Is the PoPLA Adjudicator wrong?

peter_the_piper

The_Deep wrote: »

IMO, if the contract is pay and display, and you cannot pay through no fault of your own, then you have not entered a contract.

Then unless a sign says "if you can't pay, don't park, then broken machines imply that you should be able to park surely?:rotfl:

Coupon-mad

I only know of one previously banned poster who would mention Duff, and only one lay rep who managed to lose a case v Ransomes.

ashley_cohen

Didn't Lamilad rely on the judgment in R(Duff) v SOS Transport in his big win before DJ Skyalski-Reynolds against VCS?

I didn't know he'd lost a case against Ransomes.

Coupon-mad

Lamilad didn't lose any cases. And he didn't rely on the Duff case either.

The person who I was told by a reliable source, managed to lose a case v Ransomes back in the day when it was easier to win them, was the same aggressive lay rep who reportedly (as per bargepole's still easily searchable MSE post with the court transcripts) cost the UHW nurses an eye-watering £26000.

ashley_cohen

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Lamilad didn't lose any cases. And he didn't rely on the Duff case either.

That's not what the transcript and judgment says - http://nebula.wsimg.com/ab774da5f40c5d7082d483820e2241cb?AccessKeyId=4CB8F2392A09CF228A46&disposition=0&alloworigin=1

I'm pretty sure I'm not misreading Paragraph 7

It is the High Court decision of R (on the
application of Duff) v Secretary of State for Transport [2015] EWHC 1605. That
decision states clearly that there is no presumption in law that the registered keeper of
a vehicle is the driver.

Coupon-mad

The Judge misread a reference used by Henry Greenslade.

Lamilad did not rely on the Duff/Ransomes case, at all.

ashley_cohen

Coupon-mad wrote: »

The Judge misread a reference used by Henry Greenslade.

Lamilad did not rely on the Duff/Ransomes case, at all.

So the Judge got it wrong? After all, she's not quoting Duff/Ransomes, she's quoting the Judicial Review.

I wonder how many other cases the judge (any judge) got it wrong in?

Just playing Devil's Advocate, of course.

Snakes_Belly

Council car parks are more lenient when their ticket machines are not working and the lack of parity between council run car parks and parking on private land makes it difficult for the motorist.

Actually if you have done your shopping in a supermarket and find that you have a problem with your card etc. you can leave your trolley in a safe area and pop back. PPC don't actually make it easy if their machine is not working and to try to sort it out later is nigh on impossible. They will have already generated the claim by the time you get back home.

Also when the ticket machine to purchase train tickets is not working in the station (unmanned) you can still catch the train. The conductors are aware that the machine is not working and they don't try to scam £100.00. People don't say "O well I will have the day off because the ticket machine is not working".

The_Deep

ashley_cohen wrote: »

So if you go into Tesco, to buy Heinz Beanz, and they have no Heinz, can you just take Tesco Own Brand for free?

I understand your position but I'm playing Devil's Advocate.

I am struggling to understand the Devil's Advocate's reasoning here, My training leads me to say no, but I should be interested to hear his counter.

Snakes_Belly

So if you go into Tesco, to buy Heinz Beanz, and they have no Heinz, can you just take Tesco Own Brand for free?

I understand your position but I'm playing Devil's Advocate.
Originally posted by ashley cohen”

I am struggling to understand the Devil's Advocate's reasoning here, My training leads me to say no, but I should be interested to hear his counter.

That would be shoplifting. A criminal offence. To apply this to a parking scenario whereby the driver has been unable to purchase a ticket then would this be trespass?