A story of dishonesty, daylight robbery, disgust and deceit.

[Strangely Brown]

Dizeee said:

Strangely Brown said:

Dizeee said:

money that was taken unlawfully in the first place?

That has not been established.

You still defending the criminals who face an Asbo by the council?

No, just not accepting that the money was taken unlawfully. That has not been decided yet because the case has not been heard. Personally, I still think you were wrong to park there and that the signage and intended use of the space was perfectly clear.

That doesn't mean I don't wish you the best of luck though.

Edited by Strangely Brown on Thursday 17th September 15:00

[Mr Green]

Strangely Brown said:

Dizeee said:

Strangely Brown said:

Dizeee said:

money that was taken unlawfully in the first place?

That has not been established.

You still defending the criminals who face an Asbo by the council?

No, just not accepting that the money was taken unlawfully. That has not been decided yet because the case has not been heard. Personally, I still think you were wrong to park there and that the signage and intended use of the space was perfectly clear.

That doesn't mean I don't wish you the best of luck though.

Edited by Strangely Brown on Thursday 17th September 15:00

Agreed.

[Mr Green]

F i F said:

vonhosen said:

F i F said:

That situation above from Mr Green typifies why folks get brassed off with The Powers That Be.

TPTB say, " rule is a rule, letter of law"

MoP says " hang on you're supposed to have a sign/road marking, Traffic order which looks and reads like this : points at the law: yet yours looks like this : points at offending item:

TPTB says "Ah well but we were following the spirit of the law"

There is no common sense and give and take any more.

But having (quite properly) issued the ticket, the TW is probably not empowered to cancel it themselves. You'd have to appeal to the council.

And I'll put Mrs G's fine as a stake that the council knocks the appeal back at first shot.

My point still stands I think. I can take you to a place where the onstreet parking is signed outwith the regulations. Not just pettyfogging little mistakes but blatantly not to spec, not even close. The council know it's wrong, they cancel every ticket that I've known to be questioned, not at the first appeal but they just try it on. They always fold in the end.

Even tickets for stuff like payment in wrong P&D machine when the correct P&D machine wasn't working, so the driver has tried to do the right thing but not technically obeyed the letter of the law. But does the council set their house in order? No.

Be away with you vonhosen, no patience anymore.

Edited by F i F on Thursday 3rd September 19:55

Mrs Green won her appeal at the first shout.

[F i F]

Mr Green said:

F i F said:

vonhosen said:

F i F said:

That situation above from Mr Green typifies why folks get brassed off with The Powers That Be.

TPTB say, " rule is a rule, letter of law"

MoP says " hang on you're supposed to have a sign/road marking, Traffic order which looks and reads like this : points at the law: yet yours looks like this : points at offending item:

TPTB says "Ah well but we were following the spirit of the law"

There is no common sense and give and take any more.

But having (quite properly) issued the ticket, the TW is probably not empowered to cancel it themselves. You'd have to appeal to the council.

And I'll put Mrs G's fine as a stake that the council knocks the appeal back at first shot.

My point still stands I think. I can take you to a place where the onstreet parking is signed outwith the regulations. Not just pettyfogging little mistakes but blatantly not to spec, not even close. The council know it's wrong, they cancel every ticket that I've known to be questioned, not at the first appeal but they just try it on. They always fold in the end.

Even tickets for stuff like payment in wrong P&D machine when the correct P&D machine wasn't working, so the driver has tried to do the right thing but not technically obeyed the letter of the law. But does the council set their house in order? No.

Be away with you vonhosen, no patience anymore.

Mrs Green won her appeal at the first shout.

Furry nuff! Next lifeboat collector will get a fair donation as I clearly lost that one.

[Mr Green]

F I F said:

And I'll put Mrs G's fine as a stake that the council knocks the appeal back at first shot.

Sorry I misunderstood you, I thought you meant she would get a result.

She put her appeal in on the Trafford councils own web site but after 14 days they said they hadn't recieved it, after 2 phone calls she still gets it overturned, lucky cow.
It just goes to show that you should appeal everytime, it's got to be worth it. IMO they could have had her for going outside the 14 days appeal process, she had no proof she had lodged an appeal. Next time(and there probably will be a next time)she will appeal via e mail as well.

[F i F]

Mr Green said:

F I F said:

And I'll put Mrs G's fine as a stake that the council knocks the appeal back at first shot.

Sorry I misunderstood you, I thought you meant she would get a result.

She put her appeal in on the Trafford councils own web site but after 14 days they said they hadn't recieved it, after 2 phone calls she still gets it overturned, lucky cow.
It just goes to show that you should appeal everytime, it's got to be worth it. IMO they could have had her for going outside the 14 days appeal process, she had no proof she had lodged an appeal. Next time(and there probably will be a next time)she will appeal via e mail as well.

I'm pleased for you and Mrs G that a result was obtained even at the expense of a lost virtual bet. In my exprience a lot of appeals get the knock back at first attempt, almost as if the councils use it as a free throw of the dice hoping that you give up, pay up and move on.

Some councils must be more honest than others.

We had one the other day,, driver buys P&D ticket, sticks it in the windscreen fully on display held by the little plastic clip that Volvo supply attached to driver's door pillar. <<location of clip important see later.

Driver gets back to car, ticketed due to incorrect display of P&D ticket. WTF ticket valid, not out of time, easily read. So appeal goes in.

Council knocks it back pointing out to very small print that says ticket should be displayed on lower left hand side of screen. Therefore penalty valid.

Second appeal on basis that very small print does not say left hand side looking which way, evidence includes photo showing valid ticket clearly displayed on lower left of screen as you looked at the car. Council folded.

Must say I'm glad this happened to another of our mob because I regularly use that car park and always use the plastic clip. Forewarned forearmed.

But it brings me back to the original point that common sense has gone out of the window in pursuit of cash, the result that many basically very law abiding citizens have no respect for the authorities any more.,

[Kinky]

F i F said:

But it brings me back to the original point that common sense has gone out of the window in pursuit of cash, the result that many basically very law abiding citizens have no respect for the authorities any more.,

Totally agree. But added to that, I suspect there's an element of complete laziness too.

[Mr Green]

Just got back from Bolton town centre, I had a chat with a car park attendant behind the town hall he said if people 'over stay' what they have paid for he gives them a ticket from his £70 fine book. Most people wave 2 fingers at him and drive off, last week a solicitor did it.
Maybe these fines for parking are not enforceable and that's why clampers have flurished, if they stick a bloody great clamp on your car you have to pay to get your car back.

[Dizeee]

Update:

Received a load of paperwork today, all quite scruffy - basiclly PCM have now asked that the case be put on hold as their defence along with 2 others have all gone missing - the court have accepted all of this and I am no longer able to enforce my win by default, the rep Blake from PCM has requested a hearing and it is going to be transferred to a local court, Guildford probably.

The court sent me a copy of what Blake had sent them, it is quite lengthy and more or less states he deals with the bulk county court at Nottingham on a regular basis and constantly has issues with paperwork going missing etc due to the size and workload of the centre.

Not sure what I am going to do yet, I am concerned about going along to court as 1) I have no faith in the system / likelihood I will win and 2) I am genuinely unsure that I will be able to compose myself.

[JustinP1]

Dizeee said:

Update:

Received a load of paperwork today, all quite scruffy - basiclly PCM have now asked that the case be put on hold as their defence along with 2 others have all gone missing - the court have accepted all of this and I am no longer able to enforce my win by default, the rep Blake from PCM has requested a hearing and it is going to be transferred to a local court, Guildford probably.

The court sent me a copy of what Blake had sent them, it is quite lengthy and more or less states he deals with the bulk county court at Nottingham on a regular basis and constantly has issues with paperwork going missing etc due to the size and workload of the centre.

Not sure what I am going to do yet, I am concerned about going along to court as 1) I have no faith in the system / likelihood I will win and 2) I am genuinely unsure that I will be able to compose myself.

Relax.

He is playing the game.

You need to relax and just play the game too. It is not as bad as you think.

Think about it for a second - if he is claiming that 3 of his defences got lost, then how many is he actually sending? 10 a month, 20 a month, more? I do not think for one second that they pay him to go around the country, going to court and defending every claim.

They will simply go to grabbing the low-hanging fruit. That is most people won't argue their case to the clampers, less will start a claim - and even less will finish it when there is a modicum of defence.

If they were a solicitors who were concerned only about winning the claim - they would supply a bare-bones defence, and then wait until 7 days before the trial to disclose all of the evidence to disrupt the opponent.

There is a reason that they send so much stuff now - to put you off immediately. *They may never have any intention of coming to court.*

But even if they do, you are still perfectly entitled to produce a written statement of your claim to the court, you don't even need to be there in person. In that sense your case is simple - you print out a copy of the case law that was highlighted earlier in the thread, specifically highlighting the importance of the parker to *consent* to their clamping.

Your second and equally good line of attack is your letter of permission and relating this to the signage.

Your third line of attack is the fact that even *if* the court does not see the permission given as legally valid - *you* did. Therefore you entered into a contract on the basis of mistake and it therefore must be voided.

To do all this costs you nothing.

Don't let them win at the final hurdle otherwise this whole thread has been in vain.

[pugwash4x4]

JustinP1 said:

said a lot of good stuff

please stick at it- you've alread spent the money, and you don't have any need to be scared- court is really quite easy.

[Mr Tea]

My experience of the bulk centre is that it is rubbish, I have spoken with them before and been blase-ly told that "any paperwork the defendant sent in probably won't show up on our system as we have a 3 week cacklog"

[Dizeee]

pugwash4x4 said:

JustinP1 said:

said a lot of good stuff

please stick at it- you've alread spent the money, and you don't have any need to be scared- court is really quite easy.

:rofl@

Im not scared! I attend court frequently through work.

If I can do all this in my absence then so be it - should be fairly easy. Will look to send in the letter of permission etc.

[B Oeuf]

Mr Tea said:

a 3 week cacklog

is that a very bad backlog?

[JustinP1]

Dizeee said:

pugwash4x4 said:

JustinP1 said:

said a lot of good stuff

please stick at it- you've alread spent the money, and you don't have any need to be scared- court is really quite easy.

:rofl@

Im not scared! I attend court frequently through work.

If I can do all this in my absence then so be it - should be fairly easy. Will look to send in the letter of permission etc.

Don't send anything until just before 7 days before. Keep your cards to your chest.

Make them sweat.

It is at least 50/50 that they will make you an offer of settlement before the trial date - which will most likely be next year anyway.

[14-7]

Any updates Dizee?

[nigel_bytes]

This may cheer you up a little.

http://www.birminghammail.net/news/birmingham-news...

Disabled Birmingham driver wins wheel-clamp pay-out in court
Oct 12 2009 by Edward Chadwick, Birmingham Mail
Add a commentRecommend A DISABLED driver is today urging motorists to fight back against wheel-clampers after he won a four-year battle for compensation.

Lee Coughlan’s car was towed away and never returned after he parked on the car park of a doctor’s surgery to run an urgent errand.

The 40-year-old, who cheated death in a car crash in 1990, was forced to struggle on the bus for months as he was held to ransom by the firm who seized his Rover.

Clampers demanded £300 for towing the vehicle plus £40 for every day it was in storage.

But now Mr Coughlan is celebrating a hard-fought victory after Birmingham County Court awarded him £8,532 in damages for the value of his car and loss of use.

Because clampers Midlands Parking Contracts have gone bust since Mr Coughlan’s car was towed in February 2005, his legal team brought action against the owner of the surgery.

Dr Mohammed Alvi has been ordered to cough up a total of £23,000 including costs.

Mr Coughlan, from Chelmsley Wood, said: “I have tried to be independent since the crash and this whole thing left me feeling isolated and humiliated.

“I tried to plead with them but they said my blue disabled badge did not count because it was private land.

“There was no way I could afford to pay the money and it took a long time to scrape few hundred pounds together for an old banger.

“In my case, I had no choice but to fight them but it shows that people can win against clampers if they are prepared to try.” Mr Coughlan, who struggles to walk following the crash, had left his Rover 414 to try to buy an in-car charger for his phone because he was waiting for an important call from the hospital.

He said he did not believe an NHS doctor’s surgery would be classed as private land.

Mr Coughlan’s solicitor, Richard Holt, of Coleshill-based Evans Derry Binnion, instructed barristers to use a precedent at court which ruled that drivers cannot be clamped or towed unless they have seen signs and are aware that there is a risk.

Landowner Dr Alvi said he believed the ruling was unfair and will stuggle to pay the money.

“It’s private land. He should have respected that,” said the 70-year-old.

[odyssey2200]

So the land owner can be liable?

[Spartikus]

So what happened next.......?

[10 Pence Short]

odyssey2200 said:

So the land owner can be liable?

Considering the enforcement agents are acting on behalf of the landowner, you'd expect it in cases where the agent cannot be persued.