A Cowboy riding a Donkey

beamerguy

PARKING PRANKSTER Monday, 8 February 2016

IAS -- A prime example of the work of a kangaroo court and a wild operator

This is why you are told NOT to engage with this kangaroo court

Parking Awareness Services

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/search?updated-min=2016-01-01T00:00:00-08:00&updated-max=2017-01-01T00:00:00-08:00&max-results=34

System

There are times you should and times you shouldn't. If you could give clearer information and your justifications, you might be able to help those that should engage.

There is no simple answer. Each case is on its merit which you will find out if you actually go along and sit in a court or an ADR meeting.

peter_the_piper

I wonder how many people, being honest and reputable people, just paid up because the PPC is a reputable company and so must therefore be right, it is their land after all.








Tongue firmly in cheek.

beamerguy

IamEmanresu wrote: »

There are times you should and times you shouldn't. If you could give clearer information and your justifications, you might be able to help those that should engage.

Unsure of your meaning, the justifications are clear on this forum and have been said many many times

Herzlos

For balance, this is what Mr Wild responded to in the ppp thread:

Hey guys, someone alerted me to Miss Jones gloating so I thought I'd clear some bits up.

- Gladstones we not involved.
- The judge referred to the PCN as a penalty as not to confuse the recording, he states it was not a penalty (as the signage literally states it's consideration under contract) for the record but was referring to it as such so that it could be distinguished from the issued parking ticket (pay-and-display ticket). On our signage the PCN is defined as a parking charge.
- At no point was it stated or insinuated the charge was pulled out of thin air, as I stated above its consideration under contract, you must not understand the difference.
- The case was dismissed on the fact that when the parking ticket was issued there was no expiry date agreed, the date written on the ticket was done so post-contract. After the money had been exchanged, due to no expired time being agreed verbally it was seen that all-day parking was in fact till midnight.
- Due to our witness statement being vague and non-specific he had to agree with Miss Jones turn of events which I agreed with, and before you start saying otherwise he literally stated this. When the attendant filled in the witness statement at no point did it occur to anyone that it would be inadequate for the courts requirements.
- As soon as the case had been concluded you said thank you, left the room and then walked straight into the toilet (area where the toilet is).

I have no problem losing it was bound to happen at some point, if anything it means I've learnt something for next time. It wasn't the car park owners fault, it was mine for getting a shoddy witness statement done.

What I do have issue with is people lying and trying to twist what actually happened to the point of appearing cocky. You missed the bit out about the judge bollocking you when we sat down due to you messing your evidence pack and the fact you admitted to him that you didn't understand half your defence which resulted in a rather interesting use of words as you tried to figure them out.

Anyway, on to the next one - chat amongst yourselves. Chances are I will read what you put but not comment again.

I will add no comment.

beamerguy

Herzlos wrote: »

For balance, this is what Mr Wild responded to in the ppp thread:



I will add no comment.

What a very sad loser

Love this part
"What I do have issue with is people lying and trying to twist what actually happened to the point of appearing cocky."


He clearly is referring to PPC's in general

trisontana

I like Gan's reply about Wild's assertion that the defendant made a bit of a mess about their paperwork:-

For most defendants this is a once-in-a-lifetime event
There isn't very much simple guidance around regarding the presentation of an evidence pack

Times have changed since defences needed little more than "I was not the driver" and "charge is a penalty"
Not helped that many district judges have failed to read the Beavis judgment and believe it to mean that parking charges are automatically valid

As well as basic contract law, defences regularly have to include Agency Law, Company Law and European Law
These won't be found in any of the consumer guides so it's hardly surprising that defendants struggle to explain them.

They are however expected to address the obscure cases cited by companies such as ParkingEye and, in particular, Civil Enforcement that quote cases without mentioning that they're concerned with the commissions paid to recruitment agents or the obligations of guarantors when contracts to build oil refineries go pear-shaped

peter_the_piper

If proof were needed that they are worried about forums, like this one, then this comment by Wild was it. Had they not been doing such a good job, for the victims who ask, he would not have bothered to comment. Its just a pity that so many don't realise just how big a scam it is.

System

Unsure of your meaning, the justifications are clear on this forum and have been said many many times

The Forums are not the justifications - case law, legislation and the facts of the case are the basis.

You have to look at bit deeper at each of the issues rather than ranting off.

It's useful when helping with an issue to put up some justification as what may apply in some circumstances may not apply in others. And it may come as a shock to you, but drivers lie too.

Not every UKPC ticket is fraudulent or undeserved.

Quentin

Newbies who don't know about this guy need to be warned!

beamerguy

IamEmanresu wrote: »

The Forums are not the justifications - case law, legislation and the facts of the case are the basis.

You have to look at bit deeper at each of the issues rather than ranting off.

It's useful when helping with an issue to put up some justification as what may apply in some circumstances may not apply in others. And it may come as a shock to you, but drivers lie too.

Not every UKPC ticket is fraudulent or undeserved.

Of course drivers lie, it is the justification of what is said about IAS including coupon-mad.

We only see a small percentage of the activity of UKPC, on a much larger scale I dread to think ???

As peter-the-piper correctly says
"I wonder how many people, being honest and reputable people, just paid up because the PPC is a reputable company and so must therefore be right, it is their land after all."