PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Daily Telegraph: Honest John gets it wrong
Slatz
post Sat, 9 Sep 2017 - 21:17
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 120
Joined: 14 Oct 2008
From: Lancashire
Member No.: 23,249



Motoring columnist Honest John who provides EXPERT ADVICE in the Daily Telegraph got it wrong today.

"ANOTHER FINE MESS

I received a fine from CP Plus for a car I wasn't driving - it is threatening legal action. I have ignored the letters so far, but will this impact my credit file if it goes to court?

If you are the registered keeper of the car and failed to identify the driver at the time of the transgression, you are legally obliged to pay the fine. A CCJ against you for a bad debt will seriously impact your credit record. But if this concerns a car with which you have no connection, pay the fine, then institute UK small claims action against CP Plus for fraud, and criminal action for intimidating and threatening behaviour. For small claims go to: gov.uk/make-a-claim-for-money/overview"


I've dropped him an e-mail pointing out some of the more obvious errors.

I'm sure more people will be happy to help educate this expert.

His email address is

honestadvice@telegraph.co.uk
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
 
Start new topic
Replies (1 - 14)
Advertisement
post Sat, 9 Sep 2017 - 21:17
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
southpaw82
post Sat, 9 Sep 2017 - 23:09
Post #2


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 27,707
Joined: 2 Apr 2008
From: Not in the UK
Member No.: 18,483



That's just stupid.


--------------------


Any comments made do not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon. No lawyer/client relationship should be assumed nor should any duty of care be owed.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
DancingDad
post Sun, 10 Sep 2017 - 09:31
Post #3


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 17,927
Joined: 28 Jun 2010
From: Area 51
Member No.: 38,559



Ye gods !

Is he sponsored by CP Plus ?




Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The Rookie
post Sun, 10 Sep 2017 - 13:45
Post #4


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 37,603
Joined: 9 Sep 2003
From: Warwickshire
Member No.: 317



Maybe he got an advice sheet from the BPA like the CAB did!


--------------------
There is no such thing as a law abiding motorist, just those who have been scammed and those yet to be scammed!

S172's
Rookies 1-0 Kent

Council PCN's
Rookies 1-0 Warwick
Rookies 1-0 Birmingham

PPC PCN's
Rookies 8-0 PPC's
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SatNavSam
post Sun, 10 Sep 2017 - 20:54
Post #5


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,168
Joined: 1 Jul 2012
From: Roaming the South
Member No.: 55,802



I emailed him once about an article he wrote with loads of errors in about ppc tickets. He replied, all self-righteous like, about how he was right and I was wrong. I old him to stick it where the sun don't shine and stop misleading people.


Edit: the email address I used was Honest John <letters@honestjohn.co.uk>


This post has been edited by SatNavSam: Sun, 10 Sep 2017 - 20:56


--------------------

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
southpaw82
post Sun, 10 Sep 2017 - 21:01
Post #6


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 27,707
Joined: 2 Apr 2008
From: Not in the UK
Member No.: 18,483



Sounds like a bit of a prick.


--------------------


Any comments made do not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon. No lawyer/client relationship should be assumed nor should any duty of care be owed.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SchoolRunMum
post Sun, 10 Sep 2017 - 21:19
Post #7


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 17,089
Joined: 20 Sep 2009
Member No.: 32,130



I've just emailed and explained some of the issues and named just some of the firms who don't use POFA PCNs.

Never mind the shocking statement that a keeper is ''legally obliged to pay the fine!'' when a cursory glance at their PCNs, show that CP Plus can't hold keepers liable. Words almost failed me on that one, but not quite.

I've offered for the forums to appeal the next one, from any of 5 firms I have named off the top of my head (inc CP Plus) and prove the Telegraph wrong.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
southpaw82
post Sun, 10 Sep 2017 - 22:05
Post #8


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 27,707
Joined: 2 Apr 2008
From: Not in the UK
Member No.: 18,483



I'm more concerned about his advice to sue the PPC for fraud. Not only is any such action almost bound to fail but it's wholly unsuitable for the small claims track (PD 26(8)(1)(d)) and thus exposes the claimant to full costs orders.


--------------------


Any comments made do not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon. No lawyer/client relationship should be assumed nor should any duty of care be owed.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SchoolRunMum
post Sun, 10 Sep 2017 - 23:38
Post #9


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 17,089
Joined: 20 Sep 2009
Member No.: 32,130



Well a dialogue has been established.

I have a reply already, telling me I am 'completely and utterly wrong' and that we are 'stuck with the Beavis case' and that keepers are liable.

I think this might take some time...but you know me, I'll reply till the cows come home to explain why this article was so wide of the mark it hit South Korea.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ford poplar
post Mon, 11 Sep 2017 - 03:23
Post #10


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 3,628
Joined: 20 Dec 2008
Member No.: 24,962



IMO establishing a dialogue with the journo is pointless. A letter to the Editor, requesting a retraction and an editorial apology for misleading readers with false info, after checking ALL avail info with their Lawyers, may be more productive.
Most newspapers still publish selected reader letters.

This post has been edited by ford poplar: Mon, 11 Sep 2017 - 03:25
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The Rookie
post Mon, 11 Sep 2017 - 03:42
Post #11


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 37,603
Joined: 9 Sep 2003
From: Warwickshire
Member No.: 317



What has Beavis got to do with PoFA liability?

I'm still convinced he's getting advice from the BPA or even worse the IPC!

Some other Gems from his current front page on the Telegraph webby


QUOTE
Double jeopardy

I received a charge notice following two visits to the same car park. I have written to the enforcement company, stating the facts and explaining where I went in between my two visits, They insist they have no evidence to support my claim. They have now asked for documentary evidence to prove I entered their car park on two occasions. This is difficult to show, as I do not photograph my car entering and leaving car parks. PS

If you entered a car park twice in one day, you will have been ANPR timed from first entry to last exit. These nasty, pernicious people do not set their ANPR systems to acknowledge multiple visits, and one of their terms and conditions might even be "no return visits the same day." It's ridiculous, but the supreme court has given parking enforcers the right to inflict penalties according to their own rules. Statutory law (Protection of Freedoms Act, Clause 56) and the highest court in the land have put you in the wrong. I campaigned for years to try to prevent this happening, but was ignored.


QUOTE
On bank holidays, are we allowed to park in spaces designated “Permit holder only Mon-Sat?” NR

Generally, yes, although it depends on local authority rules. Read the terms and conditions carefully.


QUOTE
Q I recently parked in Reading but then realised I needed to get some cash. I went to a bank and on my return found a notice imposing a parking charge of £100 because I was observed “leaving the car park”. This seems nonsensical. MP

A It is, but you have to pay because you breached the terms of the parking contract. This type of penalty was upheld by the Supreme Court in November 2015. There’s no way out. We all have to live our lives on the understanding that reasonable allowances are no longer available.


And not PPC related but just as bad
QUOTE
Home internationals

In the recent past it has been the case that expats adopt overseas driving licences. Is this still the case? NR

Yes. You can't have a UK licence without a UK address for the very obvious reason that you couldn't be checked or penalised.






This post has been edited by The Rookie: Mon, 11 Sep 2017 - 03:59


--------------------
There is no such thing as a law abiding motorist, just those who have been scammed and those yet to be scammed!

S172's
Rookies 1-0 Kent

Council PCN's
Rookies 1-0 Warwick
Rookies 1-0 Birmingham

PPC PCN's
Rookies 8-0 PPC's
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Ocelot
post Mon, 11 Sep 2017 - 18:32
Post #12


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 2,692
Joined: 19 Jun 2004
Member No.: 1,326



Good grief, that's shocking.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SchoolRunMum
post Mon, 11 Sep 2017 - 21:45
Post #13


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 17,089
Joined: 20 Sep 2009
Member No.: 32,130



I got this, when I explained that CP Plus don't use the POFA so can't (ever - using their current MO) hold the keeper liable, nor is the keeper obliged to name the driver:


''You are completely and utterly wrong. Until we get three or four more Supreme Court rulings that treat unfair penalties fairly we are stuck with Beavis and if the registered keeper does not disclose the driver AND if the driver does not pay, in law the registered keeper is liable for the joint enterprise.''



and

''if you are asserting that the registered keeper of a car does not have to reveal the identity of the driver of the car when the transgression took place you are wrong in law.''



and the (fairly well known outside of the hearings) delay with Barry Beavis' printing in Staples due to a broken machine, not his fault, has been reinterpreted as:

''Beavis basically took the mick by overstaying a free parking and the Supreme Court upheld the right of Parking Eye to penalise him.''



{snip lecture about the Beavis case, and VAT and HMRC, as if I know nothing, telling me about 'fines' even though I never mentioned that word}


QUOTE
''Basically, parking is subject to VAT and it is a legal requirement to state the percentage and the amount of VAT due on any transaction totalling more the £50. So a failure to disclose whether a 'PCN' for more than £50 is 'Damages' or is a 'Contractual Sum' might be viewed by HMRC as an offence.



...and after I showed him Excel v Smith (appeal) and Excel v Lamoureux, not as precedents, but to illustrate that (some) Judges do get it about 'keeper liability' - a concept which has nothing whatsoever to do with the Beavis case - and after I reiterated that CP Plus don't use the POFA:

QUOTE
No ruling in any County Court or the High Court overrules Beavis. If the registered keeper of the vehicle that commits the transgression does not identify the driver and if the driver does not pay the penalty, then the registered keeper remains liable.

It's all here: https://www.honestjohn.co.uk/faq/private-parking-penalties/

This correspondence is now closed*

Anything further from you will be immediately trashed.

HJ





*to be fair, I'll leave it there, as he mentioned personal reasons that I won't repeat but which told me he has other things on his mind.

I'd leave it, no reasoning with him, just like SatNavSam's experience.

I feel sorry for Telegraph readers given completely wrong advice. Shocking quotes from the Rookie above, how can anyone write that?!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
southpaw82
post Mon, 11 Sep 2017 - 22:03
Post #14


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 27,707
Joined: 2 Apr 2008
From: Not in the UK
Member No.: 18,483



Here you go: IPSO


--------------------


Any comments made do not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon. No lawyer/client relationship should be assumed nor should any duty of care be owed.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
thejuggler
post Fri, 15 Sep 2017 - 21:49
Post #15


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 204
Joined: 18 Sep 2010
Member No.: 40,646



IPSO won't be interested. They only take complaints from the individual affected and even then won't do anything.

In many ways they are the newspapers equivalent of the BPA, a sham regulator designed purely to make things look OK, no surprise considering who the IPSO board is. Largely those who works for newspapers.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



Advertisement

Advertise here!

RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: Sunday, 25th February 2018 - 03:49
Pepipoo uses cookies. You can find details of the cookies we use here along with links to information on how to manage them.
Please click the button to accept our cookies and hide this message. We’ll also assume that you’re happy to accept them if you continue to use the site.