parking invoice & now court summons
Discussion
wjwren said:
Who was the chap that was on here or possibly another thread that gave good advice, I think his name might have been steve?
edit : it was s11steve. Ive dropped him a PM.
Are you able to post up a google maps of this car park?? edit : it was s11steve. Ive dropped him a PM.
Edited by wjwren on Wednesday 30th October 09:38
just about to send defence over to the court. Just noticed on the site plan the claimant has given. There are 2 signs on the wall which are missing which they state are there. These would be right in front of my car . This is evidenced in their pictures as there is no signage near my car at all. also another sign is not present on the back wall. The van that is blocking the sign on the front as you come in is there on the google map picture which they have provided from Feb this year.
Truffs said:
While you guys are getting frothy over parking. I was actually thinking “How quaint someone actually still goes to a takeaway rather than have it delivered!”
...
Quaint indeed ! See, however, a nearby thread in which some bloke wants to go to the Supreme Court/International Criminal Court/Galactic Court of Appeal of Emperor Ming the Merciless because the bloke got the munchies and then got the sad because his delivery order was late. ...
PS: Hail Ming!
Breadvan72 said:
You are a good egg, Steve.
I'm genuinely touched - that's quite a compliment!!!OP - I'll reply in more detail tonight, but from my own experience, once you submit a reasoned defence, giving clear examples of why you believe the claim is invalid, there is a very good chance that this won't make it as far as a hearing.
From speaking to some of the legal reps that appear at court for the parking companies, they get paid whether they win or lose, so if it is a clear case that the claim is invalid, then the parking company will be reluctant to spend a few hundred quid on a legal rep.
Are some of those reps unlicensed advocates? Often those are people who have passed some exams, but have not completed a training contract or pupillage, and so are not regulated and sometimes not insured. They work for advocacy bucket shops, and maybe for captive debt collection law firms owned by companies.. Strictly speaking, the Courts could decline to hear them on some cases, but DJs tend to allow them to speak.
This is one consequence of the Tesco-law approach favoured by successive Governments that seek to erode regulated professions of all kinds. Experts? Down with them!
This is one consequence of the Tesco-law approach favoured by successive Governments that seek to erode regulated professions of all kinds. Experts? Down with them!
Breadvan72 said:
Are some of those reps unlicensed advocates? Often those are people who have passed some exams, but have not completed a training contract or pupillage, and so are not regulated and sometimes not insured. They work for advocacy bucket shops, and maybe for captive debt collection law firms owned by companies.. Strictly speaking, the Courts could decline to hear them on some cases, but DJs tend to allow them to speak.
This is one consequence of the Tesco-law approach favoured by successive Governments that seek to erode regulated professions of all kinds. Experts? Down with them!
Correct - often advocates from SCS/LPC at Canary Wharf- I know I could challenge their "right of audience" to be there, but rather than get bogged down in detail and procedure that I'm not entirely familiar with, I just get on with the job in hand. This is one consequence of the Tesco-law approach favoured by successive Governments that seek to erode regulated professions of all kinds. Experts? Down with them!
And I sort of enjoy playing with them.... But I also know that they would probably eat me alive on any other subject though.
Breadvan72 said:
Ah yes, hurling sweary insults at some possibly made up person on the internet is of course the reaction of the calm and reflective net citizen!
The use of antiquated language by some lawyers persists in some fields (land law, for example), but commercial lawyers in developed Anglophone countries have been using plain English since the 1980s, although more so in litigation than in transactional work. Transactional documents are often still far too long, and use too many synonyms, but these are neither essential not desirable features of legal drafting. The use of boilerplate and cut and pasted recycled language can be hazardous, as it isn't a substitute for clarity of thought and expression. Sometimes you see antiquated and unclear language used by organisations that have not taken recent legal advice on their documents.
Internet wannabe lawyers love to use archaic language, thinking that this makes them sound like real lawyers (some even become grumpy when teased by real lawyers for doing so). FOTL loons and others of the barrack room persuasion may adopt phrases which have little application in the relevant context. "Cease and desist letter" is one such phrase.
I think that some of this may derive from a suspicion that law is a sort of Harry Potter system in which the speaking of a spell, using specified words in a specified order, produces results. Bad legal systems can look like that (have a look at English law before about 1875, for example), but sensible legal systems don't rely on going to Hogwarts.
I always think “tool!” when someone uses the word “absent” instead of “without” on PH. Why do they do that?The use of antiquated language by some lawyers persists in some fields (land law, for example), but commercial lawyers in developed Anglophone countries have been using plain English since the 1980s, although more so in litigation than in transactional work. Transactional documents are often still far too long, and use too many synonyms, but these are neither essential not desirable features of legal drafting. The use of boilerplate and cut and pasted recycled language can be hazardous, as it isn't a substitute for clarity of thought and expression. Sometimes you see antiquated and unclear language used by organisations that have not taken recent legal advice on their documents.
Internet wannabe lawyers love to use archaic language, thinking that this makes them sound like real lawyers (some even become grumpy when teased by real lawyers for doing so). FOTL loons and others of the barrack room persuasion may adopt phrases which have little application in the relevant context. "Cease and desist letter" is one such phrase.
I think that some of this may derive from a suspicion that law is a sort of Harry Potter system in which the speaking of a spell, using specified words in a specified order, produces results. Bad legal systems can look like that (have a look at English law before about 1875, for example), but sensible legal systems don't rely on going to Hogwarts.
Edited by Breadvan72 on Monday 28th October 08:21
swagmeister said:
Got bored after page 3 however my tuppence worth.
Quotes of poor signage, signs not visible bla bla bla - however OP managed to see them when he wanted to even with a broken light and a van in the way.
Now doing my Columbo here, the ticket was first produced at X date which I would presume to be AFTER the event. Did the OP notice the broken light AFTER the event when checking for signage? who's to say said broken light wasn't working at time of the offense.
Was said van obscuring the sign at time of the offense or after the fact ? If obscured at time of the offense you DID see it to notice it was obscured. Both would suggest to me you either noticed them so they weren't that hard to see, or you went looking for them - must have done if you noticed the van in the way- how else would you know ? If you know it was obscured by the van that would suggest you have previously parked there and knew the location of the sign and the risk you took.
I'm with the pay up and shut up side of this. Blaming the signs ( which were there all along ) doesn't wash with me, Id also take a guess that OP visits said Chinese regularly and therefore parks in this private car park regularly ?
^ This. Quotes of poor signage, signs not visible bla bla bla - however OP managed to see them when he wanted to even with a broken light and a van in the way.
Now doing my Columbo here, the ticket was first produced at X date which I would presume to be AFTER the event. Did the OP notice the broken light AFTER the event when checking for signage? who's to say said broken light wasn't working at time of the offense.
Was said van obscuring the sign at time of the offense or after the fact ? If obscured at time of the offense you DID see it to notice it was obscured. Both would suggest to me you either noticed them so they weren't that hard to see, or you went looking for them - must have done if you noticed the van in the way- how else would you know ? If you know it was obscured by the van that would suggest you have previously parked there and knew the location of the sign and the risk you took.
I'm with the pay up and shut up side of this. Blaming the signs ( which were there all along ) doesn't wash with me, Id also take a guess that OP visits said Chinese regularly and therefore parks in this private car park regularly ?
The OP parked somewhere they knew they shouldn’t have, ignored the ticket, and now trying to find a technicality to allow them to weasel out of paying.
Just pay up and be a bit more considerate when parking in the future.
wjwren said:
Indeed. Although it was very extenuating circumstances. But hey ho, the problem I had at home was far more important than a court date or any fine etc I will incur. Just annoying as I would of liked nothing more than to attend, but so is life.
To be honest it reflects very badly on you not attending.You would be found guilty I suspect.
Oh dear, oh dear..... unless someone was dying I don't think it's more important. Hopefully that wasn't the case.
I suspect you will need to pay the fine, I wonder what that will be.
xjay1337 said:
To be honest it reflects very badly on you not attending.
You would be found guilty I suspect.
Oh dear, oh dear..... unless someone was dying I don't think it's more important. Hopefully that wasn't the case.
I suspect you will need to pay the fine, I wonder what that will be.
Found guilty? Pay fine? It wasnt a criminal matter and it isnt a fineYou would be found guilty I suspect.
Oh dear, oh dear..... unless someone was dying I don't think it's more important. Hopefully that wasn't the case.
I suspect you will need to pay the fine, I wonder what that will be.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff