Submitted Witness Statement and and Draft Order by Email - Judge Unwilling to Strike Out

Coupon-mad

Case law (so you mean not just an ordinary first instance English/Scottish case where the Judges got it wrong).  

Chaplair v Kumari doesn't help a parking charge because unlike any other industry, thugs of this ilk can only charge a 'parking charge' if it includes all the costs of the letters.  You can't charge twice for the same costs, not even by bleating ''oh but we sent it to a third party to send the letters''.

Anyhoo, hopefully the PAS232 will get it right.

Were_Doomed

If a PCN charge is >=£85 then it must by inference include all costs involved in the private parking business model. This was held true in Parking Eye v Beavis in the Supreme Court, wherein the Lord Justices (and PE) agreed that the £85 includes all costs, including debt recovery ... thus this supplants Chaplair v Kumari as a Supreme Court ruling takes precedence and is binding on all lower courts.

Edit: SG? TA?

Were_Doomed

Such a shame that there's not an Unthanks button. 🙄

AnotherForumite

Were_Doomed said:

Such a shame that there's not an Unthanks button. 🙄

Agreed, all those motorists that ended up paying £100-£230 ish for a Parking Charge, when they could have paid just £10-£60; would make good use of it.

Were_Doomed

AnotherForumite said:

Were_Doomed said:

Such a shame that there's not an Unthanks button. 🙄

Agreed, all those motorists that ended up paying £100-£230 ish for a Parking Charge, when they could have paid just £10-£60; would make good use of it.

Ah. Right. Explains a lot. You're just here to troll the people who actually try to help. OK.

beamerguy

AnotherForumite said:

Coupon-mad said:

Case law (so you mean not just an ordinary first instance English/Scottish case where the Judges got it wrong).  

Chaplair v Kumari doesn't help a parking charge because unlike any other industry, thugs of this ilk can only charge a 'parking charge' if it includes all the costs of the letters.  You can't charge twice for the same costs, not even by bleating ''oh but we sent it to a third party to send the letters''.

Anyhoo, hopefully the PAS232 will get it right.

A very sweeping statement, some operators DO include the extra charges on their signs and letters; therefore, the above case law would and does apply.

Its very misleading if you to convince those uneducated in these matters that ALL charges of this nature are ‘unlawful’, as the courts are wising up to this line of defence.

I too hope that the PAS get it right, and that your inappropriate position on the SG and your relationship with the TA is seen for what it is.

We have yet to see a sign that says in big bold figures that the charge is £160 ?
You refer to the small print that can say "may" add an amount which of course is complete nonsense.  Of course, you already know that not long ago signs never said anything about extra charges, this was done after an over ambitious legal wanted to make a fake authentic and so, as we all know, word spread around the parking industry and where else to add the fake charge but in the small print ?

And you are right, the courts have wised up to this which all started in Southampton.  The Salisbury appeal only served to say to judges "do not assume" abuse of process.  This actually never came from this forum as it was a ruling by DDJ's Taylor and Grant.  But, we on this forum picked this up and as honest representatives duly advised motorists of the fakery they were about to enter into. We still do and we certainly do not mislead anyone, if anybody misleads it is the parking industry and their legals that mislead themselves.. 

So yes, the judges have wised up and now abuse of process will not be used but it really does end there because once a judge sees a fake amount, he/she looks much more carefully at other points such as signs and from what we are seeing the end result is the same. The Judges have wised up in favour of the motorist

The Salisbury appeal did the parking industry no favours

Were_Doomed

beamerguy said:

The Salisbury appeal did the parking industry no favours

In the same way that the Beavis case did not help them - as long as a D argues it properly.

AnotherForumite

beamerguy said:

AnotherForumite said:

Coupon-mad said:

Case law (so you mean not just an ordinary first instance English/Scottish case where the Judges got it wrong).  

Chaplair v Kumari doesn't help a parking charge because unlike any other industry, thugs of this ilk can only charge a 'parking charge' if it includes all the costs of the letters.  You can't charge twice for the same costs, not even by bleating ''oh but we sent it to a third party to send the letters''.

Anyhoo, hopefully the PAS232 will get it right.

A very sweeping statement, some operators DO include the extra charges on their signs and letters; therefore, the above case law would and does apply.

Its very misleading if you to convince those uneducated in these matters that ALL charges of this nature are ‘unlawful’, as the courts are wising up to this line of defence.

I too hope that the PAS get it right, and that your inappropriate position on the SG and your relationship with the TA is seen for what it is.

We have yet to see a sign that says in big bold figures that the charge is £160 ?
You refer to the small print that can say "may" add an amount which of course is complete nonsense.  Of course, you already know that not long ago signs never said anything about extra charges, this was done after an over ambitious legal wanted to make a fake authentic and so, as we all know, word spread around the parking industry and where else to add the fake charge but in the small print ?

And you are right, the courts have wised up to this which all started in Southampton.  The Salisbury appeal only served to say to judges "do not assume" abuse of process.  This actually never came from this forum as it was a ruling by DDJ's Taylor and Grant.  But, we on this forum picked this up and as honest representatives duly advised motorists of the fakery they were about to enter into. We still do and we certainly do not mislead anyone, if anybody misleads it is the parking industry and their legals that mislead themselves.. 

So yes, the judges have wised up and now abuse of process will not be used but it really does end there because once a judge sees a fake amount, he/she looks much more carefully at other points such as signs and from what we are seeing the end result is the same. The Judges have wised up in favour of the motorist

The Salisbury appeal did the parking industry no favours

Actually, I know first hand that 'when all the ducks are in a row' the £60 is awarded
Granted 95% of operators don't have this covered; but some of us do..

Were_Doomed

AnotherForumite said:

Granted 95% of operators don't have this covered; but some of us do..

I was going to ask which PPC you worked for, but thought that would be trite. It seems my instinct was right in this case.  
Which PPC? (Your confidence may be misplaced).

beamerguy

AnotherForumite said:

beamerguy said:

AnotherForumite said:

Coupon-mad said:

Case law (so you mean not just an ordinary first instance English/Scottish case where the Judges got it wrong).  

Chaplair v Kumari doesn't help a parking charge because unlike any other industry, thugs of this ilk can only charge a 'parking charge' if it includes all the costs of the letters.  You can't charge twice for the same costs, not even by bleating ''oh but we sent it to a third party to send the letters''.

Anyhoo, hopefully the PAS232 will get it right.

A very sweeping statement, some operators DO include the extra charges on their signs and letters; therefore, the above case law would and does apply.

Its very misleading if you to convince those uneducated in these matters that ALL charges of this nature are ‘unlawful’, as the courts are wising up to this line of defence.

I too hope that the PAS get it right, and that your inappropriate position on the SG and your relationship with the TA is seen for what it is.

We have yet to see a sign that says in big bold figures that the charge is £160 ?
You refer to the small print that can say "may" add an amount which of course is complete nonsense.  Of course, you already know that not long ago signs never said anything about extra charges, this was done after an over ambitious legal wanted to make a fake authentic and so, as we all know, word spread around the parking industry and where else to add the fake charge but in the small print ?

And you are right, the courts have wised up to this which all started in Southampton.  The Salisbury appeal only served to say to judges "do not assume" abuse of process.  This actually never came from this forum as it was a ruling by DDJ's Taylor and Grant.  But, we on this forum picked this up and as honest representatives duly advised motorists of the fakery they were about to enter into. We still do and we certainly do not mislead anyone, if anybody misleads it is the parking industry and their legals that mislead themselves.. 

So yes, the judges have wised up and now abuse of process will not be used but it really does end there because once a judge sees a fake amount, he/she looks much more carefully at other points such as signs and from what we are seeing the end result is the same. The Judges have wised up in favour of the motorist

The Salisbury appeal did the parking industry no favours

Actually, I know first hand that 'when all the ducks are in a row' the £60 is awarded
Granted 95% of operators don't have this covered; but some of us do..

Then you must tell us which PPC or legal you work for and maybe we can help you put this right and dismiss any Myths