an interest)

100% - 82% = 18%