Advertisement
Parking penalty just, judge rules
Reporter: by BEATRIZ AYALA
Date online: 15/10/2008
A JUDGE sitting in Oldham has ruled in a landmark case over parking on private land.
Oldham County Court heard the case Combined Parking Solutions (CPS) versus Stephen Thomas yesterday.
Last November, car park managers CPS issued a penalty notice of £85, reduced to £65 if paid promptly, against 26-year-old Stephen Thomas.
It was issued on behalf of its client St Andrew’s Church, Rochdale, after Mr Thomas’s vehicle was parked on the church’s private car park without a permit.
The court heard how Mr Thomas, from Chadwick Street, Rochdale, was the vehicle’s registered owner and admitted to having parked at the church before.
But he could not remember if he had been driving the car when the ticket was issued and said he had not seen the car park warning signs.
Mike Perkins, from CPS, said the day the charge was issued, Mr Thomas had accessed a consumer internet site outlining the incident and asking for help.
He also claimed Mr Thomas modified the original wording when he was informed the matter would be brought to court.
Mr Thomas admitted making a post on the website but could not remember what he wrote.
District Judge Ackroyd said on the balance of probabilities, Mr Thomas was driving the car.
He did not accept that Mr Thomas had not seen the warning signs so had, therefore, entered into a contract. And he said the charges were not disproportionately high so awarded the case to CPS.
Mr Thomas will have to pay the now £135 parking charge with £1.86 interest.
The judge also ruled he must pay a £25 listing fee, £25 hearing fee, as well as £68 for Mr Perkins’ mileage and £3.50 for parking.
Speaking after the hearing, Mr Perkins said: “This is a landmark hearing.
“Internet sites have always said these are unenforceable penalties. The judge clearly stated a contract was entered into, although the defendant never admitted to being the driver.
“I would warn people from going on these internet sites. If you have a legal question, see a solicitor.”
Comments
Oh well, if you're as obsessed as Mr Perkins to get one over on an internet forum and keep trying these cases, he was bound to get the right judge sooner or later. I understand this is going to be appealed.
As for Mr Perkins, it ain't much of a business model wasting time in court for a measly £135. I doubt we'll see him again as he retreats into his hole in the ground.
The above case is widley believed to be a set up, CPS has been challenged on many occasions by the moderators of CAG and Pepipoo to challenge them in court, thus far he has refused as many of these cases keep losing. For your information alot of the CPS website has been removed.
Quite simply he doesnt own the land so he cant issue penalties.
The case sited above is now widely believed to be a set up ny CPS in order to frighten people. Mr Perkins of CPS has been caught and banned from websites posing as perky88.
Also pepipo has challnged CPS to fight them in court, he has refused, also alot of his website has disapeared. Go figure.
What a load of rubbish, People on internet forums do give incorrect advice to people who don’t understand the issue. Always seek professional advice don’t listen to people who sit on a computer and copy and paste bits of law & legislation into a forum.
Not rubbish ,I took my advice from a solicitor, the advice was the same as the forums, they sent off a letter I never heard from them again. OH and what about buisines rates for each car park. Doesnt he have to declare each site as a buisines to the tax man.
This may interest Combined parking solutions.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-542355/Judge-quashes-300-parking-fine--set-frighten-intimidate-driver.html
An unlawful penalty
Here is another case to add to your ''legal issues'' Note that is the forum that combined parking solutons owner AKA Mr Perkins was barred from and despises.
http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/parking-traffic-offences/226924-opc-have-started-proceedings.html
These companies are acting outside of the law, this proves it. Including Combined Parkign solutions
More news as I find it.
All of the advice is from forum advice.
Don't park on somebody elses land. Seems simple enough really, but yet not simple enough for arrogant 'i'll park wherever I want, blocking whichever pavement I want, arrogant drivers'
Have Your Say
The word landmark hearing must not be misunderstood - it is a landmark against the various internet sites out there who say they are not valid tickets, but not a landmark in respect of a legal standing.
I agree with the end comments, if you have a legal question see a qualified solicitor not someone you dont know on an anonomous website ... I mean if you're ill you see a doctor not ask a stranger and beleive them !!!
By lefty99 @ 15/10/2008 12:43:18
Report this comment (883)