PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice Support health workers

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

MPs debate Proserve’s antics
dramaqueen
post Wed, 12 Dec 2018 - 13:07
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 334
Joined: 1 Jul 2014
From: east sussex
Member No.: 71,587



in Parliament yesterday:

https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=...+Charges#g257.3
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
 
Start new topic
Replies (1 - 2)
Advertisement
post Wed, 12 Dec 2018 - 13:07
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
anon45
post Thu, 13 Dec 2018 - 07:57
Post #2


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,114
Joined: 7 Aug 2009
Member No.: 31,007



It's a misconception (apparently, one held by the MPs who commented) that the Ransomes v Anderson appeal ruling made £300+ charges enforceable, but in practice a lot of judges seem to look at the 'headline result' of the appeal and uphold the charges, although in fact the circuit judge made clear that the signage was inadequate to create a contract binding on the motorist, and the amount awarded (£97.50) was deemed to represent damages for trespass, and furthermore was a rough estimate not binding on future cases.

The greater pity is that, in the Anderson case, the district judge carefully considered all the evidence and (IMO, correctly) ruled that the alleged contract between Proserves and Anderson for the PPC charging the landowner for the trespassing parking was a sham. Having read the transcript of the ruling, I do not think the circuit judge had sufficient grounds, or indeed any grounds at all, to overturn the carefully considered and well-reasoned decision of the district judge on this point.

I wonder if a firm sued for tens of thousands of pounds worth of £330 invoices will consider hiring a qualified person to contest the case, including appealing if necessary?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The Rookie
post Thu, 13 Dec 2018 - 15:11
Post #3


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 56,198
Joined: 9 Sep 2003
From: Warwickshire
Member No.: 317



The bigger problem with the preserve scandal is that the landowners hold the haulage companies to ransom (or is that Ransomes) by barring haulage companies with outstanding invoices, they have no choice but pay regardless of the rights and wrongs as otherwise they are put out of business. The opposite scenario of course could prevail if ALL the hauliers agree to boycott the relevant areas until Proserve are kicked off which would cause the landowners to lose a raft of business until they kicked Proserve into touch.

Proserve cases don’t end in court, they don’t need to.


--------------------
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 10-0 PPC's
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: Thursday, 28th March 2024 - 21:20
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.
IPS Driver Error

IPS Driver Error

There appears to be an error with the database.
You can try to refresh the page by clicking here