PE's Without Prejudice Offers keep getting better
Discussion
Red Devil said:
catfood12 said:
Drafting my response now, and having trouble keeping the smugness to a reasonable level.
I see PE are still wedded to 'yourself' in their latest lettter and e-mail. 
I fell of my chair laughing at this bit in the letter
PE letter said:
...to accept your offer to make payment of £110 to yourself...
Somebody is trying to be a bit too clever by half and making a complete hash of it.At least the wording in the e-mail made sense even if the author was still unable to avoid referring to 'yourself'.
Great effort, OP. Commendable patience.
roofer said:
I have a meeting tomorrow with an extremely important man in Southampton Council, i'm going to ask the question. 
Super. Car park in question is Town Quay Southampton. A search will reveal planning for stuff such as Red Funnel's access, and signage for some of the businesses, but not one sign for the car park. I do so hate planning breaches. :-)Edited by catfood12 on Monday 30th January 19:38
catfood12 said:
Super. Car park in question is Town Quay Southampton. A search will reveal planning for stuff such as Red Funnel's access, and signage for some of the businesses, but not one sign for the car park. I do so hate planning breaches. :-)
Edited by catfood12 on Monday 30th January 19:38
We have a site in Bugle St i will be visiting with him, a mere walk over the road. ABP Car Park ?roofer said:
We have a site in Bugle St i will be visiting with him, a mere walk over the road. ABP Car Park ?
ks in this thread has had further implications that aren't for discussion in a public forum where there is a professional engagement between the landowner and the defendant, with PE sat in the middle being obtuse.Edited by catfood12 on Monday 30th January 23:02
roofer said:
We have a site in Bugle St i will be visiting with him, a mere walk over the road. ABP Car Park ?Certainly worth clarifying that if you are in the company of them.
Town Quay is indeed subject to ABP byelaws and is thus not 'relevant land' for PoFA 2012. Therefore no keeper liability.
http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2014/03/po...
PE have known this for well over 2 years - POPLA decision code 6060344057 (assessor Chris Adamson)
A couple of points to note.
1. One adjudicator's decision is not binding on another (although it should be highly persuasive given the circumstances).
2. That was 'old' POPLA, run by London Councils. The landscape has changed since then.
Word on the street is that some the adjudicators of 'new POPLA' run by the The Ombudsman Service lack suitable expertise.
Whether it is true or not I don't know, but if it is that is worrying.
This is not encouraging either - https://popla.co.uk/
I really don't see how it can assume any authority to adjudicate where PoFA 2012 clearly doesn't apply.
Parliament has made the 'relevant land' distinction in the Act and it not for a private Limited Company to abrogate it.
The government made a serious mistake when it allowed the PPC industry lobby to hoodwink it into watering down the relevant parts of the original Bill.
(which became Section 56/Schedule 4 of PoFA 2012). The result is the shambles we see today with PPCs routinely abusing the court system.
Fortunately some county Court judges have woken up to their scams/abuse of process. The more the sword speads among the rest the better.
http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2014/03/po...
PE have known this for well over 2 years - POPLA decision code 6060344057 (assessor Chris Adamson)
A couple of points to note.
1. One adjudicator's decision is not binding on another (although it should be highly persuasive given the circumstances).
2. That was 'old' POPLA, run by London Councils. The landscape has changed since then.
Word on the street is that some the adjudicators of 'new POPLA' run by the The Ombudsman Service lack suitable expertise.
Whether it is true or not I don't know, but if it is that is worrying.
This is not encouraging either - https://popla.co.uk/
I really don't see how it can assume any authority to adjudicate where PoFA 2012 clearly doesn't apply.
Parliament has made the 'relevant land' distinction in the Act and it not for a private Limited Company to abrogate it.
The government made a serious mistake when it allowed the PPC industry lobby to hoodwink it into watering down the relevant parts of the original Bill.
(which became Section 56/Schedule 4 of PoFA 2012). The result is the shambles we see today with PPCs routinely abusing the court system.
Fortunately some county Court judges have woken up to their scams/abuse of process. The more the sword speads among the rest the better.
Red Devil said:
pork911 said:
It depends on PE's contract with the landowner. I would fully expect that to place some restriction on the landowner's ability to have PE cancel the tickets, perhaps even making it PE's sole decision when it comes down to it. That would be entirely proper (....once the landowner has decided to protect their parking by using PE).
The words in bold are key. The very suggestion that a landowner neither can nor should have the final say over what happens on their own property tells you all you need to know about this scummy industry.dukeboy749r said:
The fact that PE are part of Capita just shocks me - given the rest of Capita's portfolio of work with HM Govt, being the owners of a bullying car park management company seems to be an unwise move.
I'm generally not one for conspiracy theories, but I am openly cynical but Capita also run a lot of the backroom functions of the DVLA, who charge a fee for each keeper request made by the private parking industry.Is it in their own interest to obtain as many keeper details as possible to keep the whole charade going...?
blueg33 said:
pork911 said:
Really? That sole reason? How many other companies do you turn down?
A few, if you are in partnership for ten years the attitude and approach has to fit. In many deals our partner us responsible for hard and soft fm and this may include parking management. crapitas influence on most sections of the public sector is horrid and thankfully at last someone has come up with a couple of alternatives (even if one is from RM) to the school MIS they peddle (SIMS) which is a truly horrid and bug ridden bit of software.
thankfully I no longer have to support it.
djdest said:
Make sure you check with the court yourself it has been discontinued, some are known to say it has yet continue anyway and win by default of you not turning up!
Thanks, I did think that, but they've sent me a copy of the N279, Notice of Discontinuance, and I submitted one for my Counter Claim, and copied them.My local County Court is ten days behind with opening the post ! Time was getting tight, so I emailed them a copy too, as well as the posted one.
.Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff