jimmywx11

[doublelong]

If it is parking eye after the BBC watchdog program went out most people in the UK just throw in the bin

[FatGambit]

Parking Eye are easy to deal with, granted it may take a little effort, but they are easily seen off, especislly if it's their fault because the camera never saw you leaving as what happened to me (I spent quiet some time in the car park according to them ).

Last i heard they were quiet prolific at taking people to Court after their victory in the appeal court, throwing one of those in the bin is the last thing I'd do.

[Firthy2002]

Yeah as far as I've read about them on MSE and other forums Parking Eye tend to actually make good on their threats of court action.

[doublelong]

I did not realise they did take you to court like the local council would but there again I have never had a parking ticket but the watchdog program here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TUYzBcFLWMA it is a few years old now.

[Skeleton]

Yeah as far as I've read about them on MSE and other forums Parking Eye tend to actually make good on their threats of court action.

Parking Eye have since 2012 routinely gone all the way to court knowing full well the majority will fold and pay before the court case, even idiots such as Morris have figured out chucking the letter in the bin is not a smart move and for once he is correct.

Jimmy no doubt is playing with someone elses mail, the man is lower than a snakes belly, no way is that mail his own.

[FatGambit]

As I said parking eye are easy, appeal to them, they'll reject, then appeal to POPLA (their industry regulator) and they'll uphold the appeal. POPLA have never rejected an appeal based on land ownership.

They really do make it easy for you if you can be bothered to do a little work, I never got to the POPLA appeal since it would be quiet hard for them to convince a Judge that the car was in the car park when it was the subject of a CRN and photographed for evidence several miles away and on CCTV at the Police Station while it was supposed to be parked up, so they upheld my appeal which I was a little disapointed over as I'd have loved to see their faces when five coppers, fifteen independent whitnesses including an MP and a heasdteacher all turned up to give evidence.

[Fearnchase]

As I said parking eye are easy, appeal to them, they'll reject, then appeal to POPLA (their industry regulator) and they'll uphold the appeal. POPLA have never rejected an appeal based on land ownership.

They really do make it easy for you if you can be bothered to do a little work, I never got to the POPLA appeal since it would be quiet hard for them to convince a Judge that the car was in the car park when it was the subject of a CRN and photographed for evidence several miles away and on CCTV at the Police Station while it was supposed to be parked up, so they upheld my appeal which I was a little disapointed over as I'd have loved to see their faces when five coppers, fifteen independent whitnesses including an MP and a heasdteacher all turned up to give evidence.

Sorry but your point on land ownership is completely and utterly incorrect ! Parking eye produce witness statements many a time !

[katiHWB]

We see PE witness statements over on LegalBeagles all the time ... often 70+ pages long (they include the whole Beavis judgement). Doesn't mean that they win the case tho'

[Fearnchase]

We see PE witness statements over on LegalBeagles all the time ... often 70+ pages long (they include the whole Beavis judgement). Doesn't mean that they win the case tho'

No i mean land owner witness statements, as opposed to a copy of the contract.

[katiHWB]

We see PE witness statements over on LegalBeagles all the time ... often 70+ pages long (they include the whole Beavis judgement). Doesn't mean that they win the case tho'

No i mean land owner witness statements, as opposed to a copy of the contract.

most of those are so heavily redacted they're almost worthless

[FatGambit]

It's not "completely and utterly incorrect", as I said, they make it easy if you can be bothered. There are more grounds for appeal than the land ownership issue (I couldn't be bothered to list more since most members here are so argumentative over these kinds of things as demonstrated), but if you follow the proper procedure you're very unlikely to see the inside of a court room.

IIRC didn't the Beavis judgement revolve around entering the property implied agreement to the terms? They tried to quote that to me but I just wrote back and told them to read the appeal before replying again.

Sorry if refusing to be intimidated by these bullies doesn't play the party line for you.

[PeanutGallery]

The law in regard to parking is changing, it certainly has changed since the Watchdog episode. The Beavis judgement has further complicated matters, by being more limited in scope than the parking companies would like, and also confusing to motorists who may not have a legal background and be confused about the nature of precedent. If Jimmy is returning letters regarding a parking debt then it's likely going to result in him getting a ccj.

[exiledscouser]

http://www.parkingcowboys.co.uk/parkingeye-vs-beavis/

The Beavis case went all the way through to the Supreme Court. The above link is a well-written article on the twists and turns, the arguments used on both sides and the final outcome which, disappointingly went in favour of Parking Eye.

I hate private car parking companies who are seemingly given unfettered access to the DVLA database in order to pursue private, civil matters. I hope there is a special circle of hell reserved for them and PPI claim telesales merchants.

Some years ago (2001) a Doctor called Dr Robertson was upset with his local council. He discovered that for years they had been selling the electoral roll along with his name and address to direct marketing and other companies, making a fair amount of money. He argued, successfully, that;

* as he had no choice other than to register to vote and

* that the purpose of so registering was (initially at least) solely to keep the list of eligible voters up to date

Art 8 ECHR (right to private life) was engaged and that there had been a breach of data protection i.e. he provided data for one purpose, that same data was used by holder for another or others and to their commercial enrichment.

The result was the 'open' and 'closed' electoral roll lists and (UK) readers will know that they have been given the option since 2005 to effectively go "ex-directory".

http://www.actnow.org.uk/media/articles ... rt_QBD.pdf

It would be interesting to see whether similar arguments would work against Parking Eye and other such parasites lining the pockets of DVLA. After all, they sell this data (your data) which the RTA demands that you have to comply with under the law, same statutory compunction as voting registration.

[AndyPandy]

Jimmy's back and advising people to have their pre payment gas & electricity meters replaced with ones of their own.. there's nothing the supplier can do as they don't have a contract with you anymore.....

yeah just tell them to take their meter out... a few days(hours) later put in your own.


they will kick up a fuss because they know once their meter is out they can do eff all to you ever again not even write to you cos the contract is stopped.

......... except disconnect you, of course, what a tool !!!!

http://getoutofdebtfree.org/forum/viewt ... 6NpAY1waUk

[ArthurWankspittle]

Jimmy and his like would be unlikely to remove and replace a meter without killing themselves and / or their neighbours. Even it they didn't do that, they stand a chance of blowing the main fuse on the electric which isn't easy to replace. Having survived they will only face charges of possible theft, certainly criminal damage and violating a whole shed full of safety type rules.
I also wonder in a situation like this if the utility company gets a court order saying we will put a pre-payment meter back but only so long as the fuckwit occupier doesn't touch it, so that any messing with it becomes contempt of court.

[Firthy2002]

This is likely to be at least slightly wrong so feel free to correct me. My understanding of who owns each part of an incoming electric grid connection in the UK is thus:

The connection from the grid to the property does not belong to the owner of the property even though it may be on or part of the property, hence the warning label about it being an offence to tamper with. Responsibility for maintenance/repair work falls on the shoulders of whoever maintains the grid in that part of the country. Since this appears to be a highly dangerous piece of kit (judging by the warning sticker on the one for my flat for high voltage), it stands to reason that access to it should be given if required with minimal impediment.

The electric meter for the property does not belong to the owner of the property even though it may be on or part of the property. Responsibility for reading the meter and adding credit if prepay mostly belongs to the customer, although the supplier must also schedule regular safety checks and readings from one of their agents. The supplier is also responsible for maintenance and repairs if required. It is probably unwise to prevent or restrict access to it if required for maintenance, repair or swap out.

The breaker box for the property belongs to the owner and is their responsibility for maintenance and repair from a qualified electrician.

So Jimmy's idea of replacing a meter with your own (why?) does not seem very sensible.

[littleFred]

The typical UK household situation is that the meter belongs to the supplier. I assume the wires between the meter and grid also belong to the supplier.

There is no requirement for this. If the supplier agrees, the customer can provide his own meter. I expect this happens only for commercial customers.

Whoever owns the meter, Electricity Act 1989 Sched 7 s11 makes meter-tweaking an offence.

ETA: The meter's owner is responsible for maintaining it.

[AndyPandy]

Prior to the denationalisation of the Electricity Industry, all meters were owned and operated by Regional Supply Companies.

Then under the New Electricity Trading Arrangements each meter was given a unique reference number and loaded to a central database, so when a customer / consumer signs up with a supplier the meter is allocated to that supplier and becomes their responsibility to bill against and maintain.

I presume something similar is applicable to gas.

[longdog]

Everything up to and including the main fuse belongs to the distribution company which may or may not be the energy supplier.

The meter and the feed from the main fuse could belong to almost anybody but meters which are owned by the customer are virtually unheard of in domestic properties. A steelworks with a megawatt/hr supply might own the meter but a two-up-two-down?.. No.

Everything from the meter to the outlet belongs to the property owner.

[BHF]

Jimmy's back and advising people to have their pre payment gas & electricity meters replaced with ones of their own.. there's nothing the supplier can do as they don't have a contract with you anymore.....

yeah just tell them to take their meter out... a few days(hours) later put in your own.


they will kick up a fuss because they know once their meter is out they can do eff all to you ever again not even write to you cos the contract is stopped.

......... except disconnect you, of course, what a tool !!!!

http://getoutofdebtfree.org/forum/viewt ... 6NpAY1waUk

One of the highlights of the net for me, is Jimmy. The bloke is an utter clown. What really annoys me though, is his continued encouraging of others to do the most stupid of things. I accept that he has little between his ears but these crazy ideas never succeed-Surely even he has worked that one out by now?

If he wants to go and get himself arrested or made bankrupt then fine-Even better if it provides us with entertainment when he posts it up on YT.

What is unforgivable, reprehensible even is his encouraging others to do so. I've had numerous run ins with him in the past where he has accused me of scaremongering. Pointing out the potential consequences is not scaremongering-It is enabling the person to make an informed decision, not just one that is based on a few grunts from one cell.