A private parking ticket was put on my car a few weeks ago.
My policy is to avoid these things, and I have a permit for the multi-storey concerned.
In this instance, I forgot to display the permit, so from Euro Car Parks' point of view the car was not showing a valid ticket.
It is, of course, beyond the wit of the goon who issued it to think: "I know that bloke with the blue Focus has a permit, so I'll cut him a bit of slack."
In common with my other two, I will not be paying this one.
First letter has arrived demanding £70 and threatening dire consequences if the money is not forthcoming.
I will try to make this thread a case history - updating it as each threat arrives.
But it will take some stamina.
If the other two tickets are any guide, it will be 18 months or more before the parking company gives up.
|
|
The goons running the Aldi one gave up remarkable quickly in Nicoles case. Just two threatening letters in the space of two weeks, and then nothing. Must be al least two months now.
|
|
When this new law comes into effect, making the registered keeper responsible for the bill, will it be retrospective?
|
>> When this new law comes into effect, making the registered keeper responsible for the bill,
>> will it be retrospective?
>>
How will the politicians exempt themselves from that? Government owned cars for all?
|
>> When this new law comes into effect, making the registered keeper responsible for the bill,
>> will it be retrospective?
No. Last update I saw was for the section to be commenced in October. Maybe longer than that as DfT need to introduce secondary legislation to provide detail on some matters such as signage.
BPA also need to set up an appeal system which may take longer than they think too.
|
>> from Euro Car Parks' point of view the car was not showing a valid ticket.
<<
Which it wasn't, so I fail to see any reason to wriggle out of paying the fine.
Clearly collecting so many parking tickets shows an irresponsible attitude to parking.
Pat
|
>> >> from Euro Car Parks' point of view the car was not showing a valid
>> ticket.
>> <<
>>
>> Which it wasn't, so I fail to see any reason to wriggle out of paying
>> the fine.
>>
>> Clearly collecting so many parking tickets shows an irresponsible attitude to parking.
>>
>> Pat
>>
Agree. See no scam in this as Iffy already is aware of the need to have a permit to park there ("I have a permit for the multi-storey concerned").
>> beyond the wit of the goon who issued it to think >>
If anyone, it was Iffy who was the goon here.
Last edited by: John H on Thu 24 May 12 at 13:00
|
>> Agree. See no scam in this as Iffy already is aware of the need to
>> have a permit to park there ("I have a permit for the multi-storey concerned").
>>
>> >> beyond the wit of the goon who issued it to think >>
>>
>> If anyone, it was Iffy who was the goon here.
I too fail to see why the attendant was a goon and why iffy was not at fault. Unless the attendant is expected to memorise every car and owner, and know which have permits without them being displayed.
|
Not sure you've good grounds for a fight here Iffy. Understand the issue with m/way services where an honest overstay is possible but in this case you're in the wrong; requirement is to have and DISPLAY the pass.
I'd write to them and plead honest mistake; forgot, dropped on floor or whatever. Hopefully they'll let you off if you can show permit properly held.
If you use the car park regularly there's a danger they'll escalate it by applying clamp.
|
...If you use the car park regularly there's a danger they'll escalate it by applying clamp...
That's possible, but isn't clamping in these circumstances now illegal under the new Act?
As it has been in Scotland for a few years.
And what tends to happen is the case is passed to various collection companies who each have a couple of tries before shunting it on to the next one, so the local connection is quickly lost.
I believe the cases are sold in bulk, but for very little money, a few pounds per thousand.
Last edited by: Iffy on Thu 24 May 12 at 14:27
|
>> That's possible, but isn't clamping in these circumstances now illegal under the new Act?
>>
The act is not yet effective.
A few sections come into force between May and July but so far as I can tell no order has yet been laid for section 54 which deals with clamping. Neither is there any movement on s55 - power to remove vehicles on private land - or s56/Sched4 which provide for keeper liability.
www.legislation.gov.uk/2012?title=Protection%20of%20Freedoms%20Act%20
So far as the latter is concerned commencememt in England and Wales is separate and may not occur on same day as Welsh Ministers are responsible for the order in their territory.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Thu 24 May 12 at 14:49
|
Pat,
Parking in a multi-storey is not irresponsible parking.
So many? Matter of opinion, but three in best part of three years is not a lot - in my opinion.
JohnH,
Ignore the permit for a moment, the scam is they are trying to charge me £70 for five minutes of parking - the length of time the attendant observed my car without a ticket.
|
>> Ignore the permit for a moment, the scam is they are trying to charge me
>> £70 for five minutes of parking - the length of time the attendant observed my
>> car without a ticket.
>>
>>
Stop whinging, You agreed to the permit rules and broke them through your lack of attention to detail. Do you also ignore details like red traffic lights and pedestrians on crossings?
Pay up, its only a tank of fuel. :-)
Last edited by: Old Navy on Thu 24 May 12 at 14:27
|
...Do you also ignore details like red traffic lights and pedestrians on crossings?...
Stupid and invalid comparison.
Next.
|
>>Parking in a multi-storey is not irresponsible parking<<
.....without your permit in the window is.
I bet most people who live outside of London have never had a parking ticket.
Pat
|
....without your permit in the window is...
Forgetting to put a piece of paper on the dashboard is irresponsible?
Wow.
|
I'm with Iffy on this one.
£70 is ridiculous...and..a scam.
What's wrong with a tenner?
|
>> I'm with Iffy on this one.
>>
>> £70 is ridiculous...and..a scam.
>>
>> What's wrong with a tenner?
In that case so is a FPN for speeding, parking, anything that is deterrent based.
Would you agree to 10 quid speeding fines?
|
>> Pat,
>>
>> Parking in a multi-storey is not irresponsible parking.
>>
>> So many? Matter of opinion, but three in best part of three years is not
>> a lot - in my opinion.
It's a lot in my opinion. In all my 55 years of driving I've not had a single parking ticket.
|
Me neither, and that includes kerbside deliveries in all major cities.
|Pat
|
|
Respect the rules or suffer the consequences. tinyurl.com/cb5d9r9
|
...Respect the rules or suffer the consequences...
Yes, the parking company must respect the fact they have suffered only a trespass for which the only legal remedy is damages - not a fine pulled from the air.
The amount of damages would be decided by a civil court, but the amount must equate closely to the amount of money the company has not had by me not paying - a couple of pounds at most.
The company knows this, which is why I won't be sued.
|
>> Yes, the parking company must respect the fact they have suffered only a trespass
Although you do have a permit.
|
...Although you do have a permit...
Quite.
Now expired, but valid for that day.
I've kept it just in case I get my day in court.
|
The scam is the £70...no doubt sent by a demand made to look like a police or council parking penalty notice. Lots of yellow and black checker patterns round the edge.
In my book, these are purely to intimidate the more vulnerable in society, which Rob possibly/probably is :-)
I'm with you , buddyboy...cause the beggars as much trouble as you can ! Folks round here only have to drive through a local car park to get these demands.
They make their money this way, not from the couple of quid put in the machine.
Ted
|
Damned right Ted. It is a disgusting scam.
£70 may be a week's money for a pensioner or a full day's work for a low-paid guy.
I just flew from Warsaw to London last week and got £20 change from the £70.
And the crime? Iffy didn't show ticket one day. Staggers me that monkeys think the 'penalty' fits the 'crime'.
Anyone who exits Tesco without waving a receipt to security guy. £70 please.
Be sure you leave a huge ticket stuck on your living room window when you've paid your community charge - or else £70 please.
My clients who haven't paid me before 90 days - lots of yellow and black checker patterns around my invoice and pretend the police delivered it. And an extra £70 please.
|
>> I just flew from Warsaw to London last week and got £20 change from the
>> £70.
They made you pay before you got on
Funny that, thats the same as car parking charges.
|
"They made you pay before you got on
Funny that, thats the same as car parking charges."
Missed the flight on the way back though. Sat on the tube, in a tunnel for nearly ninety minutes in the same spot. The gate closed 4 minutes before I got there.
I wonder if me and a few hundred people should be sticking penalties all over the tube window. And compensating me for having to take another flight. And a hotel for the night.
|
Ok then, let's look at this from another angle.
>>The maximum penalty for failure to display a current tax disc is £200.<<
The minimum penalty is £60.
A tax disc is visual proof that you have paid up front to use the road, just as the car park permit is visual proof that you don't have to pay or have prepaid.
How is it any different?
OK so you forgot to display it but if you were stopped by plod for failing to display a tax disc you wouldn't expect to use that excuse and get away with it or whinge about it.
You'd give yourself a kick up the apex for being forgetful and pay up quietly.....and you wouldn't forget again!
Pat
Last edited by: pda on Thu 24 May 12 at 18:01
|
>> Ok then, let's look at this from another angle.
>>
>> >>The maximum penalty for failure to display a current tax disc is £200.<<
>>
>> The minimum penalty is £60.
>>
>> A tax disc is visual proof that you have paid up front to use the
>> road, just as the car park permit is visual proof that you don't have to
>> pay or have prepaid.
>>
>> How is it any different?
There's two offences with tax discs. 1, not having one...2, not displaying one.
1, Is and should be reported and prosecuted........2, On its' own is rarely reported or prosecuted, what's the point?
It's why I don't bother displaying a tax disc on my motorcycle (it's in my motorcycle jacket pocket, so I can show it on demand...although i've never had to). I don't want it ruined by water..or..stolen.
|
...It's why I don't bother displaying a tax disc on my motorcycle...
Seems to me the tax disc is going the way of the MoT.
It's what's on the relevant database that's important, the paper copy is increasingly unimportant.
|
"A tax disc is visual proof that you have paid up front to use the road, just as the car park permit is visual proof that you don't have to pay or have prepaid.
How is it any different?"
The difference is that one is a tax disc and the other is a private company. If my tax disc slipped out of view, I would pay the penalty. No question.
If you bought a £5 ticket for the cinema but by mistake, you sat in the wrong seat (the company must show that they have suffered some kind of monetary loss i.e your space could have been filled by another paying customer as Rudedog says) would you pay the penalty? £60? Course not. Only motorists. Motorists, motorists, motorists.
I would genuinely apologise to the officer for reporting me for not displaying my tax disc, chat with him for two minutes and shake his hand. The cinema usher would be genuinely lying on his back, choking to death as I fill his face with popcorn and the yellow and black-checker patterned penalty.
|
The company must show that they have suffered some kind of monetary loss i.e your space could have been filled by another paying customer, but as you had a permit they have suffered no loss even though you forgot to display it.
The same thing has happened on numerous occasions in the hospital staff car park where I work, it's caused so many problems that the car company running the car park have eventually gone over to a 'virtual' permit scheme, where no permit has to be displayed but the details are held on a PDA linked to the payroll so they know who's paid and who hasn't.
|
>> The company must show that they have suffered some kind of monetary loss i.e your
>> space could have been filled by another paying customer, but as you had a permit
>> they have suffered no loss even though you forgot to display it.
The "penalty" (yes i know its not) is a deterrent, not "actual loss"
For example, I got a genuine PCN. The actual loss to the LA was 9 pounds. The Fine was 65 quid.
You enter the car park and you agree to the terms. The terms are you show your right to be there (by ticket you purchased or permit) or pay you pay the "penalty" (yes I know its not).
Your only arguments are
The contract was not clear (wasn't fully explained or the signs were not visible - "I didn't read them" is a losing argument)
or
The contract terms are unfair. The last part you would probably lose on because they can show the LA level of "fines" as deterrent guidance.
Your winning part is proving WHO entered the contract. They can't prove that at all. Unless you tell them.
Last edited by: Zero on Thu 24 May 12 at 18:15
|
Good to see that you're taking it in the right spirit Iffy.
I had a spate of these things, all for parking at a site that uses CCTV. The whole process for each one was almost exactly 6 months from first demand, to the last debt collector letter.
I used to get a chuckle out of opening them, especially all of the little details, such as them including what they claim to be a blown up image of the rear number plate...if only they'd got the colour of the plate right!
I wonder how things will change with the new legislation.
I suspect that most of the companies will continue as before, issue the threats and then never go to court.
At the moment I reckon that the majority of people pay up anyway...easy money...so why risk it by going to court and losing against the few that don't buckle?
Last edited by: SteelSpark on Thu 24 May 12 at 18:26
|
Will they "know who you are" through the permit scheme or will they have to depend on DVLA data ?
I think it's unfair to refer to the chap as a "goon" - I know of a couple of graduates that do this work because they can't find any other work. They are decent people who prefer to work in a crap job rather than claim benefits.
Last edited by: R.P. on Thu 24 May 12 at 19:54
|
...Will they "know who you are" through the permit scheme or will they have to depend on DVLA data ?...
The scam invoice is issued centrally from the registered keeper's details which they buy from the DVLA.
Having said that, I've used the car park off(hip) and on for several years, so a couple of the longer serving staff know who I am informally.
The car park has been under three, or perhaps four, management companies in that time.
The staff I know to speak to have transferred to each company when it took over.
|
|
They would need to have visually identified you at that time parking the car. Historical chance meetings don't count. They can't sue the car, and you don't have to confirm it was you
Last edited by: Zero on Thu 24 May 12 at 20:10
|
|
No he doesn't - currently. Identifying yourself to them is a downfall..
|
I'm on the second or third threatening letter from the APCOA solicitors, still haven't communicated with them and don't intend to.
However (and this might sound like a pattern is forming) I have a proper Penalty Charge Notice from Harrow Council, which comes complete with photo. I'd been for an interview, was stuck in traffic and desperate for choccy and a drink, so in the two mins it took me to park on the double yellow and get the goods, the camera operator ((it's clearly taken from a distance, and above the road by quite a bit) snapped my car.
I'm fully expecting to pay it, but I don't suppose there is any rule like it must be served within a particular time, as per speeding etc, as it took them 13 days to issue it.
Just beware that street cameras are also used to catch parking violations now. Not something I'd realised (except specific bus lane ones).
|
>
>>
>> Just beware that street cameras are also used to catch parking violations now. Not something
>> I'd realised (except specific bus lane ones).
I have seen enforcement cars with google street view type cameras running around some London boroughs.
|
"I have seen enforcement cars with google street view type cameras running around some London boroughs"
They have these in Dartford and the Medway towns too.
|
Smokie,
IIRC the PCN must be served within 14 days of the alleged infringement.
In your shoes unless I was absolutely clear the Council were late I'd pay up to get the discounted rate. Stopping for choccy is no defence!!
|
>> Smokie,
>>
>> IIRC the PCN must be served within 14 days of the alleged infringement.
I don't think thats right about the 14 day notice period to serve the PCN, You do have to pay or appeal within 14 days of receipt of same tho.
|
|
I'm going to pay - I got a job, but not the one I was interviewed for that day.
|
Identity won't come into my case.
There will be no contact unless it reaches the county court, where I will cough the job and invite the judge to set an appropriate level of damages, having regard to the loss I have caused the company - five minutes of parking charges.
Last edited by: Iffy on Thu 24 May 12 at 20:37
|
|
Surely you haven't cost them anything because your permit was prepaid for the time period, I'm guessing the permit system is run using your number plate being on a database and that's how they know if you have a valid permit and are allowed to park without having to buy a ticket.
|
Our local Morrisons, which now has a tram station by the end of the car park, took on a parking enforcement lot to start taking pictures of cars and matching them up to £2 tickets bought.
The scheme lasted no more than a week....customers were staying away in droves. You could get your money back at the till if you spent over £20. I called in for something specific SWM wanted for a recipe......I had a good idea they wouldn't have it so I certainly wasn't going to pay for a failed mission.......nothing ever came of it, although I wait with trepidation and fear...not ! Got what she wanted at Lidl.
Even with the trams in full service, there are still plenty of empty spaces...although that might be due to customers still staying away 'cos it's such a rubbish store !
Ted
|
>> There will be no contact unless it reaches the county court, where I will cough
>> the job and invite the judge to set an appropriate level of damages, having regard
>> to the loss I have caused the company - five minutes of parking charges.
I personally couldn't be bothered with all that amount of time, inconvenience, and generally faffing about. I've got better things to do. Me, I'd pay the £70 and be done with it. That's assuming I'd done something daft enough to attract their attention in the first place ~ which I wouldn't.
Last edited by: L'escargot on Fri 25 May 12 at 08:53
|
...That's assuming I'd done something daft enough to attract their attention in the first place ~ which I wouldn't...
The permit is a small piece of paper and I am sometimes in and out of the car park several times a day, so it's easy enough to forget to deploy it occasionally.
I may look into displaying it permanently, but I'm not keen on anything which obscures the windscreen.
As regards faffing about in court, I won't have to because the parking company knows it will not be cost effective for them to sue me.
|
>>the parking company knows it will not be cost effective for them to sue me.
<<
That sums it up for me really.
When I look on Pepipoo, MSE forums and deal with our lorry drivers refusing to pay for parking I see this phrase used often.
The first time it happens I can forgive and will happily advise on a persons 'rights' but so many times I see this gung ho attitude that says 'I've got away with it once, so I can park anywhere now without paying'
Before we know where we are the same people are posting on the parking forums that they've just got another one, and gloating that they won't be paying it.
I don't support that, and never will do.
Pat
Last edited by: pda on Fri 25 May 12 at 09:46
|
>> Before we know where we are the same people are posting on the parking forums
>> that they've just got another one, and gloating that they won't be paying it.
>>
>> I don't support that, and never will do.
Once s56 of the Protection of Freedoms Act and it's associated Schedule come in the keeper is on the hook for whatever charge/add ons are properly displayed.
I'll be getting supplies of popcorn for the ensuing entertainment in the courts.
|
...I'll be getting supplies of popcorn for the ensuing entertainment in the courts...
There may be some because I think judges will be uncomfortable with enforcing a large bill for a few minutes overstay or a moment of forgetfulness.
I've seen cases in the criminal courts of judges who step outside their remit by making the law, rather than simply applying it.
A serial nuisance dropped a can of pop and wasn't charged with littering, but was charged with breach of his anti-social behaviour order.
Crown Court judge: "I'm not sending a man to prison just for dropping a tin, whatever the law says."
So if the parking companies are wise rather than greedy, they will ask for smaller sums than most do currently.
|
>> ...I'll be getting supplies of popcorn for the ensuing entertainment in the courts...
>>
>> There may be some because I think judges will be uncomfortable with enforcing a large
>> bill for a few minutes overstay or a moment of forgetfulness.
Why not? They enforce a LA PCN for 130 quid under the same circumstances, so whats the difference?
|
...Why not? They enforce a LA PCN for 130 quid under the same circumstances, so whats the difference?...
A local authority is a statutory body and has the power in these circumstances to punish the individual by way of a fine.
The process is also well-established.
For the private companies, it's new law.
Courts treat new laws with suspicion, until it, too, becomes established.
It may not go the way I think, but there will be some odd decisions as the courts get to grips with the new legislation.
That oddness could work for - or against - the driver.
I wouldn't want to be one of the guinea pigs.
|
I am offering to pay reasonable damages, as Westpig said earlier, what's wrong with a tenner, or one day's parking?
If a Euro Car Parks employee damaged my property to the tune of £70, they wouldn't give me £700.
I got another one of these tickets at the hospital which I could have ignored.
But it was asking for £15 - see 'reasonable damages' above - so I paid it.
|
>> I may look into displaying it permanently, but I'm not keen on anything which obscures
>> the windscreen.
>>
When I had a 'period' ticket for the station car park it sat in a thing like a tax disc holder but mounted behind the driving mirror. I think they were supplied by one of the numerous companies contracted to run the car park over the years. No doubt they're available commercially as well.
|
>> I won't have to because the parking company knows
>> it will not be cost effective for them to sue me.
Even when it isn't cost effective, some companies sue just to make it known to others that that's their policy.
|
Perhaps with the introduction of the act, and the introduction of a proper appeals system, parking companies will behave in a proper manner.
Then, the calls for drivers to "play fair" may carry more weight.
Take my example, of a firm that sent me demands with faked pictures of licence plates, followed by threatening "bailiff" letters, ramping up claimed costs, when they knew full well that they would never enforce them, but that it might scare some people into paying. It is, quite rightly, called a scam by Iffy.
If the parking firms use these tricks, then I fail to see why drivers should play fair when dealing with them.
I hold out no great hope for the new appeals system however.
If council parking ticket enforcement is anything to go by, they'll reject all appeals, until the last moment (sometimes even going to PATAS, and then not turning up), hoping that the driver will buckle, even though the appeal is clearly valid.
Last edited by: SteelSpark on Fri 25 May 12 at 14:31
|
They haven't forgotten me.
I now 'owe' £115 to controlaccount Credit Management plc who are threatening all sorts of dire consequences if I don't pay.
|
>> I now 'owe' £115 to controlaccount Credit Management plc who are threatening all sorts of
>> dire consequences if I don't pay.
>>
I think it would be best if you paid up.
;-)
|
"Credit Management plc "
That the Piranha Brothers outfit isn't it?
|
|
Keep fighting iffy. I'll give you £25 towards your losses, if there are any!
|
What if the registered keeper is a corporation which can be dissolved in the bat of an eye? ;)
That's what I have done, registered to a aloof and pompous-named corporation at my address. Any problem, I just send the V5 to DVLA and get it changed and the old corporation becomes dissolved along with any liabilities.
All I say, is use neat block capitals so it is all done by OCR, no human intervention.
Last edited by: sooty tailpipes on Mon 2 Jul 12 at 17:46
|
>> >> I now 'owe' £115 to controlaccount Credit Management plc who are threatening all sorts
>> of
>> >> dire consequences if I don't pay.
>> >>
>>
>> I think it would be best if you paid up.
So do I. After all, you freely admit to not having abided by the rules.
|
>> They haven't forgotten me.
>>
>> I now 'owe' £115 to controlaccount Credit Management plc who are threatening all sorts of
>> dire consequences if I don't pay.
I have lost track, is this your second ticket or the third one? Either way its getting interesting at last.
|
>> Im with Iffy on this.
>>
Et tu, Brentus?
|
>> Im with Iffy on this.
There you go iffy, here is an offer of 50% to your "fine"
|
|
What an uninformative article that is, terrine journalism, reveals none of the grounds for "misleading the customers"
|
...I will try to make this thread a case history - updating it as each threat arrives...
Another letter landed this week, that's number three.
Seems I still 'owe' £115, and 'this is not going to go away'.
We shall see.
|
No blue badge (can you get one to cover 4-6 weeks) but Mrs/Miss B are using the disabled bays on supermarket car parks while ferrying me and my crutches around.
Perhaps I should laminate my 'fit note' and put it in the car window.
|
As you know, the blue badge scheme does not apply on private land, although some supermarkets adopt it.
The worst you will get if you park there is, er, another pesky scam parking ticket.
Blue badges are not issued for temporary injuries such as broken legs, even though they are just as incapacitating as arthritic hips.
Do you really think you will be off the crutches in four to six weeks?
Hope you're right, but my guess is it will be a bit longer.
|
>> As you know, the blue badge scheme does not apply on private land, although some
>> supermarkets adopt it.
>>
>> The worst you will get if you park there is, er, another pesky scam parking
>> ticket.
>>
>> Blue badges are not issued for temporary injuries such as broken legs, even though they
>> are just as incapacitating as arthritic hips.
>>
>> Do you really think you will be off the crutches in four to six weeks?
>>
>> Hope you're right, but my guess is it will be a bit longer.
If I get ticketed on Tescobury's car park for abuse of disabled I'll appeal to their better nature with the implication that publicity for fining a man on crutches wouldn't be good. In push/shove mode I'll take your line and refuse to pay.
As to how long I'm on crutches the hospital said six weeks with 'toe touch' weight bearing. The physioterrorist who saw me at home today suggested that if the bones were knitting OK at my next outpatient clinic - 3 weeks post Op - then I might be allowed full weight bearing with a stick. He's the only person whose suggested that and conflicting or incomplete messages have been my biggest gripe about the whole process.
I've got a govt secure work at home laptop on order for delivery next week so should be on a 'phased return' once that's up and running. Once I'm fit to travel to the office I can either return it or surrender my desktop and be a full time laptop user and able to work anywhere there's wireless.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Thu 12 Jul 12 at 20:08
|
Good, seems you are well-organised.
It also seems your break will heal a lot faster than my replacement, which makes sense.
As regards the conflicting messages, I wouldn't pay too much attention to the calendar.
If my recovery is anything to go by, you will instinctively know when you pass each stage.
For example, I recall arriving in my bathroom only to then realise I'd got there on one crutch instead of two.
Sounds a bit daft, but that is how these things tend to happen.
|
>
>> As to how long I'm on crutches the hospital said six weeks with 'toe touch'
>> weight bearing. The physioterrorist who saw me at home today suggested that if the bones
>> were knitting OK at my next outpatient clinic - 3 weeks post Op - then
>> I might be allowed full weight bearing with a stick. He's the only person whose
>> suggested that and conflicting or incomplete messages have been my biggest gripe about the whole
>> process.
There is a current new(ish) line of thinking, that breaks that are "worked" knit stronger and faster (certainly for non displaced fractures)
My broken ankle (fibula non displaced) was accompanied with a rigid plastic boot and told to weight bear ASAP, and my last break - Non displaced fracture of the upper radius (elbow) was accompanied with the instructions to work the joint as much as possible to recover radial movement.
|
...that breaks that are "worked" knit stronger and faster...
Same applies to hips, they get you up within hours of the operation.
It matters not that you cannot take the two steps to the bedside seat unaided.
An acquaintance who had a hip replacement took a long while to get going because when she got home, she allowed herself to be looked after and waited on by family.
Living alone saved me from this, if I wanted a cup of tea, I had to get up and make it.
|
'..that breaks that are "worked" knit stronger and faster...'
There are other issues: getting the patient up and as mobile as possible encourages blood circulation and helps prevent stiffness as well as muscle wasting.
The more active you are (within limits, obviously) the faster your recovery will be.
Last edited by: FocalPoint on Sat 14 Jul 12 at 11:18
|
Well while we were on holiday someone used my wifes Beetle and overstayed in a retail park by 14 mins.
Received letter in post showing poor resolution photos of registration plates and a demand for £70!
My only decision to make is to whether to bin the letter straight away or keep a little file going!!!
They won't be getting any correspondence from us that's for sure!
|
|
Oh keep a file, definitely, just don't respond to any of their letters. Its fun to show your friends.
|
Bobby,
It occurs to me that if infringement took place in England/Wales then proceeding against you in Scotland may add a level of complication.
|
Brompton, infringement took place in Scotland.
Will start the file....
|
Well so far I have had 2 letters in from the parking firm which I ignored and this morning received a letter from some company called Roxburgh who have been passed the debt to recover.
Not at the sleepless nights stage yet.....
|
>> ignored and this morning received a letter from some company called Roxburgh who have been
>> passed the debt to recover.
>>
see about 2/3 rds down the page:
forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=2214803
When they start phoning you, follow this example:
forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=741653
|
More letters! So far
13 July Euro Car Parks notification
8 Aug ECP enforcement (in big bold red letters)
12 Sep Roxburghe Debt Collectors
25 Sept Graham White Solicitors
8 Oct Graham White Solicitors FINAL WARNING
Hopefully, being Final, I won't hear from them again........
|
>> 25 Sept Graham White Solicitors
>> 8 Oct Graham White Solicitors FINAL WARNING
>>
>> Hopefully, being Final, I won't hear from them again........
>>
Graham White Solicitors? Somewhere in Hertfordshire?
|
>>
>> >> 25 Sept Graham White Solicitors
>> >> 8 Oct Graham White Solicitors FINAL WARNING
>> >>
>> >> Hopefully, being Final, I won't hear from them again........
>> >>
>>
>> Graham White Solicitors? Somewhere in Hertfordshire?
West Byfleet, Surrey.
|
>> More letters! So far
>>
>> 13 July Euro Car Parks notification
>> 8 Aug ECP enforcement (in big bold red letters)
>> 12 Sep Roxburghe Debt Collectors
>> 25 Sept Graham White Solicitors
>> 8 Oct Graham White Solicitors FINAL WARNING
>>
>> Hopefully, being Final, I won't hear from them again........
Graham White Solicitors are just round the corner from where I live, want me to pop in and tell them to eff off on your behalf? I will get FiFi to crap on their doorstep if you like.
|
|
Thats the ones Zero - can I send down a couple of Finn's wee black bags for you to put through their letterbox as well??
|
>> 25 Sept Graham White Solicitors
>> 8 Oct Graham White Solicitors FINAL WARNING
>>
>> Hopefully, being Final, I won't hear from them again........
>>
Are these they?
www.grahamwhite.co.uk/
Bushey, Herts.
|
>> No - its not them.
Graham White Bushey tinkled a distant bell.
My unillustrious career in government service began as a clerk in the County Court in 197x. There were a number of solicitors firms who's main business was the 'bulk process' stuff pursuing debt on behalf of HP/loan companies such as UDT, Julian Hodge and Provident.
Interesting to see they're still mining rich seams on the modern equivalent,
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Thu 11 Oct 12 at 23:07
|
Graham White Solicitors dont actually exist. Funnily enough this company
www.roxburghe.com/contactus.php
reside there as well. They are the debt collection agency.
|
Letter head says Graham White Solictors is a trading name of Michael Sobell, Solictitor. They are at Manor House - Roxburghs are at Roxburgh House.
Whats the bets they have common directors??
|
|
Hey, we haven't heard from Iffy for a while, whats the betting the Bailiffs have turned up and repossessed his PC? Jailed for non payment perhaps?
|
>> Hey, we haven't heard from Iffy for a while, whats the betting the Bailiffs have
>> turned up and repossessed his PC? Jailed for non payment perhaps?
IIIRC Rob/RP had been in touch and Iffers is 'taking a break from the forum'.
|
>> It was a joke!
>> sheesh.
Please feel free to help yourself to some of these, Zero. No charge, honest:
;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-)
Only joking!
|
|
Nothing free in this life ole son.
|
>> Nothing free in this life ole son.
Pfft that's rich coming from the freeloading pensioner!
|
>> >> Nothing free in this life ole son.
>>
>> Pfft that's rich coming from the freeloading pensioner!
>>
Hey! careful with that, I am below free bus fare and prescription age!
|
As per my post above,
www.car4play.com/forum/post/index.htm?t=10710&m=265622&v=e
MSE has a list and samples of all the letters in the chain.
Graham White:
i1134.photobucket.com/albums/m618/rjcb23/Snapbucket/gwl.jpg
Peipoo, MSE, and consumeractiongroup websites have a lot of information about Michael Sobbel and Graham White Solicitors but this one is interesting:
abrightonboyblogs.co.uk/2011/08/graham-white-solicitors-parking-companies-and-the-law/
p.s. note that some of these pesky companies take particular interest in people who post online the progress of their parking dispute.
|
>> Graham White Solicitors dont actually exist. Funnily enough this company
>> www.roxburghe.com/contactus.php
>> reside there as well. They are the debt collection agency.
It doesn't matter what they are called. Anybody in that neck of the woods is dodgy!
;-)
|
I think the case of Vehicle Control Services v Ibbotson in Scunny County Ct has been mentioned upthread somewhere.
Basically they were enforcing for Wickes and ticketed a customer who walked off site. Proceedings were issued in the County Court on basis of contractual loss. At hearing the District Judge didn't really examine that point as he fell on the bigger issue of what VCS were authorised to do and breaches of court process.
Read the transcript tinyurl.com/87c5yck and weep for the hapless rep, I suspect a non lawyer, appearing for the parking company.
(with thanks to poster 'dacouch' for putting the link in HJ's forum)
|
|
Fascinating reading! Lines 20 to 27 on Page 13 had me smirking - no need to read the document to appreciate the poo that the lady was in!
|
>> Fascinating reading! Lines 20 to 27 on Page 13 had me smirking - no need
>> to read the document to appreciate the poo that the lady was in!
You mean this bit...
17 JUDGE M elL W AINE: Right. How many of these are going through the court system at the
18 moment?
19 MISS COATES: Not that many, your Honour.
20 JUDGE MciL W AINE : I have to say to you that when you get into the office tomonow morning
21 you had better have a look pretty quickly at what is going on. I will tell you now after these
22 proceedings I will issue an alert so you are clear. I have had this case in my court and all judges with
23 this case and this dispute are advised to look at the terms and conditions of contract. If you continue
24 to pursue those cases on this flawed premise , the consequences will be significant. If there is another
25 case in the Scunthorpe County Court, Grimsby County Court or Hull County Court live by four pm on
26 Frida y, you will be coming to see me and I suggest you bring a toothbrush. Am I clear?
27 MISS COATES: Very clear.
Better than Judge Judy.
|
|
Read the full transcript. It would have been some entertainment to be there.
|
Pity the poor court clerk trying to keep a straight face. Been there once or twice when Judges or Tribunal chairs have laid into Counsel who are either out of their depth, overconfident or batting a sticky wicket. Very hard indeed not to smirk, particularly if the barrister concerend was one of those (probaly now all on the bench) who were snooty with court staff.
Nothing like this though.
|
|
I'm more interested in reading about people bleating about parking tickets!
|
>> Read the transcript tinyurl.com/87c5yck and weep for the hapless rep, I suspect a non lawyer,
>> appearing for the parking company.
>
I think Mr Ibbotson was perhaps lucky with his choice of beak.
|
...I think Mr Ibbotson was perhaps lucky with his choice of beak...
In some cases the judge does have an end in mind.
When he asked if the parking company was contractually entitled to bring the case, he already knew they were not.
The fact that he ordered them to withdraw cases from three courts - and his general style - suggests he has some seniority in that part of the circuit.
So when he asked if there were any other similar cases pending, he'd already checked and knew there were.
It is possible the judge decided in advance to use this case to clear out the others.
In that respect, Mr Ibbotson is irrelevant.
|
Just a quick story relayed to be by a barrister friend.
A well-know ne'er-do-well is before the beak for yet another offence. His counsel (young and essentially trying it on) gives a long and impassioned plea in mitigation, speaking of genuine remorse, crossroads in life etc, and ends by requesting that while custody is inevitable, the sentence be couched in terms of months rather than years. Without even a beat, the judge replies, "Very well Mr Simpkins, 72 months, take him down!"
|
|
That transcript was a pleasure to read. Heartwarming, even. :-)
|
A colleague at work today was telling me how skint he was as, coming back from a trip to England, he had felt tired and pulled into a service station. Just as well, as he slept for 3 hours so was obviously too tired to drive.
Anyway received a fine of £60 for staying longer than the permitted 2 hours.
He paid the fine the day it dropped through his letterbox.
D'oh!
|
Another pesky scam parking ticket - Zero
