PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

428 Pages V   1 2 3 > » 

emanresu
Posted on: Sun, 6 May 2018 - 04:40


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 10,803
Joined: 24 Aug 2007
From: Parking Support Groups
Member No.: 13,324


QUOTE
I'm looking to appeal via IAS


Not a good idea as they are "perverse" but if you want to throw them a googly then why not say the driver (which wasn't you) stopped to read the contractual terms and found that as there was no grace period it was impossible for them to agree a contract within the 29 seconds shown on the pics. As such the "No grace" period is an unfair term under the Consumer Rights Act 2015.

We can be persevere too. It would be good to get the IAS "perversion" in front of a circuit judge if need be.
  Forum: Private Parking Tickets & Clamping · Post Preview: #1379985 · Replies: 58 · Views: 2,057

emanresu
Posted on: Sat, 5 May 2018 - 16:52


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 10,803
Joined: 24 Aug 2007
From: Parking Support Groups
Member No.: 13,324


The second sign (No Grace Period) is what kills them at court. It is impossible to enter into a contract without seeing, reading and understanding the terms. Since there is "no grace" anyone stopping to "agree" a contract is immediately in default.

You should have a large list of costs and make sure you press for them.
  Forum: Private Parking Tickets & Clamping · Post Preview: #1379889 · Replies: 58 · Views: 2,057

emanresu
Posted on: Tue, 1 May 2018 - 10:49


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 10,803
Joined: 24 Aug 2007
From: Parking Support Groups
Member No.: 13,324


But, but, but ..... the last time they did this they swore it couldn't happen again or it was a distrustful employee (called Rupert AFAIR). The DVLA were very ****** off that the first they knew about "Rupert" was via the media. Hope the Meja hasn't put them in it again.
  Forum: News / Press Articles · Post Preview: #1378835 · Replies: 15 · Views: 1,028

emanresu
Posted on: Tue, 1 May 2018 - 04:27


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 10,803
Joined: 24 Aug 2007
From: Parking Support Groups
Member No.: 13,324


QUOTE
There's nothing in it about landside operations.


You must have missed this bit

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1986/31/section/63

There are no hackney carriages airside as far as I know so it applies airside/landside.
  Forum: Private Parking Tickets & Clamping · Post Preview: #1378780 · Replies: 296 · Views: 29,511

emanresu
Posted on: Sat, 28 Apr 2018 - 03:55


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 10,803
Joined: 24 Aug 2007
From: Parking Support Groups
Member No.: 13,324


QUOTE
they don't relate to the current location as the airport had moved from the location at Speke


They do though.

Airports are operated under licence from the CAA. The byelaws cover many, many aspects of the operation of an Airport (airside and landside) and not just parking. It's like saying that because a plane landed on this new piece of land, that Byelaws/Airport police can't operate which would make the CAA licence a nonsense.
  Forum: Private Parking Tickets & Clamping · Post Preview: #1378088 · Replies: 296 · Views: 29,511

emanresu
Posted on: Fri, 27 Apr 2018 - 15:25


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 10,803
Joined: 24 Aug 2007
From: Parking Support Groups
Member No.: 13,324


QUOTE
I'm unfamiliar with SCC


Well don't go there. Go to Tribunal as the Tribunal is the appropriate place. The decision at a Tribunal can be rubber stamped at the SCC if you win.

Codes of Practice, the behavior of "debt" collectors etc are all irrelevant. It is the determination of your property rights / adherence to covenants / variation in your "tenancy" as everyone is a tenant, that are key. And the experts are at the Tribunal.

SCC is for the general, non-specialist bog standard contract disputes.
  Forum: Private Parking Tickets & Clamping · Post Preview: #1377954 · Replies: 93 · Views: 5,042

emanresu
Posted on: Fri, 27 Apr 2018 - 15:23


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 10,803
Joined: 24 Aug 2007
From: Parking Support Groups
Member No.: 13,324


The main point in Crutchley was the HHJ pointing out that Beavis was all about controlling "nuisance" which is spot on. There is already a mechanism in place to control nuisance which is the byelaws so Crutchley is redundant and cannot replace [existing and unchanged] secondary legislation. Only parliament or a Sec of State can change it.
  Forum: Private Parking Tickets & Clamping · Post Preview: #1377953 · Replies: 296 · Views: 29,511

emanresu
Posted on: Fri, 27 Apr 2018 - 04:35


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 10,803
Joined: 24 Aug 2007
From: Parking Support Groups
Member No.: 13,324


We are now on page 5. Is this just a discussion or is something actually going to happen?

Bear in mind that the costs of defending an allegation that you have to prove, will be borne by the residents. The MC as such does not have any money as such and simply recharges. Another reason for going to a Tribunal rather than SCC. There is mention of "indemnity" but the MC does not need to invoke it as it can charge as the MC sees appropriate.
  Forum: Private Parking Tickets & Clamping · Post Preview: #1377747 · Replies: 93 · Views: 5,042

emanresu
Posted on: Thu, 26 Apr 2018 - 05:26


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 10,803
Joined: 24 Aug 2007
From: Parking Support Groups
Member No.: 13,324


QUOTE
ipsy_dipsy is a freeholder, not a leaseholder.


If the OP is a freeholder then why is there an MC on site? What are they managing and on behalf of who?

The diminution in value where the rights to a parking space are removed is somewhere between 5% and 10% of the site value. The defence of this amount of value is not something I would suggest is trusted to well-meaning but unqualified posters.

Failure to get proper legal advice is a recipe for an very expensive mistake particularly where there are 80 * 5%-10% dimunitions at stake.

And why trust to the lottery of the SCC where the case could be decided adversely by an EJ or someone specialising in say family law. You don't want a jack-of-all-trades DJ or DDJ. Use a Property Tribunal
  Forum: Private Parking Tickets & Clamping · Post Preview: #1377455 · Replies: 93 · Views: 5,042

emanresu
Posted on: Wed, 25 Apr 2018 - 13:37


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 10,803
Joined: 24 Aug 2007
From: Parking Support Groups
Member No.: 13,324


QUOTE
But not all solicitors are competent on parking matters.


At residential sites, it is a lease matter and not a parking matter. There are lots of conveyancing solicitors who could help so try talking to them about which legal options leasehold tenants have when there is interference with a lease.

A good way of understanding the lease issues in a short period of time is to contact as many conveyancing solicitors as you can using the 15 minutes free. When you start hearing the same answers from the different solicitors you'll have established what you can do and can't do legally.

Popping off to SCC without doing your legal research will only cost you time, money and your own patience.
  Forum: Private Parking Tickets & Clamping · Post Preview: #1377263 · Replies: 93 · Views: 5,042

emanresu
Posted on: Mon, 16 Apr 2018 - 19:28


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 10,803
Joined: 24 Aug 2007
From: Parking Support Groups
Member No.: 13,324


With this one, it will be the pic of the signs that will win it for you. Have you got a pic of the wording? AFAIK it is badly worded so an easy send off.

They used to use Gladstones who made so many errors they've switched. Can't see CBS being any better.

An old pic which says display a valid ticket. It was valid so there is no breach .....

  Forum: Private Parking Tickets & Clamping · Post Preview: #1374867 · Replies: 26 · Views: 890

emanresu
Posted on: Sun, 15 Apr 2018 - 07:04


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 10,803
Joined: 24 Aug 2007
From: Parking Support Groups
Member No.: 13,324


QUOTE
''If you are using or intend to use an ANPR system, it is important that you undertake a privacy impact assessment to justify its use and show that its introduction is proportionate and necessary.''


This is a significant point under the new GDPR from 25th May 2018.

QUOTE
Key changes under the GDPR

Your service needs to be able to demonstrate that you comply with the law through policies and procedures

You must document the data you hold, where it came from and who you share it with

You must complete a data protection impact assessment when making certain changes to the way you use data

You need to have more robust procedures in place if you process children’s personal data

You’ll have to report serious data breaches to the ICO within 72 hours of becoming aware of them: UCS please note.

You must explain clearly and in detail how you use people's data in privacy notices

People can ask you to delete their data, change it or give them a copy within a month of the request [Relevant for the issue where there is no KL and the RK was not driving]

You need to check you have appropriate safeguards for data sharing, in particular outside the EU

When you get consent to use or share personal data it needs to be more specific and you’ll need a record of it
  Forum: Private Parking Tickets & Clamping · Post Preview: #1374502 · Replies: 9 · Views: 515

emanresu
Posted on: Thu, 12 Apr 2018 - 18:49


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 10,803
Joined: 24 Aug 2007
From: Parking Support Groups
Member No.: 13,324


If the DVLA have taken a stand then the next stage is the ICO. Why not take the DVLA at their word - they've investigated and can find no wrong - and escalate to the ICO for an opinion. It is amazing what the DVLA will do ....
  Forum: Private Parking Tickets & Clamping · Post Preview: #1373972 · Replies: 45 · Views: 2,551

emanresu
Posted on: Thu, 5 Apr 2018 - 15:58


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 10,803
Joined: 24 Aug 2007
From: Parking Support Groups
Member No.: 13,324


QUOTE
at night


The issue here will be could any normal person see the signs they claim are there. So two issues a) were they lit up and b) were they there despite their claims they were.
  Forum: Private Parking Tickets & Clamping · Post Preview: #1372113 · Replies: 6 · Views: 306

emanresu
Posted on: Thu, 5 Apr 2018 - 12:13


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 10,803
Joined: 24 Aug 2007
From: Parking Support Groups
Member No.: 13,324


How long and what about the counterclaim? See #41

You should write to them and point out the judge has made a ruling on the same facts as those they are chasing again. Invite them to drop the case but include a list of your costs for both cases.
  Forum: Private Parking Tickets & Clamping · Post Preview: #1372056 · Replies: 50 · Views: 2,778

emanresu
Posted on: Thu, 5 Apr 2018 - 04:45


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 10,803
Joined: 24 Aug 2007
From: Parking Support Groups
Member No.: 13,324


QUOTE
I don't think so.


It is always useful to have alternative views. Why not test your idea by picking up one of the claims on this site and going along with the OP to court to argue your alternative view with the judges that actually apply Beavis.

Come back with the court's reply.

Anything else is simply opinion that is untested at court.
  Forum: The Flame Pit · Post Preview: #1371973 · Replies: 13 · Views: 922

emanresu
Posted on: Tue, 3 Apr 2018 - 12:51


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 10,803
Joined: 24 Aug 2007
From: Parking Support Groups
Member No.: 13,324


QUOTE
the court advice say's I should allocate the whole day to it


I'd put my money on 10 minutes with the DJ hoping you don't want to spend a lot of time on the counterclaim. Work with him/her and you'll be out in no time with a win and costs.
  Forum: Private Parking Tickets & Clamping · Post Preview: #1371558 · Replies: 50 · Views: 2,778

emanresu
Posted on: Tue, 3 Apr 2018 - 12:27


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 10,803
Joined: 24 Aug 2007
From: Parking Support Groups
Member No.: 13,324


Maidstone will be a good court for you as they are up to speed on their nonsense.

In response to "There is no legal impediment to my contracting to sell you Buckingham Palace." you might want to suggest that despite the many times Gladstones have threatened to sell Buckingham Palace, they and their clients never seem to bother. There may be a good reason for this.

  Forum: Private Parking Tickets & Clamping · Post Preview: #1371551 · Replies: 50 · Views: 2,778

emanresu
Posted on: Tue, 3 Apr 2018 - 09:59


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 10,803
Joined: 24 Aug 2007
From: Parking Support Groups
Member No.: 13,324


The creditor that sold the debt was Northwest Parking Enforcement. Why would the audit of Northwest Parking Management be of any interest?

Suggest you go back and ask why.
  Forum: Private Parking Tickets & Clamping · Post Preview: #1371502 · Replies: 193 · Views: 16,389

emanresu
Posted on: Sun, 1 Apr 2018 - 10:54


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 10,803
Joined: 24 Aug 2007
From: Parking Support Groups
Member No.: 13,324


You are completely missing the point and wandering all over the place.

The driver could have seen the signs, parked under Kevin's nose and told him to put the ticket where the sun don't shine. It is all irrelevant to the non-driving keeper who wasn't there IF the paperwork doesn't meet the Keeper Liability provisions.

As a judge said the other day to a hapless UKCPM victim "I apply the law as it is, not as I want it to be"
  Forum: Private Parking Tickets & Clamping · Post Preview: #1371229 · Replies: 149 · Views: 9,016

emanresu
Posted on: Sun, 1 Apr 2018 - 09:55


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 10,803
Joined: 24 Aug 2007
From: Parking Support Groups
Member No.: 13,324


QUOTE
There is only one sign and clearly fails to meet the IPC code of practice


And that is an opinion of someone that wasn't there according to 7 witnesses.
  Forum: Private Parking Tickets & Clamping · Post Preview: #1371221 · Replies: 149 · Views: 9,016

emanresu
Posted on: Sun, 1 Apr 2018 - 07:54


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 10,803
Joined: 24 Aug 2007
From: Parking Support Groups
Member No.: 13,324


QUOTE
I’m more than happy to go to court


You don't really have much choice in the matter if they intend to continue.

Since you were not driving - posts #18 and #25, then it comes down to whether they met KL or they intend to prove you were driving.

It may be useful to put in a costs schedule under CPR 27.14.2.g on the basis that Kevin has clearly read #18 and #25 and intends to continue without the necessary evidence of KL/driving - an abuse of the court process in itself.


Edit: I must express some sympathy for the PPC's here. The CPR clearly says "narrow the issues" which prompts the question do the OP's try to narrow them in the first place or do they use the "spray and pray" templates to be found on Another Site. These S&P's appear to be designed to frustrate the CPR and to bore the PPC to death. No wonder they react as they can get wins further down the line at the WS stage as the OP's are clueless on the relevant issues.
  Forum: Private Parking Tickets & Clamping · Post Preview: #1371209 · Replies: 149 · Views: 9,016

emanresu
Posted on: Sun, 1 Apr 2018 - 06:17


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 10,803
Joined: 24 Aug 2007
From: Parking Support Groups
Member No.: 13,324


Charming man.

https://uk.linkedin.com/in/kevin-mcmanus-92874634

Recommendations 1 person has recommended Kevin McManus

Only 1 despite "I get inundated with 'connection requests' "
  Forum: Private Parking Tickets & Clamping · Post Preview: #1371202 · Replies: 149 · Views: 9,016

emanresu
Posted on: Sat, 31 Mar 2018 - 06:19


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 10,803
Joined: 24 Aug 2007
From: Parking Support Groups
Member No.: 13,324


QUOTE
That would mean that I could potentially be living with this 'shadow' for upto 6 years.


There are other mechanisms apart from a LBA/Court to sort your (and fellow tenants) problems. Try investigating them.
  Forum: Private Parking Tickets & Clamping · Post Preview: #1371068 · Replies: 93 · Views: 5,042

emanresu
Posted on: Fri, 30 Mar 2018 - 13:54


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 10,803
Joined: 24 Aug 2007
From: Parking Support Groups
Member No.: 13,324


QUOTE
there has never been any pictures provided


Because you didn't ask for it from the data controller at the PPC. If they refuse they are not only in breach of the DPA, they could have their ICO registration taken away. No ICO - no access.

Technically you could have asked Gladstones under the DPA and they may claim exemption but the ICO says "The fact that legal proceedings are contemplated or ongoing is not an automatic exemption from subject access". No one has tested them so far but it is only a question of time.
  Forum: Private Parking Tickets & Clamping · Post Preview: #1370947 · Replies: 149 · Views: 9,016

428 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: Tuesday, 22nd May 2018 - 00:44
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.