The Beavis case

fisherjim

I support Beamerguy's enthusiasm at attacking PPC land, but just think he gets an occasional attack of keyboard diarrhoea where he can do nothing to stop it! :rotfl:

beamerguy

catfunt wrote: »

That has been done..... no?

It's all been summarised in the NEWBIES thread.....

OK, the relevent laws may not have been quoted chapter and verse, but they have been put into a form which is as easy to understand as is possible.

NO, this refers directly to this thread

beamerguy

fisherjim wrote: »

I support Beamerguy's enthusiasm at attacking PPC land, but just think he gets an occasional attack of keyboard diarrhoea where he can do nothing to stop it! :rotfl:

Thank you for your support, i tend to use the same keyboard diarrhoea when contacting PPC's and getting tickets cancelled at source or via the CEO's of supermarkets to get them cancelled.
Nothing wrong with a good bout of diarrhoea especially when the cure is quick and works:beer:

yotmon

catfunt wrote: »

That has been done..... no?

It's all been summarised in the NEWBIES thread.....

OK, the relevent laws may not have been quoted chapter and verse, but they have been put into a form which is as easy to understand as is possible.

But sometimes its the 'chapter and verse' that helps make things to be clear and is also a reference to where other information can be found.

Personally, I know nothing of Corporate/Civil law. In a past life I have given evidence in the Small claims, County, Magistrates and the Crown court. But even with this experience I wouldn't know where to start re' which laws relate to contracts.
With reference to the newbie threads, they basically tell you what to do without explaining why. This does help a lot of readers, however, many questions are then raised in a response to what has been read. This is not a criticism of the newbie thread - far from it, but a want for further knowledge without having to come back time and again requesting further clarification.

System

This is not a criticism of the newbie thread - far from it, but a want for further knowledge without having to come back time and again requesting further clarification.

Much as you'd like clear simple answers, it's not like that.

ParkingEye argued for 3 years (and more) they were claiming GPEOL which anyone with a brain could calculate it wasn't. It was only when m'learned Judges said it was a commercially justified penalty - for that car park - that ParkingEye said "of course, we knew that all the time"

The newbie thread is a shortcut but if you want to know your situation it will depend on the facts of your case, including signs, type of contract, locus standi, the landowners situation, the occupiers situation, the type of ATA, time of day, location of signs, size of signs, maintenance of signs, font, wording, size of wording, emphasis ...and like all good contract, the location of commas.

So if you want a clear answer you are not likely to get one.

You'll get a lot of hot air and opinions about what may have worked in a single circumstance but the only person that will give you a clear answer is a judge in the Small Claims Court - and 99.9% of tickets never get there.

Anyone that claims to offer you an answer is an idiot and only a fool would listen to them.

yotmon

IamEmanresu wrote: »

Much as you'd like clear simple answers, it's not like that.


The newbie thread is a shortcut but if you want to know your situation it will depend on the facts of your case, including signs, type of contract, locus standi, the landowners situation, the occupiers situation, the type of ATA, time of day, location of signs, size of signs, maintenance of signs, font, wording, size of wording, emphasis ...and like all good contract, the location of commas.

So if you want a clear answer you are not likely to get one.

I totally agree. But, taking your list above, we often get replies for instance, saying that the NTK will not be compliant with Pofa, or a reason why a certain sign does not conform to BPA guidelines, but doesn't point out why. You have listed quite a few examples that could be used in an appeal/court defence, but where can the information be found to understand the reason for using these defences without having to come back to ask the question ?

I'm not asking for anyone to sit down and write out all the reasons, especially if they are obvious, even to the untrained eye. I personally enjoy gaining knowledge on something that I am interested in, but don't want to keep coming back time and time again asking various questions, especially if they have been asked previously.

And before anyone decides to jump down my throat after having their Saturday night glass of Sherry, as I said previously, this is not a criticism, just an observation.

Coupon-mad

But, taking your list above, we often get replies for instance, saying that the NTK will not be compliant with Pofa, or a reason why a certain sign does not conform to BPA guidelines, but doesn't point out why.

Because that's down to each poster to do, which is why in the NEWBIES thread it says, 'if you want to dig deeper' here's the POFA Schedule 4.

Jeez, people only need to compare one letter against some bullet points. Hardly difficult as a one-off for each person (after all, they have the letter in their hands). Sadly, we have no time to do that each time, with the best will in the World.

Same goes for reading the BPA Code of Practice. People must do that themselves. It's hardly rocket science, really simple numbered points and you only have to Google it.

As an analogy, when I claimed compensation for a flight delay 5 years ago - well before the more recent publicity about it and at the time of the ash cloud when compensation was normally precluded due 'exceptional circumstances', I went to the MSE threads about flight delay law. I read what Cityboy (the expert poster there) said and I read the relevant law, EC 261/2004, IIRC. Then, I asked a few questions on the forum, read some threads and another forum they recommended, sussed out the facts and claimed my money, about £4000 for the while family because our case differed. We could claim compensation as well as our hotel costs and travel insurance cover too (everything) because it wasn't 'exceptional circumstances caused by the ash cloud' even though it was in April 2010. I worked that out for myself. I was no expert but it wasn't that hard to do and to understand.

The MSE forums work best if posters are willing to get off their bums and read/do some stuff themselves, as lots will. That's also why I have removed the entire post about 'court claims' because there isn't a safe 'one size fits all' answer to show people just yet, after Beavis.

Finally, it would be wrong to have in the NEWBIES thread a summary of why a particular PPC's NTK is non-compliant because of the simple fact the PPC could change it from week to week. Also if I wrote detailed blow-by-blow errors in any NTK there, it would be a lesson for the PPCs in what to put right. Something to be avoided. We like to make it hard for PPCs to find what we are saying about them by keeping specific stuff on individual threads.

aaarrrggh

pappa_golf wrote: »

people on this forum KNOW the facts , they can read all about the cases , HOWEVER its the general public with no access to MSE etc , that are being stung.




your preaching needs doing in other quarters , because the things you mention are well known here

I disagree. Threads like this are very useful - plenty of people find threads like this via google searches, and this thread is directly relevant to the experience many people (myself included, see my other thread in this very forum that was updated recently to contain information about this new threat) who have received this new threat from these scam artists.

Just because YOU know all about this stuff doesn't mean this information isn't useful to other people. The easier this information is to find with a quick Google search, the better, and I'm sure plenty of people who will never post a thing on these forums or even create an account will still benefit from this information.

salmosalaris

aaarrrggh wrote: »

I disagree. Threads like this are very useful - plenty of people find threads like this via google searches, and this thread is directly relevant to the experience many people (myself included, see my other thread in this very forum that was updated recently to contain information about this new threat) who have received this new threat from these scam artists.

Just because YOU know all about this stuff doesn't mean this information isn't useful to other people. The easier this information is to find with a quick Google search, the better, and I'm sure plenty of people who will never post a thing on these forums or even create an account will still benefit from this information.

Could you point me to the useful information in this thread , I must have missed it ? . Also what exactly is this "new threat" ?

pappa_golf

just as this google search brings up this link


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X1bsrLFAdmk


and the gullible public follow old google advice?