Parking Prankster

Freddy_Fazbear

Is he OK? Been almost a year since he updated his blog website. I miss his entries and wisdom.

EdGasketTheSecond

Probably clamped

beamerguy

Freddy_Fazbear wrote: »

Is he OK? Been almost a year since he updated his blog website. I miss his entries and wisdom.

No idea where he is..... wish he would come back though

Computersaysno

IIRC he was abroad a fair bit.....charity work possibly.

rachity

Or the spider bite is worse than we thought!

bargepole

I hear from him occasionally, but he's now extremely busy with the company which he's a co-director of, it started small but has now secured a massive contract which takes up all of his time.

When he used to blog regularly, one particular large PPC got some heavyweight solicitors (a proper firm, not Gladstones or BW Legal) to send him a letter threatening proceedings for libel / defamation.

A response was sent, pointing out that it's impossible to libel anyone if what you write is true, and attaching the evidence that all of his allegations could be proven to be true. Nothing further was heard on the subject.

Umkomaas

bargepole wrote: »

When he used to blog regularly, one particular large PPC got some heavyweight solicitors (a proper firm, not Gladstones or BW Legal) to send him a letter threatening proceedings for libel / defamation.

A response was sent, pointing out that it's impossible to libel anyone if what you write is true, and attaching the evidence that all of his allegations could be proven to be true. Nothing further was heard on the subject.

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.com/2014/05/hill-dickinson-try-and-gag-prankster.html

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.com/2014/05/the-prankster-replies-to-hill-dickinson.html

And this was the IPC’s attempt:

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.com/2016/06/the-ipc-attempts-to-gag-prankster.html

EDIT TO ADD

Please note, for new readers, Genuine Pre-Estimate Of Loss (GPEOL), referred to by
PP in his response, has been undermined by The Supreme Court’s decision in the case of ParkingEye v Beavis.

beamerguy

Alex (parking prankster) told the truth and that truth remains today.

I seem to recall that PE made threats to MSE about the word "cowboys" ..... nothing has changed ?

Everything PP said is and was provable

The cowboy scam mentality is still with us, no one parking company is exempt and that includes both ATA's

It will be interesting to see what the new CoP produces and how the cowboys behave ?

What can one say about the Supreme Court ? They opened the doors for the extreme flooding of the County Court

Freddy_Fazbear

bargepole wrote: »

I hear from him occasionally, but he's now extremely busy with the company which he's a co-director of, it started small but has now secured a massive contract which takes up all of his time.

Thanks for the update Bargepole. Glad he is OK anyway, that's the main thing.

D_P_Dance

Umkomaas wrote: »

Please note, for new readers, Genuine Pre-Estimate Of Loss (GPEOL), referred to by
PP in his response, has been undermined by The Supreme Court’s decision in the case of ParkingEye v Beavis.

Not in all cases surely.

AFAIAA it can still be argued successfully in some cases, e.g. residential car parks, Pay and Display car parks, double dipping, leaving site, parking over a line, flipped ticket are a few.

bargepole

D_P_Dance wrote: »

Not in all cases surely.

AFAIAA it can still be argued successfully in some cases, e.g. residential car parks, Pay and Display car parks, double dipping, leaving site, parking over a line, flipped ticket are a few.

It is certainly a strong argument in residential car parks, and there is case law (Jopson v Homeguard), where a Circuit Judge has ruled that Beavis doesn't apply in that scenario.

I'm not sure that your other examples would hold up, the PPC can argue that there is a legitimate interest in enforcing the parking rules in order to maximise the number of available spaces.

But I generally steer clear of making any GPEOL arguments in Defences, as it opens the door for some Judges to simply say, well the Supreme Court has ruled that there doesn't have to be any loss to the parking company, and I'm not going against that.