UKPC indicted |
UKPC indicted |
Tue, 26 Jul 2011 - 12:47
Post
#1
|
|
Member Group: Life Member Posts: 24,221 Joined: 9 Sep 2004 From: Reading Member No.: 1,624 |
On Monday 5th September 2011, UK Parking Control Limited (UKPC) and its director Rupert Williams are due to stand trial on indictment at Hull Crown Court on the following charges, following an investigation by Trading Standards -
2/ Being an officer of a body corporate which engaged in a misleading action contrary to Regulation 9 of the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 3/ Engaging in an aggressive commercial practice contrary to Regulation 11 of the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 4/ Being an officer of a body corporate which engaged in an aggressive commercial practice contrary to Regulation 11 of the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading regulations 2008 5/ Engaging in a commercial practice which was a misleading action contrary to Regulation 9 of the Consumer Protection from Unfair Regulations 2008 6/ Being an officer of a body corporate which engaged in a misleading action contrary to Regulation 9 of the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 7/ Engaging in an aggressive commercial practice contrary to Regulation 11 of the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 8/ Being an officer of a body corporate which engaged in an aggressive commercial practice contrary to Regulation 11 of the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading regulations 2008 9/ Engaging in a commercial practice which was a misleading action contrary to Regulation 9 of the Consumer Protection from Unfair Regulations 2008 10/ Being an officer of a body corporate which engaged in a misleading action contrary to Regulation 9 of the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 11/ Engaging in an aggressive commercial practice contrary to Regulation 11 of the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 12/ Being an officer of a body corporate which engaged in an aggressive commercial practice contrary to Regulation 11 of the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading regulations 2008 13/ Engaging in a commercial practice which was a misleading action contrary to Regulation 9 of the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 14/ Being an officer of a body corporate which engaged in a misleading action contrary to Regulation 9 of the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 15/ Engaging in an aggressive commercial practice contrary to Regulation 11 of the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 16/ Being an officer of a body corporate which engaged in an aggressive commercial practice contrary to Regulation 11 of the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading regulations 2008 The trial is expected to last 3 days. If anyone want to come along and watch, I'll be the one with the huge bucket of popcorn. It is understood that several of the charges relate to practices common to all PPCs who use ticketing to enforce parking rules on private land, and that if UKPC and/or its director were to be convicted on those charges, subject to the inevitable appeal it seems likely to be 'game over' for the PPC ticketing 'business model'. I would strongly advise against publicly speculating or otherwise discussing the details of the specific allegations - Mr Williams/UKPC have already sought (and been refused permission) for a Judicial Review of the decision to indict them (on quite imaginative grounds), and ought to be considered likely to try to use any public discussion to argue that they cannot receive a fair trial (not that there could be considered to be any merit in such an argument). This post has been edited by andy_foster: Tue, 26 Jul 2011 - 12:57 -------------------- Andy
Some people think that I make them feel stupid. To be fair, they deserve most of the credit. |
|
|
Advertisement |
Tue, 26 Jul 2011 - 12:47
Post
#
|
Advertise here! |
|
|
|
Tue, 26 Jul 2011 - 13:51
Post
#2
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 1,114 Joined: 7 Aug 2009 Member No.: 31,007 |
I would strongly advise against publicly speculating or otherwise discussing the details of the specific allegations - Mr Williams/UKPC have already sought (and been refused permission) for a Judicial Review of the decision to indict them (on quite imaginative grounds), and ought to be considered likely to try to use any public discussion to argue that they cannot receive a fair trial (not that there could be considered to be any merit in such an argument). Mods- Is it therefore worth locking this topic pending the hearing? |
|
|
Tue, 26 Jul 2011 - 14:53
Post
#3
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 28,931 Joined: 29 Nov 2005 Member No.: 4,323 |
Be interesting to see if the OfT steps in under S.8 of the Enterprise Act.
seems doubtful to me that they will... shame that. -------------------- Which facts in any situation or problem are “essential” and what makes them “essential”? If the “essential” facts are said to depend on the principles involved, then the whole business, all too obviously, goes right around in a circle. In the light of one principle or set of principles, one bunch of facts will be the “essential” ones; in the light of another principle or set of principles, a different bunch of facts will be “essential.” In order to settle on the right facts you first have to pick your principles, although the whole point of finding the facts was to indicate which principles apply.
Note that I am not legally qualified and any and all statements made are "Reserved". Liability for application lies with the reader. |
|
|
Tue, 26 Jul 2011 - 16:53
Post
#4
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 1,312 Joined: 5 May 2007 From: ooot int sticks Member No.: 11,891 |
Seeing as its on my door step I shall have to pop along, shame I dont work in the court anymore !
-------------------- Images hosted by imageshack.com
|
|
|
Tue, 26 Jul 2011 - 18:37
Post
#5
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 2,332 Joined: 10 Mar 2007 From: Midlands Member No.: 11,071 |
I really fancy a day there, wont do day one as there is always a chance of an adjournment
-------------------- NOTICE The content of this post and of any replies to it may assist in or relate to the formulation of strategy tactics etcetera in a legal action. This post and any replies to it should therefore be assumed to be legally privileged and therefore must not be disclosed, copied, quoted, discussed, used or referred to outside of the PePiPoo forum on which it was originally posted additionally it must not be disclosed, copied, quoted, discussed, used or referred to by any person or organisation other than a member of PePiPoo appropriately paid up and in full compliance with the PePiPoo terms of use for the forum on which it was originally posted. The PePiPoo terms of use can be found at http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?act=boardrules. For the avoidance of doubt, if you are reading this material in any form other than an on-line HTML resource directly and legitimately accessed via a URL commencing "http://forums.pepipoo.com" then it has been obtained by improper means and you are probably reading it in breach of legal privilege. If the material you are reading does not include this notice then it has been obtained improperly and you are probably reading it in breach of legal privilege. Your attention is drawn to the Written Standards for the Conduct of Professional Work issued by the Bar Standards Board particularly under heading 7, "Documents".
Note that I am not legally qualified and any and all statements made are "Reserved" and do not constitute legal advice. Liability for application lies with the reader. |
|
|
Tue, 26 Jul 2011 - 19:14
Post
#6
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 33,634 Joined: 2 Apr 2008 From: Not in the UK Member No.: 18,483 |
Mods- Is it therefore worth locking this topic pending the hearing? No. I will, however, remind everyone that the issue is sub judice and as such this thread will be heavily moderated. Please don't post any "facts" you may [think you] have or speculate on matters. -------------------- Moderator
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. |
|
|
Tue, 26 Jul 2011 - 19:23
Post
#7
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 11,094 Joined: 24 Aug 2007 From: Home alone Member No.: 13,324 |
Can arrange a 16 seater mini-bus from the South Coast unless Roythebus has a larger one.
Edit: Allegedly, Roy. This post has been edited by emanresu: Tue, 26 Jul 2011 - 19:23 |
|
|
Tue, 26 Jul 2011 - 19:39
Post
#8
|
|
Member Group: Life Member Posts: 24,221 Joined: 9 Sep 2004 From: Reading Member No.: 1,624 |
I managed to book 5 nights for £50 in the travelodge £10 sale, so if it gets adjourned I've lost less than the price of one of their parking tickets.
axeman does raise an important point though - whilst trials such as this are less likely to be adjourned at the last minute than speeding cases in magistrates' courts, anyone considering making an effort to attend (as opposed to those living on the doorstep, popping in after Jeremy Kyle finishes) should bear in mind that there is always a possibility that it might not go ahead as scheduled. Last time I was at Hull Crown Court (for an appeal from the mags), it was adjourned until the following day as they couldn't find 2 spare magistrates to sit with the judge (who refused to get all robed up for a f**king speeding case anyway), and wouldn't let me and cjm99 stand in. -------------------- Andy
Some people think that I make them feel stupid. To be fair, they deserve most of the credit. |
|
|
Tue, 26 Jul 2011 - 20:19
Post
#9
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 6,982 Joined: 19 Dec 2006 From: Near Calais Member No.: 9,683 |
|
|
|
Tue, 26 Jul 2011 - 21:18
Post
#10
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 2,332 Joined: 10 Mar 2007 From: Midlands Member No.: 11,071 |
looking a Google, parking is very poor around the court, anyone know if UKPC (or any other non towing PPC) operate in the area?
-------------------- NOTICE The content of this post and of any replies to it may assist in or relate to the formulation of strategy tactics etcetera in a legal action. This post and any replies to it should therefore be assumed to be legally privileged and therefore must not be disclosed, copied, quoted, discussed, used or referred to outside of the PePiPoo forum on which it was originally posted additionally it must not be disclosed, copied, quoted, discussed, used or referred to by any person or organisation other than a member of PePiPoo appropriately paid up and in full compliance with the PePiPoo terms of use for the forum on which it was originally posted. The PePiPoo terms of use can be found at http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?act=boardrules. For the avoidance of doubt, if you are reading this material in any form other than an on-line HTML resource directly and legitimately accessed via a URL commencing "http://forums.pepipoo.com" then it has been obtained by improper means and you are probably reading it in breach of legal privilege. If the material you are reading does not include this notice then it has been obtained improperly and you are probably reading it in breach of legal privilege. Your attention is drawn to the Written Standards for the Conduct of Professional Work issued by the Bar Standards Board particularly under heading 7, "Documents".
Note that I am not legally qualified and any and all statements made are "Reserved" and do not constitute legal advice. Liability for application lies with the reader. |
|
|
Wed, 27 Jul 2011 - 08:05
Post
#11
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 11,094 Joined: 24 Aug 2007 From: Home alone Member No.: 13,324 |
I'm amazed that this did not come out before.
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/uk_parking_control |
|
|
Wed, 27 Jul 2011 - 19:42
Post
#12
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 2,091 Joined: 9 Mar 2007 Member No.: 11,066 |
Would not a FOI request for how many were rejected be revealing?
|
|
|
Sat, 30 Jul 2011 - 12:46
Post
#13
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 1,361 Joined: 30 Jun 2006 Member No.: 6,428 |
A magnificent salvo of charges aimed at UKPC! Interesting ramifications regarding historical income generated by UKPC if found guilty. Are these arrestable offences? Trading standards officers do not have the power of arrest AIUI.
|
|
|
Sun, 31 Jul 2011 - 13:36
Post
#14
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 1,535 Joined: 16 Jan 2009 From: Up north Member No.: 25,505 |
Only live about 10 miles from court I will see if I can get a day off. Plenty of Parking in Princes Quay and St Stephens Square both of which are no more than a twenty min walk from the court
-------------------- Bridges burnt, Rubicons crossed. Parthian shots delivered, but always with style
|
|
|
Sun, 31 Jul 2011 - 18:10
Post
#15
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 33,634 Joined: 2 Apr 2008 From: Not in the UK Member No.: 18,483 |
A magnificent salvo of charges aimed at UKPC! Interesting ramifications regarding historical income generated by UKPC if found guilty. Are these arrestable offences? Trading standards officers do not have the power of arrest AIUI. All offences carry a power of arrest (for a constable) now. TSOs have no more powers of arrest than anyone else. If they want someone lifting then the police (or, sometimes, HMRC, depending on the offence) will do it for them. I recall we lifted several people for offences under the Trademarks Act 1994 (for TS) and the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (for us). TS prosecuted, we did the recovery for them. -------------------- Moderator
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. |
|
|
Sat, 3 Sep 2011 - 11:42
Post
#16
|
|
Member Group: Life Member Posts: 24,221 Joined: 9 Sep 2004 From: Reading Member No.: 1,624 |
Trial listed to start at "not before 1130am" Monday 5th September, Court 2 - Mr Recorder R Singh
Lists on courtserve.net - Crown Court Daily Lists -------------------- Andy
Some people think that I make them feel stupid. To be fair, they deserve most of the credit. |
|
|
Mon, 5 Sep 2011 - 07:31
Post
#17
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 2,553 Joined: 24 Jun 2005 From: London Member No.: 3,246 |
I'm looking forward with anticipation to regular updates.
|
|
|
Mon, 5 Sep 2011 - 10:43
Post
#18
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 28,931 Joined: 29 Nov 2005 Member No.: 4,323 |
-------------------- Which facts in any situation or problem are “essential” and what makes them “essential”? If the “essential” facts are said to depend on the principles involved, then the whole business, all too obviously, goes right around in a circle. In the light of one principle or set of principles, one bunch of facts will be the “essential” ones; in the light of another principle or set of principles, a different bunch of facts will be “essential.” In order to settle on the right facts you first have to pick your principles, although the whole point of finding the facts was to indicate which principles apply.
Note that I am not legally qualified and any and all statements made are "Reserved". Liability for application lies with the reader. |
|
|
Mon, 5 Sep 2011 - 10:57
Post
#19
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 2,553 Joined: 24 Jun 2005 From: London Member No.: 3,246 |
I've had messages from two 'sources' who are currently sitting in the court waiting for the trial to start (about an hour ago)
|
|
|
Mon, 5 Sep 2011 - 11:01
Post
#20
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 28,931 Joined: 29 Nov 2005 Member No.: 4,323 |
okay.
gotta love HMG IT..... -------------------- Which facts in any situation or problem are “essential” and what makes them “essential”? If the “essential” facts are said to depend on the principles involved, then the whole business, all too obviously, goes right around in a circle. In the light of one principle or set of principles, one bunch of facts will be the “essential” ones; in the light of another principle or set of principles, a different bunch of facts will be “essential.” In order to settle on the right facts you first have to pick your principles, although the whole point of finding the facts was to indicate which principles apply.
Note that I am not legally qualified and any and all statements made are "Reserved". Liability for application lies with the reader. |
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: Wednesday, 17th April 2024 - 18:42 |