Recent "no advertising consent" court case win.

Fruitcake

Can anyone remember the recent court case where the defendant won because the parking scammers did not have advertising consent for their signs?
Like an eejit I forgot to bookmark it.
I am helping someone off forum who is trying to take a parking scammer to court, and I am asking on their behalf.

Thanks

Umkomaas

I can't recall an actual court win based primarily on advertising consent (the ones we've seen where it has been argued, Judges have said it's the responsibility of the LA to prosecute a potentially criminal offence).

Is this the (recent) one where things have taken an interesting turn?

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5930653

Fruitcake

That may be the one, but my memory is currently overloaded due to family member health issues and I may have got it completely wrong.

I thought we had recently seen a court case where the defendant won because the claimant didn't have advertising consent. Apologies if I have got it wrong.

Please allow for the fact that I am but a man. A simple machine for turning beer into a wee-wee.

Grey_Critic

I would think that most parking companies will have planning permission, if you are trying to get out of paying a penalty charge then the people to contact are the local authority planning dept responsible for the area the car park is in.

Redx

I doubt that its a Penalty Charge, probably going to be a Parking Charge because private parking companies are not allowed to issue Penatly charges

plus it is our experience that many of these private car parks dont have planning permission for cameras nor advertising consent either

assume they dont unless proved to the contrary

Umkomaas

Grey_Critic wrote: »

I would think that most parking companies will have planning permission,

Really? Is this your guess, or based on actual knowledge and evidence?

But this isn't about 'planning permission', it is about 'advertising consent'. Two entirely different animals. The former is a civil issue, the latter a criminal one. Retrospective 'planning permission' can be given for appropriate installations, but signage comes under 'advertising consent', for which there is no retro process.

Not that LAs pay that much attention to the law.

From where do you base your assumption?

fisherjim

Grey_Critic wrote: »

I would think that most parking companies will have planning permission, if you are trying to get out of paying a penalty charge then the people to contact are the local authority planning dept responsible for the area the car park is in.

You're not from around here are your partner?

Fruitcake

My question is purely about a thread where I thought a poster had won a case because the judge stated that the scammers didn't have advertising consent.

I may have got it completely wrong, but that is the only instance I am asking about.

This is not a hypothetical question. Did someone post about a win on those grounds here, or am I mistaken?

bargepole

Fruitcake wrote: »

My question is purely about a thread where I thought a poster had won a case because the judge stated that the scammers didn't have advertising consent.

I may have got it completely wrong, but that is the only instance I am asking about.

This is not a hypothetical question. Did someone post about a win on those grounds here, or am I mistaken?

I'm afraid you are mistaken, this is the thread: https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5889051

Although lack of advertising consent was pleaded in the Defence, the Judge didn't need to consider those grounds, as the Claimant had made the fundamental mistake of bringing the claim in the name of VCS, when the car park signage was in the name of Excel.

System

@ Fruitcake

You may be missing the main issue here. Lack of consent is not a defence in itself. You have to look at the underlying legal principle "ex-turpi cuasa".

PPC's are refining there approaches to templates every day and would brush that one off in a minute.

Perhaps you might ask questions in a different way such - as is lack of PP a defence, why and how would the claimant respond?

Fruitcake

bargepole wrote: »

I'm afraid you are mistaken, this is the thread: https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5889051

Although lack of advertising consent was pleaded in the Defence, the Judge didn't need to consider those grounds, as the Claimant had made the fundamental mistake of bringing the claim in the name of VCS, when the car park signage was in the name of Excel.

I remembered that it was brought to the judge's attention but couldn't remember the outcome. The fact that it wasn't useful is probably the reason why I didn't bookmark it at the time.
Thanks, and thank you for all the work you do to help us and the victims of these *scammers*.
*Other words used by our MPs are available.*