Sunday Times Article - One Parking Solution

Snakes_Belly

There is always the possibility that the respondant may not have a bean to her name. It may be a £10.00 a week/month pay back. 

nicestrawb

Everyone is entitled to some kind of help or representation and I respect that on both sides and will certainly not attack you for that. I’d be interested to know though from the “other side” (since you’ve offered), what are your views on OPS in terms of;

The huge number of cases where OPS threatens legal action forcing busy people with families who don’t have time, to spend days constructing defences for cases that they shouldn’t have to. Only for OPS to pull out at the WS stage because they know they’ll lose. Why do they do that I wonder?

What about cases like mine where you turn up to one of OPS’s “carparks” and having known it to be free all your life, somehow don’t notice that what comical signage they do have is actually facing the wrong way and seems to have a mind of its own, moving around over time, raising questions about whether that’s a deliberate act or not? But they still go after you anyway.

Or when they chase people like me for 3 years and then only finally back down when I threaten to expose the connections between them, the managing agents and the land-owners, who prefer to hide behind anonymity rather than be shown for what they are. For some reason these people don’t want their names all over the internet, I wonder why?

Why is the government stepping in to sort them out I wonder, or do you only comment on legal matters?

Nobody on this forum is so short sighted that they can’t see a need for companies like this to provide an important and useful service. It’s just that in most cases, they don’t. The law of averages dictates that some of OPS’s claims are bound to be reasonable and well founded. That’s not good enough though is it when so many of them aren’t. If they were, they wouldn’t lose in court or be dropped beforehand when people stand up to them (those people without the time or means to defend themselves fall by the wayside of course, contributing to helicopter purchases etc).

I for one will be glad when this is all over and the industry is regulated and you can then concentrate on whether Barry had planning permission for his new shed. Until then I will help as many people as possible fight them.

bargepole

Another point which was raised at the costs hearing, and which the Judge declined to pursue, was the question of the leak of the Draft Judgment.

After the appeal hearing, HHJ Simpkiss emailed a draft of his Judgment to the parties for correction of typos, etc., two days prior to the official handing down of the Judgment at Brighton. This contained strict instructions that the draft was only to be shared with the parties and their legal representatives.

However, within an hour or so of the draft being emailed, @AnotherForumite was posting details of the outcome on this thread (since deleted). He/she could only have got it from OPS, or their solicitors. Perhaps he/she will now reveal the source of the leak, which was a breach of the embargo?

Johnersh

However, within an hour or so of the draft being emailed, @AnotherForumite was posting details of the outcome on this thread (since deleted). He/she could only have got it from OPS, or their solicitors. Perhaps he/she will now reveal the source of the leak, which was a breach of the embargo?

Interesting. When I called him out on that, I wasn't aware it was anything other than an extempore judgment.

That is potentially subject to the rules of contempt, as you imply. Social media posts are publication. Fortunately the judgment itself wasn't uploaded, which is at least something. 

5k wasn't it, for the barrister that ignored the embargo on the Heathrow judgment? 

Umkomaas

I for one will be glad when this is all over and the industry is regulated and you can then concentrate on whether Barry had planning permission for his new shed. Until then I will help as many people as possible fight them.

@nicestrawb, I'm not sure whether you're aware of @bargepole's rich pedigree in  private parking matters?  He rotates at much higher strategic altitudes than do the majority of regulars here, and I'm pretty convinced that his fingerprints are evident in the development and the outworkings of the Parking (Code of Practice) Act 2019. 

And in the future, I'm sure he's much more likely to be sorting out Barry's parking ticket than any plans for his garden shed. 

nicestrawb

Which is great news for all. I suspect JB111 won't, which is great news for all.

Snakes_Belly

The District Judges and Deputy District Judges are in a difficult position with these parking claims. Many of them must feel that these claims are morally wrong but there has to be a legal reason as to why the claim will fail. This is why anyone defending a claim needs to give the judge as much legal ammunition as possible to enable the claim to be dismissed, It is not difficult with some claims. 

The sooner the new CoP comes into force and mends this broken system the better. In this case the lady may have paid £25.00 or the claim may have been cancelled at the single appeal stage. That would have been the end of it for everyone. The sheer greed of the PPC's is causing this sort of backlash.   

Snakes_Belly

"The huge number of cases where OPS threatens legal action forcing busy people with families who don’t have time, to spend days constructing defences for cases that they shouldn’t have to. Only for OPS to pull out at the WS stage because they know they’ll lose. Why do they do that I wonder?"

They are not alone in this. There are others that have this MO.

Also there are operators that do not maintain their car parks and equipment resulting in tickets which the motorist then has to fight for through the court system. Coming from a customer service background this is something that I find totally alien. Getting dragged through court for the failings of the PPC.  

There does not appear to be any kind of body that inspects these car parks to see if they are up to scratch. 

Snakes_Belly

AnotherForumite said:

Just to update this thread - OPS were awarded £3,395 costs for this matter today.

They are still likely to be the biggest loser as a result of the appeal.

The defendant had only parked for a few minutes to take an important phone call. She took the safe option rather than use her mobile whilst driving which would have been illegal.  Her actions were sensible and she would have hardly disadvantaged another driver in the short time that she was parked. Surely OPS could have cut her some slack and cancelled the ticket in the first place. 


When a motorist parks up to avoid a situation that would put them and other people in danger such as this case and long journeys when the driver becomes tired then surely these are good enough reasons to cancel a ticket. 

AnotherForumite

Snakes_Belly said:

AnotherForumite said:

Just to update this thread - OPS were awarded £3,395 costs for this matter today.

They are still likely to be the biggest loser as a result of the appeal.

The defendant had only parked for a few minutes to take an important phone call. She took the safe option rather than use her mobile whilst driving which would have been illegal.  Her actions were sensible and she would have hardly disadvantaged another driver in the short time that she was parked. Surely OPS could have cut her some slack and cancelled the ticket in the first place. 


When a motorist parks up to avoid a situation that would put them and other people in danger such as this case and long journeys when the driver becomes tired then surely these are good enough reasons to cancel a ticket. 

She could have either paid for her stay; or called the person back when she got to her destination.