PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

436 Pages V   1 2 3 > » 

emanresu
Posted on: Thu, 18 Oct 2018 - 13:57


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 11,011
Joined: 24 Aug 2007
From: Parking Support Groups
Member No.: 13,324


QUOTE
Could someone tell me what are the reasons for this?


Paranoia.
  Forum: Private Parking Tickets & Clamping · Post Preview: #1426347 · Replies: 13 · Views: 236

emanresu
Posted on: Thu, 18 Oct 2018 - 13:20


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 11,011
Joined: 24 Aug 2007
From: Parking Support Groups
Member No.: 13,324


Raise the issue with the council and then take it all the way to the Local Government Ombudsman. You likely can use "Wednesbury unreasonableness" for the issue and for the way in which they manage the space too.
  Forum: Private Parking Tickets & Clamping · Post Preview: #1426330 · Replies: 7 · Views: 111

emanresu
Posted on: Thu, 18 Oct 2018 - 04:18


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 11,011
Joined: 24 Aug 2007
From: Parking Support Groups
Member No.: 13,324


Wonder if this will work. Find out who hired the PPC (Teign Housing) and see if they will cancel after explaining the situation? And doing it nicely.
  Forum: Private Parking Tickets & Clamping · Post Preview: #1426242 · Replies: 49 · Views: 779

emanresu
Posted on: Wed, 17 Oct 2018 - 09:07


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 11,011
Joined: 24 Aug 2007
From: Parking Support Groups
Member No.: 13,324


Land ownership link here. You can add it to any defence.

https://docdro.id/mobZQn9

You can plot where the car was parked in relation to the library's demised plot.

You'll likely find that the surrounding properties (as indicated by Planning Applications) are social housing run by Teign Housing. Not the council at all.
  Forum: Private Parking Tickets & Clamping · Post Preview: #1426010 · Replies: 49 · Views: 779

emanresu
Posted on: Tue, 16 Oct 2018 - 18:28


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 11,011
Joined: 24 Aug 2007
From: Parking Support Groups
Member No.: 13,324


Knock yourself out Coupon but according to Devon CC, the library only had one space.

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showth...3&page=4#77

I cannot think of an EA duty by a Residents Association to make reasonable adjustment for trespassers.


  Forum: Private Parking Tickets & Clamping · Post Preview: #1425866 · Replies: 49 · Views: 779

emanresu
Posted on: Tue, 16 Oct 2018 - 15:57


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 11,011
Joined: 24 Aug 2007
From: Parking Support Groups
Member No.: 13,324


Have you contacted Napier and explained the issue. Have you asked them to cancel as you had no intent to deprive them of the income. The contract was "frustrated" because of the failure of their payment system.
  Forum: Private Parking Tickets & Clamping · Post Preview: #1425824 · Replies: 13 · Views: 236

emanresu
Posted on: Tue, 16 Oct 2018 - 15:49


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 11,011
Joined: 24 Aug 2007
From: Parking Support Groups
Member No.: 13,324


I think after all this posting over 2 sites we can narrow this down to fight or flight.

It can either be defended on the signs or you can go for an honourable defeat. A suggested letter

QUOTE
Dear PPC

I wish to apologise for the tone of my previous letters and can see from further investigation, the driver was inadvertently mistaken. The driver had assumed that the parking spaces were for the library and now understand they were not. The signs on site were not sufficiently clear to convey the penalty to parking in what I presume to be a resident's bay. Indeed if I were a resident, I too would be upset about people using my space.

So as not to waste everyone's time and the court's time, I wish to offer the face value of the ticket £100 in full and final settlement. Please confirm by return with a Notice of Discontinuance.

Yours etc.

PS Apologies for calling you scumbags.


If they refuse, at least it will go some way to explaining the Equality Act rant and all the other irrelevant bits.
  Forum: Private Parking Tickets & Clamping · Post Preview: #1425822 · Replies: 49 · Views: 779

emanresu
Posted on: Tue, 16 Oct 2018 - 10:27


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 11,011
Joined: 24 Aug 2007
From: Parking Support Groups
Member No.: 13,324


Whoever parked there missed 3 signs in a short distance. It's a simple defence if the Keeper was not driving and is able to show they were somewhere else at the time (Wales?) as they are not relying on POFA

By all means indulge in ranting here, but it shouldn't leak over into any paperwork that will be seen by a court. It just winds up the judges.
  Forum: Private Parking Tickets & Clamping · Post Preview: #1425695 · Replies: 49 · Views: 779

emanresu
Posted on: Tue, 16 Oct 2018 - 08:35


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 11,011
Joined: 24 Aug 2007
From: Parking Support Groups
Member No.: 13,324


I'd check the pic posted on the MSE site before this goes further.
  Forum: Private Parking Tickets & Clamping · Post Preview: #1425660 · Replies: 49 · Views: 779

emanresu
Posted on: Mon, 15 Oct 2018 - 12:27


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 11,011
Joined: 24 Aug 2007
From: Parking Support Groups
Member No.: 13,324


QUOTE
You don't send them at this time.


Just in case you missed it, you do not send your pics at this time. You wait until the court tells you. They tell you to send them when they tell you when the hearing date is. That is in 5 months time so keep them and your evidence until then.

If you are unclear about "You don't send them at this time" then let me know.

Just send in the defence (without pics) no later than 33 days from the date in the top right hand of the Claim form.
  Forum: Private Parking Tickets & Clamping · Post Preview: #1425354 · Replies: 37 · Views: 590

emanresu
Posted on: Mon, 15 Oct 2018 - 10:59


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 11,011
Joined: 24 Aug 2007
From: Parking Support Groups
Member No.: 13,324


You don't send them at this time.

The defence shown just highlights the issue and (hopefully) answers the issues raised in the particulars of the claim.

There is a bit of court paperwork to come regarding setting a hearing date (Directions) then in about 5 months time there will be a hearing. For that hearing you'd prepare a Witness Statement which pics and other evidence that you have gathered. You'll then be sent their paperwork. Based on what you've found and what they have produced, you prepare a Skeleton Argument for the court 3 days prior to a hearing.

The defence appears to cover it all but check it against the particulars
  Forum: Private Parking Tickets & Clamping · Post Preview: #1425331 · Replies: 37 · Views: 590

emanresu
Posted on: Mon, 15 Oct 2018 - 07:21


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 11,011
Joined: 24 Aug 2007
From: Parking Support Groups
Member No.: 13,324


QUOTE
the lawful occupant Excel Ltd


Since the occupant is Excel and the signs are Excel, the contract is with Excel. The only way VCS could issue a claim in their own name is if the deed was assigned and there is no assignment with the bundle or indicated. In addition, this was not pleaded earlier in the case.
  Forum: Private Parking Tickets & Clamping · Post Preview: #1425246 · Replies: 83 · Views: 4,613

emanresu
Posted on: Mon, 15 Oct 2018 - 05:44


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 11,011
Joined: 24 Aug 2007
From: Parking Support Groups
Member No.: 13,324


QUOTE
I've just received their 56 pages long WS


How do they explain the difference between the name on the signs and the name of the claimant?

They've lost an Albert Street one last week on "not the driver"
  Forum: Private Parking Tickets & Clamping · Post Preview: #1425237 · Replies: 83 · Views: 4,613

emanresu
Posted on: Sun, 14 Oct 2018 - 04:34


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 11,011
Joined: 24 Aug 2007
From: Parking Support Groups
Member No.: 13,324


Blossom Street is a hot spot for them and they've done court there a few times. Main issues appear to be

a) the machines are temperamental

b) ANPR Cameras are not linked to the payment machines

c) The signs are difficult to see and

d) The signs are in the name of MB and Bradley Wilson.

You've be well advised to do a Subject Access Request as soon as possible and look to see if there is a machine error like a mistaken VRM or your VRM not showing up.
  Forum: Private Parking Tickets & Clamping · Post Preview: #1425004 · Replies: 9 · Views: 239

emanresu
Posted on: Sat, 13 Oct 2018 - 06:23


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 11,011
Joined: 24 Aug 2007
From: Parking Support Groups
Member No.: 13,324


Was the car park part of the hotel? If so what were the instructions about parking there e.g permit only, pay and display, limited time etc.

The Hotel, if it was their car park, may be able to get it cancelled if you contact them to explain the Equality Act issue suggested above.
  Forum: Private Parking Tickets & Clamping · Post Preview: #1424786 · Replies: 17 · Views: 237

emanresu
Posted on: Fri, 12 Oct 2018 - 16:01


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 11,011
Joined: 24 Aug 2007
From: Parking Support Groups
Member No.: 13,324


Why not ask a few of the District Judges that have to deal with 200 of these cases at court each week.
  Forum: Private Parking Tickets & Clamping · Post Preview: #1424607 · Replies: 4 · Views: 224

emanresu
Posted on: Thu, 11 Oct 2018 - 09:51


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 11,011
Joined: 24 Aug 2007
From: Parking Support Groups
Member No.: 13,324


QUOTE
There is nothing in that judgement that states Beavis was binding, the Sheriff just stated they agreed with the finding. If it had been seen to be binding would the Sheriff not have stated so.


It appears we are discussing the literal. In that case, I will amend to effectively binding in the same way as cases are "effectively binding" in common law jurisdictions.

But to say that Beavis or the rationale behind Beavis is not "effectively binding" is to mislead.

And we all know what happened when everyone jumped on the GPEOL band waggon. The PPC industry are still dining out / replacing their Porches on that one.
  Forum: Private Parking Tickets & Clamping · Post Preview: #1424102 · Replies: 22 · Views: 495

emanresu
Posted on: Thu, 11 Oct 2018 - 08:24


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 11,011
Joined: 24 Aug 2007
From: Parking Support Groups
Member No.: 13,324


QUOTE
How many cases have been brought siunce then?
None that we are aware of
Hence the advice remains unchanged.


Agree with nosferatu1001 on that but the OP has also been told that cases are fact specific and won't share the specific facts. The postings have a whiff about them or should be in the Flame pit as previously advised.
  Forum: Private Parking Tickets & Clamping · Post Preview: #1424076 · Replies: 17 · Views: 432

emanresu
Posted on: Thu, 11 Oct 2018 - 04:55


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 11,011
Joined: 24 Aug 2007
From: Parking Support Groups
Member No.: 13,324


QUOTE
Sorry but that is not correct. A Supreme Court ruling on civil cases is only binding on the jurisdiction it was heard under - in the Beavis case it came through English County Court. Its no different from Cases in Scotland ending up at the Supreme Court only being binding in Scotland. If it were the case that Supreme Court cases were binding throughout the UK, you could be in trouble with a Supreme Court ruling on a 16 year old in Scotland being considered as an adult a few years back. Criminal cases will be binding across the UK, though.


Understand the point you are getting at. For example, in yesterday's' "gay cake" Supreme Court ruling, there is a heavy emphasis on the applicable law in Northern Ireland - a different jurisdiction from Scotland, England and Wales, Guernsey and IoM. But in the Beavis case they looked at something more fundamental which is how the law of contract should operate.

And since you won't believe me, could I point out a couple of cases in Scotland where VCS were successful in applying Beavis. VCS v Mackie at paras 13/14 refer to Beavis. She was ordered to pay £24,500 based on Beavis and not GPEOL

https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/search-judgme...00-ff0000d74aa7

There was a second case VCS v Brown which was around £4,000 for about 30 tickets which again was the Beavis ruling.
  Forum: Private Parking Tickets & Clamping · Post Preview: #1424064 · Replies: 22 · Views: 495

emanresu
Posted on: Wed, 10 Oct 2018 - 04:21


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 11,011
Joined: 24 Aug 2007
From: Parking Support Groups
Member No.: 13,324


@motorist111

You are hijacking a thread. If you want a general discussion on Scots cases use the Flame Pit as that is what it is for.

Each case is fact specific and this case is nothing like the Ninewells one.
  Forum: Private Parking Tickets & Clamping · Post Preview: #1423696 · Replies: 22 · Views: 495

emanresu
Posted on: Tue, 9 Oct 2018 - 07:14


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 11,011
Joined: 24 Aug 2007
From: Parking Support Groups
Member No.: 13,324


QUOTE
Beavis is not binding in Scotland.


@Spudandros

Yes it is. A Supreme Court means it is supreme over all the UK Courts.

What is not binding is the Protection of Freedoms Act which was specifically enacted under E & W law only.
  Forum: Private Parking Tickets & Clamping · Post Preview: #1423448 · Replies: 22 · Views: 495

emanresu
Posted on: Fri, 5 Oct 2018 - 17:00


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 11,011
Joined: 24 Aug 2007
From: Parking Support Groups
Member No.: 13,324


There is something wrong with this.

If the judge decided to adjourn there would be no award of costs (the £95). So wait for the paperwork from the court and come back when you have it.

There were two VCS cases at Liverpool today. Was this one of them and if so, what happened with the other?
  Forum: Private Parking Tickets & Clamping · Post Preview: #1422621 · Replies: 37 · Views: 2,871

emanresu
Posted on: Thu, 4 Oct 2018 - 12:15


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 11,011
Joined: 24 Aug 2007
From: Parking Support Groups
Member No.: 13,324


QUOTE
Theyre claiming it, but its clearly a nonsense.


Some judges may disagree. Why not read the Crutchley case and look for the word mischief. Then go to the VCS v Mackie one (Scotland and £25K) and look for the same word.

Rylands v Fletcher - ditto

UKCPS v Gaskill - ditto but pre-Beavis when GPEOL was in play but it hints at why Beavis works for ParkingEye and the others

If you read para #34 in the Crutchley case which refers to the Jobson case, it is all summed up

QUOTE
His reference to a prohibition on “parking” was very much obiter, and in any event after acknowledging that “parking” is a matter of fact or degree in each situation, he sensibly interpreted the actions of the tenant in that particular case as not infringing the enforcement regulations, or creating a mischief which those regulations were intended to avoid


Crutchley was a demolition job of a number of cases in favour of VCS and other parking companies. The HHJ clearly gets the Beavis and the way the parking companies are supposed to operate.
  Forum: Private Parking Tickets & Clamping · Post Preview: #1422153 · Replies: 18 · Views: 568

emanresu
Posted on: Thu, 4 Oct 2018 - 07:07


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 11,011
Joined: 24 Aug 2007
From: Parking Support Groups
Member No.: 13,324


QUOTE
You should add, in your reply to the LBC (NOT IN THE SEPARATE SAR, WHICH IS ONLY ABOUT DATA), that you are aware that Byelaws apply to this land and should VCS file a claim you will:

- contest jurisdiction, and

- will hold VCS liable and will pursue them for the costs of the 'contesting jurisdiction' application, since they already know that this land is Byelaws land and any claim will be wholly unreasonable and without merit.


As someone with the opposite opinion of the above, I would seriously advise not to send such a letter as it is an invite to have a claim sent against you and progressed to the end. VCS are desperate to prove that contract and byelaws can exist side by side and there have been times when they have been able to convince a judge of the same. Your best bet is to wait and challenge them on the readability of the signs (they will use the Crutchley case). Get your own pics ASAP and copies of theirs.

See this post for what you can expect to see in any Witness Statement 6 months after a claim.

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showto...t&p=1409446
  Forum: Private Parking Tickets & Clamping · Post Preview: #1422050 · Replies: 18 · Views: 568

emanresu
Posted on: Mon, 1 Oct 2018 - 12:28


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 11,011
Joined: 24 Aug 2007
From: Parking Support Groups
Member No.: 13,324


QUOTE
somebody still needs to satisfy the Secretary of State for Transport that they have a reasonable cause for wanting the data.


Knock yourself out Porcupine. Why not write to him and ask specifically how satisfied he was about this.

The bit about "parking" is no more that a sui generis collective approach for companies that tend to operate in the area of parking but not exclusively so. But by all means have a go or even raise £50K or so and have a JR on it.
  Forum: Private Parking Tickets & Clamping · Post Preview: #1421238 · Replies: 67 · Views: 2,906

436 Pages V   1 2 3 > » 

New Posts  New Replies
No New Posts  No New Replies
Hot topic  Hot Topic (New)
No new  Hot Topic (No New)
Poll  Poll (New)
No new votes  Poll (No New)
Closed  Locked Topic
Moved  Moved Topic
 

RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: Saturday, 20th October 2018 - 07:35
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.