Objective assessment of Herald Article

HO87

dazster wrote: »

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.

My bad. Thanks :embarasse

beamerguy wrote: »

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

This was 8 years ago and there were very few cases on record at that point - certainly no where near the vast numbers we now have. And there was no Beavis.This was at a time when the BPA's Approved Operator Scheme was still feeling its way, many PPC's were not members - and there was no obligation for them to be so. Wheel clamping was still rampant and many PPC's continued to offer clamping and PCN's. If you think today is the Wild West...

And whatever else you say about Mr Perkins he has had the wisdom, over the years, to very carefully choose the battles he has fought. And he is still here.

salmosalaris

And his signs are probably the best examples of contracts that are difficult to argue against .

Half_way

Thoughts,
The driver is naive at best, and at some point it has become clear that he is/was not welcome to park in that car park.
There have been some new topics on here recently asking about parking in such and such a town/city that is the where can i park type questions, people asking this have been pointed at parkopedia/google maps/earth/streetview and then also advised to have a look themselves.

It would have been interesting to see what the Scottish courts would have made of this mess, and the report that Combinned parking solutions own the car park is also highly questionable, let alone have the rights to obtain such vast sums form the motorist, if the motorist was parking there without permission then the PPC/landowner should have taken action other than some parking charge notice/contractual breach charge or whatever junk CPS send out to tell the motorist to stop.

As has been previously mentioned the protection of freedoms act is not the golden ticket that PPCs make it out to be, and likewise neither is Beavis, the fact that the POFA doesnt apply in Scotland is irrelevant in certain situations.

As for advice on the internet, it depends on what Mr Wales read, and where while there may be no keeper liability in Scotland, it can be argued that the driver could be liable.

I have used a Mc Donalds car park on a regular basis for three weeks whilst working elsewhere, I've also used it as a park and ride to catch a bus and go elsewhere ( park and ride) for a few weeks, however the key difference is that I asked and was granted permission to do so from the Franchise owner, and the manager/duty manager was aware.

If you park on a piece of land without relaising that you shouldn't or you break some stupid made up rule then fair enough, but continually doing something then for want of something better to say, its just taking the proverbial.

If Mr Wales had come here after receiving 5 tickets ( after a week of parking there) he may have received some assistance, as well as a warning and some advice to park somewhere else.

As for car park management the only true way to do it would be either feet on the ground showing cars where there are spaces/ field manned parking at an event, or a pay on exit, validate ticket on exit / barrier system, issuing parking charge notices only manages to make the PPC money and will not prevent an errant parker clogging the place up, and if there are no victims the PPC will turn on those who are supposed to be there

salmosalaris

What would be interesting is over what period the 33 tickets were received and how long after litigation was commenced

Iceweasel

Herzlos wrote: »

Disappearing at 6pm that day, so we've missed the boat there.

Not so - today (10th March) all Scottish Court cases from Wednesday 9th March until Wednesday 16th March are listed.

As far as I can see no-one with the name Edward Wales was scheduled to be in any Scottish Court yesterday 9th March.

4consumerrights

Iceweasel wrote: »

Not so - today (10th March) all Scottish Court cases from Wednesday 9th March until Wednesday 16th March are listed.

As far as I can see no-one with the name Edward Wales was scheduled to be in any Scottish Court yesterday 9th March.

Did you not view post 22 and 23 of this thread?

zardoz70

I happened to be in that McDonalds this morning so had a little look at the signage. Forgot to take a photo though, maybe next time, so this is from memory. :-(
Pretty crap from my laymans perspective.


1. No valid sign at entrance, there is a small sign on a low wall as you turn into the car park saying private car park but it's below eyeline level and also invisible if you were turning right into it which the majority of customers do.
2. There are various other signs affixed to the walls scattered about, 6 or 7 maybe but mostly pretty low down so that if cars and vans parked there they would be hard to see or invisible
3. 'Helpline' is an 0871 number
4. Signs do NOT mention Combined Parking Solutions Ltd. anywhere that I could see and only address given was a PO Box, only mention was of Combined Parking Solutions or CPS with no T/A. Company registration number was present.
5. 'Contractual fee' for parking is NOT highlighted at all. i.e. No prominent mention of £100 in 96 point text per Parking Eye. It waffles on about for customers only but if you aren't a customer or overstay then you are agreeing to the usual contractual idea of £100 for up to 24 hours.

Ian011

If the requisite declaration of call charges is missing from the sign, you can report this to ASA.

See http://www.ukcalling.info/industry
and http://www.cap.org.uk/Advice-Training-on-the-rules/Advice-Online-Database/Chargeable-08-numbers-General.aspx