Objective assessment of Herald Article

salmosalaris

Herzlos wrote: »

Because the landowner is the only one that can attempt to sue for damages, or someone with appropriate rights. If they aren't the landowner, and don't have said rights, there's no basis for them being in court.

Perhaps you should let Parking Eye know

beamerguy

nicechap wrote: »

That's what I've thought about previous perky puff pieces, he gets a mate/ friend/ employee to be the defendent and then uses the court to win the case and then any money awarded by the judge is just passed back to perky by his mate/ friend/ employee. So lots of lovely publicity for the cost of a submission fee.

An interesting theory but it was settled before the hearing with no ruling by the court.
If foul play was discovered, it will be CPS in court and thereafter terminated by the DVLA

This is a case that nobody will let rest ... the answer will be revealed

HO87

nicechap wrote: »

That's what I've thought about previous perky puff pieces, he gets a mate/ friend/ employee to be the defendent and then uses the court to win the case and then any money awarded by the judge is just passed back to perky by his mate/ friend/ employee. So lots of lovely publicity for the cost of a submission fee.

The same suggestions were made about the case of CPS v Stephen Thomas heard at Oldham way back in 2008. Never resolved one way or the other but the one thing that didn't help young Mr Thomas's cause was his denial in court that he was the driver. Up steps one Mr Perkins armed with a print-out from a certain forum (not MSE) in which Mr T had admitted being the driver. One somewhat underimpressed judge who found for the well coiffed pie-eater.

I note that Mr P used McArdle's but I thought he'd studied at the Solihull Peoples Academy of Law?

salmosalaris

I hope HMRC get their 20% , if so at least something goes into the communal pot

nigelbb

Redx wrote: »

II have always believed that persistent "offenders" should be prosecuted when it is clear their actions are selfish and they do not have permission to park nor are they using the facilities and they get no sympathy from me, so this guy gets none either, He seems to be a law unto himself if true.

Prosecuted? You don't really mean that do you? Infringing private parking rules even by trespassing is not a criminal offence.

BTW I see no reason not to take the report of this case at face value aside from the obvious sloppy inaccurate journalism e.g. I bet a pound to a penny that CPS don't own a car park that provides 2 hours free parking.

Herzlos

Landowners should have some mechanism to ask people not to abuse their car park, and then follow it up some some sort of prosecution (more like an ASBO for parking) but they absolutely should not profit by it.

That'd deal with the few systematic abusers in a pretty fair way - they get plenty of opportunity to stop doing it. Turning £1980 in 'invoices' into a £5,000 claim due to 33x debt collectors fees at every step, is definitely not the way to do it.

dazster

HO87 wrote: »

I note that Mr P used McArdle's but I thought he'd studied at the Solihull Peoples Academy of Law?

McCardles represented the defendant. Perky used TCH Law. Presumably there were knotty points of law which that might seat of learning, Solihull Tech, had failed to inculcate into Perky.

Myriddin

HO87 wrote: »

The same suggestions were made about the case of CPS v Stephen Thomas heard at Oldham way back in 2008.

This one: http://www.oldham-chronicle.co.uk/news-features/8/news-headlines/15246/parking-penalty-just-judge-rules

And perky's gloating: http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=34095&st=120

beamerguy

Myriddin wrote: »

This one: http://www.oldham-chronicle.co.uk/news-features/8/news-headlines/15246/parking-penalty-just-judge-rules

And perky's gloating: http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=34095&st=120

Perky's time will come, scammers have a limited span

"Speaking after the hearing, Mr Perkins said: “This is a landmark hearing"

What a plonker Rodney

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=viLK8cMKUnY

4consumerrights

nigelbb wrote: »

BTW I see no reason not to take the report of this case at face value aside from the obvious sloppy inaccurate journalism e.g. I bet a pound to a penny that CPS don't own a car park that provides 2 hours free parking.

Indeed - AFAIK all CPS car parking operations are self ticketers in E&W and that they do not own the land, but set out 'licence' contracts. I have no reason not to believe that their modus operandi is any different in Scotland.

What is more of interest is the comments (or rather a name of one of the commenters on the newspaper report.