parkingeye letter

kev_min · 15 May 2012 at 4:41PM

Firstly, I would dispute your odds. There are almost certainly likely to have been many more cases than either you or I have heard about.

True, but sight of the win/loose ratio would make for interesting reading!

Secondly, past performance no guide to future performace. The increase in industry regulation and changes in the law that have come about suggest that it will be even easier for the parking companies to win cases in future. It is likely that they will take more widespread legal action. If that does happen advice given on this forum is likely to have been proven misleading.

Only time will tell, the (IMO stupid) registered keeper liability in the freedom bill only allows you (The PPC) to pursue him via the courts rather than having to identify the driver, the alleged debt will still have to be proven before its enforcable. the advice on this forum IS valid for the current situation and WILL change as the law changes.

In answer to your additional question. Why fill in your self assestment tax return correctly every year. HMRC are asking you to volunteer the information and if you were to make a mistake that resulted in you paying less tax, then it is highly unlikely that anyone would ever know. There is a small chance that you will get a tax investigation and it may come to light. Your mistake will be identified and you will be asked to pay what is owing.

If you were to structure the odds on this one, you would probably find that your potential loss versus your potential gain is highly compelling and would suggest that you should in fact evade tax in this way every year. Why not do that then?

1. It is wrong.
2. It is illegal.
2. Who would want to go through the stress of a tax investigation knowing that they are guilty. Many sleepless nights there!
3. We all benefit from public services, just as we all benefit from car parks being available to the public. These need to be paid for and those that do not pay the correct amount are cheating their fellow citizens.

Why bother comparing Apples and Oranges, HMRC has a slightly stronger legal position than a PPC in the courts.

marleyboy · 15 May 2012 at 4:52PM

Ahhh but a PPC employee would think they are over and above the HMRC, their frustration on such matters resorts to desperate tactics of Trolling, as it is the only way they are ever likely to have a say.

ManxRed · 15 May 2012 at 4:53PM

Let's not even go down the road of PPC VAT evasion then!

lawabidingcitizen1 · 15 May 2012 at 4:56PM

ManxRed wrote: »

Oh dear.

To answer your points in order:

1. Your first sentence is an assumption. We are quoting known and publicised cases. Believe me PPCs do not hesitate in blowing their own trumpets - even going so far as to pass off default wins as if they were victories. I doubt very much if there are many cases we do not get to hear about.

2. What are these recent changes in civil law? I am not aware of contact law being significantly changed in the last few centuries. Enlighten me. If you are referring to the Freedoms Bill then this is not enshrined in law yet, and when it does our advice may change. We chall see. Advising someone who has received a ticket prior to today on law that will not become applicable until the future is wrong. Surely you know that?

3. What on earth has tax evasion got to do with this? Tax evasion is illegal. These tickets fall under civil law and are not governed by legislation. Furthermore under contract law they are unenforceable.

4. No one on here advocates not paying legitimate charges levied by car park owners for providing a service. What we object to are legally unenforceable 'fines' imposed for breaching terms and conditions, and the misleading harassment that inevitably follows. If you want to discuss this sensibly then you need to get a better set of arguments than those you've used above!

1. I make no assumption. I simply state that we do not know the full number of cases that have been issued. Can you prove that you do?

2. You are right. Only those getting a ticket after the law is enacted will be liable under it. However, I would have concern for all those that read this site now and take the advice, only to apply it after the law has changed. Martin Lewis and many of the posts on here tell people to not id the driver, without telling them that the law is in the process of being changed. No doubt many of these will get a nasty shock when the court papers arrive. Who will they blame? It could destroy the credability of this site altogether once the media get hold of it. The backdraft would horrific.

3. It could be tax evasion, it could be taking candy from babies, there are so many ways in life to profit from immorality with only a small risk of getting caught. The point is that to use a service that you have not paid for is wrong. Did your mother never tell you that?

4. Rediculous!! Have you not read this site? 'Don't pay, don't pay, don't pay'....' they will never chase you'.... 'you can get away with it, just ignore'

give_them_FA · 15 May 2012 at 4:59PM

Lawabidingcitizen is perfectly obviously a PPC troll. Probably the "usual" one.

Why are experienced posters giving him exactly what he seeks- the excuse to promote more of his specious arguments?

Ignore him, Report him, he will soon be gone.

For the benefit of the victims like the starter of this thread, from time to time we get people from parking companies trying to disrupt our work and spread confusion.

Just ignore him, like you would any letters he sends you.

lawabidingcitizen1 · 15 May 2012 at 5:02PM

give_them_FA wrote: »

Lawabidingcitizen is perfectly obviously a PPC troll. Probably the "usual" one.

Why are experienced posters giving him exactly what he seeks- the excuse to promote more of his specious arguments?

Ignore him, Report him, he will soon be gone.

For the benefit of the victims like the starter of this thread, from time to time we get people from parking companies trying to disrupt our work and spread confusion.

Just ignore him, like you would any letters he sends you.

On the back foot there

ManxRed · 15 May 2012 at 5:08PM

There are almost certainly likely to have been many more cases than either you or I have heard about.

I'm sorry, but that's an assumption. Just because I can't prove otherwise doesn't make it a fact.

The 'backdraft'?

Most people on here ask for advice, we give them advice that is accurate and current. We will continue to do that after the Freedoms Bill, which may or may not change in accordance. I think you're being slightly over-dramatic here to try and win a point. I don't agree.

Even taking candy from babies is illegal, you don't seem to appreciate the difference between something falling under criminal law, which is wrong, as opposed to something falling under civil law, for which we provide perfectly accurate advice. You need to sort the two out in your own mind before arguing further on this in my opinion.

If you read the last point I made again, you will see that the 'don't pay, don't pay' posts are in relation to the unlawful penalty charges that are levied by PPCs, not the actual initial parking fees themselves. So you are wrong.

I and many others on here regularly post that if people do not pay for legitimate parking fees then they should offer to pay those. What they SHOULD NOT pay are the unenforceable penalties.

give_them_FA · 15 May 2012 at 5:09PM

Please ignore lawabidingcitizen.

He is not a genuine member of this forum but a parking company troll.

Thank you. Just press Report and Spam on all his posts.

ripped_off_driver · 15 May 2012 at 5:11PM

Do not feed the PPC troll or allow him to hijack threads like he is doing here.

give_them_FA · 15 May 2012 at 5:11PM

Manx I have to express some disappointment that you think you can win an argument with a fool.

He drags you down to his level and beats you with experience.

(Theodore Roosevelt)

parkingeye letter

Comments

Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply

🚀 Getting Started

Categories

Is this how you want to be seen?

Get our FREE Weekly email full of deals & guides - and it’s spam-free