PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

1501 Pages V   1 2 3 > » 

The Rookie
Posted on: Today, 18:57


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 38,895
Joined: 9 Sep 2003
From: Warwickshire
Member No.: 317


Edit the post now, refer to the driver only as ‘the driver’ and the keeper who received the PCN as ‘the keeper’, do not give away the driver ID to the parking co.
  Forum: Private Parking Tickets & Clamping · Post Preview: #1401127 · Replies: 1 · Views: 22

The Rookie
Posted on: Today, 17:02


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 38,895
Joined: 9 Sep 2003
From: Warwickshire
Member No.: 317


QUOTE (ostell @ Fri, 13 Jul 2018 - 08:42) *
Elliot v Loake was determined on the presence of forensic evidence and other linking the car and the driver.

Again, no there wasn’t, please understand EvL as you continually misquote it.

In that case the keeper swore blind the car wasn’t involved in the accident and that he had it at the time. The Forensic evidence put the car at the scene and therefore buy his own admission he had to be the driver. There was NO forensic evidence linking driver to car or driver (directly) to the event.
  Forum: Private Parking Tickets & Clamping · Post Preview: #1401102 · Replies: 108 · Views: 5,703

The Rookie
Posted on: Today, 14:39


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 38,895
Joined: 9 Sep 2003
From: Warwickshire
Member No.: 317


That speed will qualify you for an awareness course.

Nothing you’ve said suggests a defence.
  Forum: Speeding and other Criminal Offences · Post Preview: #1401057 · Replies: 2 · Views: 104

The Rookie
Posted on: Today, 08:06


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 38,895
Joined: 9 Sep 2003
From: Warwickshire
Member No.: 317


QUOTE (notmeatloaf @ Thu, 19 Jul 2018 - 14:46) *
They do if you believe that blank = unchanged variable limit and NSL = end of variable limit.

So blank can’t mean unchanged NSL? I think everyone will agree it can, hence cannot be polar opposites, thanks.
  Forum: The Flame Pit · Post Preview: #1400952 · Replies: 98 · Views: 1,831

The Rookie
Posted on: Yesterday, 18:15


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 38,895
Joined: 9 Sep 2003
From: Warwickshire
Member No.: 317


QUOTE (ManxRed @ Fri, 20 Jul 2018 - 12:28) *
Its like a mild form of 'Trespassers will be shot'

More like ‘trespassers will be prosecuted’ which is equally meaningless and toothless but works on the uneducated.
  Forum: The Flame Pit · Post Preview: #1400847 · Replies: 39 · Views: 6,303

The Rookie
Posted on: Yesterday, 11:19


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 38,895
Joined: 9 Sep 2003
From: Warwickshire
Member No.: 317


I do wonder if 'management company limited' (sic) couldn't get a PPC to agree reasonable terms to avoid the fall out that happens in many cases and opted for a scary poster instead. For that they should sort of be applauded.
  Forum: The Flame Pit · Post Preview: #1400689 · Replies: 39 · Views: 6,303

The Rookie
Posted on: Yesterday, 11:15


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 38,895
Joined: 9 Sep 2003
From: Warwickshire
Member No.: 317


You can't redeem a right you don't have!

Unless you can convince the Police its an injustice you will just have to take the FPN, if you got to 4 months after the offence before you replied (for whatever reason) then the course option is gone.

If it wasn't your fault, who's was it?
  Forum: Speeding and other Criminal Offences · Post Preview: #1400688 · Replies: 7 · Views: 600

The Rookie
Posted on: Yesterday, 10:55


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 38,895
Joined: 9 Sep 2003
From: Warwickshire
Member No.: 317


Financial loss is not really relevant now, the Beavis ruling makes it much harder to use as a defence.

If you can show the signage was inadequate to create a contract then that's important to the defence. Also you need to know what the signage says, 'permit holders only' means its a trespass, 'permit holder free, everyone else must pay £100' can be said to create a contract.
  Forum: Private Parking Tickets & Clamping · Post Preview: #1400674 · Replies: 6 · Views: 81

The Rookie
Posted on: Yesterday, 10:43


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 38,895
Joined: 9 Sep 2003
From: Warwickshire
Member No.: 317


NO, in this case KISS applies.

Leave the niceties for POPLA, when trying to dupe them into not issuing a complaint NtK you don't want to show any knowledge.....
  Forum: Private Parking Tickets & Clamping · Post Preview: #1400668 · Replies: 51 · Views: 1,215

The Rookie
Posted on: Yesterday, 10:37


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 38,895
Joined: 9 Sep 2003
From: Warwickshire
Member No.: 317


Money saving expert, newbies thread has template appeal.

As a matter of interest, what monetary demand do you consider wouldn't be ridiculous?

Tell us more about the driver, should they have parked there, did they have a permit they forgot or was this 'abusive' parking?
  Forum: Private Parking Tickets & Clamping · Post Preview: #1400662 · Replies: 6 · Views: 81

The Rookie
Posted on: Yesterday, 10:24


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 38,895
Joined: 9 Sep 2003
From: Warwickshire
Member No.: 317


They shouldn't have used the e-link I agree, that's a breach of KADOE, but they have reasonable cause to obtain the data so a DPA issue is a non starter in my opinion.
  Forum: Private Parking Tickets & Clamping · Post Preview: #1400655 · Replies: 13 · Views: 232

The Rookie
Posted on: Yesterday, 09:51


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 38,895
Joined: 9 Sep 2003
From: Warwickshire
Member No.: 317


QUOTE (seank @ Thu, 19 Jul 2018 - 20:49) *
Mistakes certainly don't happen all the time. That would mean that every action was a mistake.

That is seriously messed up logic! If you're going to behave like an idiot there is no point trying to have a discussion.

QUOTE (seank @ Thu, 19 Jul 2018 - 20:49) *
Nonsense, at best.

That at least is right!
  Forum: The Flame Pit · Post Preview: #1400643 · Replies: 52 · Views: 1,097

The Rookie
Posted on: Yesterday, 09:48


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 38,895
Joined: 9 Sep 2003
From: Warwickshire
Member No.: 317


Those signs are idle threats,
1/ They arn't in an ATA so cant get keeper data from the DVLA or hold keepers liable.
2/ They can't tow without breaking the law (PoFA).
3/ Its forbidding signage anyway, so you can't contract to pay the £5.
4/ The signs don't identify who you are contracting with.

In all, just scare tactics, like a loudly barking dog with no teeth.

If you don't display a permit (which would identify you) they won't even know who to take action against!
  Forum: The Flame Pit · Post Preview: #1400641 · Replies: 39 · Views: 6,303

The Rookie
Posted on: Yesterday, 08:39


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 38,895
Joined: 9 Sep 2003
From: Warwickshire
Member No.: 317


EDIT that post immediately, never give away the driver ID, so refer to the driver as 'the driver' any postal notice is sent to 'the keeper'.

You need to be sure if your appeal gave away the driver ID or not, any 'I' or 'We' can be enough.
  Forum: Private Parking Tickets & Clamping · Post Preview: #1400617 · Replies: 2 · Views: 62

The Rookie
Posted on: Yesterday, 08:25


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 38,895
Joined: 9 Sep 2003
From: Warwickshire
Member No.: 317


Clearly they are strangers to the word due in advance of the diligence to be exercised before signing contracts!

We see this so often with companies and the NHS (Co-op, Cardiff hospital), I wonder if they are as lax with all their contracts!
  Forum: Private Parking Tickets & Clamping · Post Preview: #1400608 · Replies: 50 · Views: 1,702

The Rookie
Posted on: Yesterday, 08:22


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 38,895
Joined: 9 Sep 2003
From: Warwickshire
Member No.: 317


QUOTE (The Slithy Tove @ Fri, 20 Jul 2018 - 08:37) *
Hit both ParkWatch and DVLA (as data controller) with a DPA 2018 breach.

FTFY.

However I think there is an issue here, while it is a breach of the KADOE contract ( https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/go...Contract_V4.pdf ) I don't think its a breach of the DPA as the reasonable cause requirement for DVLA to provide data isn't governed by KADOE.

A complaint of the DVLA over the breach of KADOE I do think has wings.
  Forum: Private Parking Tickets & Clamping · Post Preview: #1400604 · Replies: 13 · Views: 232

The Rookie
Posted on: Yesterday, 06:20


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 38,895
Joined: 9 Sep 2003
From: Warwickshire
Member No.: 317


The trouble is for site visits you would need class2 business cover (the expensive one) not intrasite class1 that’s near enough or actually free.

As you aren’t doing the fitting in the course of a business you clearly do not need business cover, many people take tools to help friends out, I help with car repairs yet it’s not a business, nor is it anything I do as part of my work anyway.
  Forum: The Flame Pit · Post Preview: #1400575 · Replies: 15 · Views: 253

The Rookie
Posted on: Yesterday, 06:10


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 38,895
Joined: 9 Sep 2003
From: Warwickshire
Member No.: 317


Not really similar, that revolved around whether a particular van was car derived or not.

There appears no argument here that this is a camper van as the nature of the vehicle as built is irrelevant (apart from the weight).
  Forum: Speeding and other Criminal Offences · Post Preview: #1400574 · Replies: 21 · Views: 1,278

The Rookie
Posted on: Thu, 19 Jul 2018 - 19:25


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 38,895
Joined: 9 Sep 2003
From: Warwickshire
Member No.: 317


Of course mistakes happen all the time, every FPN successfully defended in court was issued incorrectly. I don’t need to prove that as it’s self evidently blooming obvious. Doesn’t make it right, but more does it necessarily make it wrong, as long as the officer had a reasonably held belief the offence was committed then he can issue the fixed penalty.

As an example D&C issue a CoFP with every NIP to the registered keeper, many won’t even have been driving.
  Forum: The Flame Pit · Post Preview: #1400483 · Replies: 52 · Views: 1,097

The Rookie
Posted on: Thu, 19 Jul 2018 - 12:49


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 38,895
Joined: 9 Sep 2003
From: Warwickshire
Member No.: 317


Nice of them to go to great lengths to confirm that this cannot be a contractually agreed sum as parking is prohibited! That would be one to include in the POPLA appeal as extra ammo.
  Forum: Private Parking Tickets & Clamping · Post Preview: #1400353 · Replies: 51 · Views: 1,215

The Rookie
Posted on: Thu, 19 Jul 2018 - 12:38


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 38,895
Joined: 9 Sep 2003
From: Warwickshire
Member No.: 317


I can't find anything either way which I guess suggests we don't have an FPN for it here.....
  Forum: The Flame Pit · Post Preview: #1400348 · Replies: 52 · Views: 1,097

The Rookie
Posted on: Thu, 19 Jul 2018 - 11:35


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 38,895
Joined: 9 Sep 2003
From: Warwickshire
Member No.: 317


QUOTE (seank @ Thu, 19 Jul 2018 - 12:02) *
QUOTE (The Rookie @ Thu, 19 Jul 2018 - 10:13) *
QUOTE (seank @ Thu, 19 Jul 2018 - 09:15) *
1. No reasonable person would issue a FPN in the circumstances described.
2. It is not a matter of course for police to hand out FPNs wrongly.

1/ Well that's your interpretation, I'm sure the officer who issued it would disagree
2/ It happens all the time, its a way of disposing of an ALLEGATION, if you have a defence that is what the courts are their for.

It may have been to the driver for an action likely to cause a breach of the peace after all, or even malicious mischief rather than for a driving offence, either of those would appear to be very reasonable.

1. Not at all. The Orifice probably acted in response to another bout of selective policing. They either get complaints and turn up, mob handed to ticket everyone they consider acted in a way they don't like, or a senior orifice asked them to attend. We often read about Plod purges, like the Christmas campaigns breathalysing innocent people with no law permitting their actions.
2. Entirely unreasonable to ticket someone, likely in the full knowledge that no offence has been committed.. Where is your data to support "it happens all the time"?

1. So you don't think the officer would agree? As for breathalyser campaigns they stop you and speak to you, then decide, that's enough to gain a suspicion isn't it.
2. Try responding to what I wrote and not what you think I wrote.
  Forum: The Flame Pit · Post Preview: #1400335 · Replies: 52 · Views: 1,097

The Rookie
Posted on: Thu, 19 Jul 2018 - 11:33


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 38,895
Joined: 9 Sep 2003
From: Warwickshire
Member No.: 317


Google satellite view link would help!
  Forum: The Flame Pit · Post Preview: #1400334 · Replies: 8 · Views: 259

The Rookie
Posted on: Thu, 19 Jul 2018 - 10:54


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 38,895
Joined: 9 Sep 2003
From: Warwickshire
Member No.: 317


Just came back to correct that, thanks.....
  Forum: The Flame Pit · Post Preview: #1400323 · Replies: 52 · Views: 1,097

The Rookie
Posted on: Thu, 19 Jul 2018 - 10:47


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 38,895
Joined: 9 Sep 2003
From: Warwickshire
Member No.: 317


QUOTE (ostell @ Wed, 18 Jul 2018 - 12:00) *
Most of the Parking Companies seem to fail on this point, even PE.

That's because the BPA made an agreement with the BRVLA that their companies didn't 'have' to supply a copy of the rental agreement when naming the hirer (leasor) to get the PPC's off their back, which is handy as it guarantees a POPLA win!
  Forum: Private Parking Tickets & Clamping · Post Preview: #1400319 · Replies: 12 · Views: 220

1501 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, 21st July 2018 - 21:25
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.