Can i fine the PPCs? |
Can i fine the PPCs? |
Fri, 18 Jan 2008 - 18:08
Post
#1
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 11 Joined: 18 Jan 2008 Member No.: 16,726 |
I realise that PPCs have no official powers, and that their notices are covered under contract law.
Could I not put a notice in my car window saying: "By affixing any notice or invoice to this vehicle you agree that any such notice/invoice is null and void, and further agree to pay a £40 fixed penalty." I realise this would be no more binding than their rules, but surely then no court could ever rule in their favour, as if their notice stands, so does mine! Plus it would be fun to write them letters demanding £40 after they write to me... |
|
|
Advertisement |
Fri, 18 Jan 2008 - 18:08
Post
#
|
Advertise here! |
|
|
|
Fri, 18 Jan 2008 - 21:29
Post
#2
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 6,963 Joined: 19 Dec 2006 From: Near Calais Member No.: 9,683 |
I seem to remember something in a similar vein somewhere else on here a few days ago.
|
|
|
Fri, 18 Jan 2008 - 23:44
Post
#3
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 1,358 Joined: 11 Apr 2007 Member No.: 11,552 |
You could tell them that by sending you further unsolicited correspondence, they are entering into a contract to pay an unwanted corrsespondence charge of £50 per letter. Watch the amount add up as the letters roll in.
This post has been edited by legaladviser: Fri, 18 Jan 2008 - 23:44 |
|
|
Fri, 18 Jan 2008 - 23:50
Post
#4
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 11 Joined: 18 Jan 2008 Member No.: 16,726 |
Heh thanks I will do that
I looked way back but couldnt find any previous thread on the subject... some interesting reading nonetheless! |
|
|
Sat, 19 Jan 2008 - 00:04
Post
#5
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 11 Joined: 18 Jan 2008 Member No.: 16,726 |
What do you think? |
|
|
Sat, 19 Jan 2008 - 00:36
Post
#6
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 57 Joined: 9 Oct 2007 Member No.: 14,353 |
great but you mean 'may' not 'my'
|
|
|
Sat, 19 Jan 2008 - 00:48
Post
#7
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 11 Joined: 18 Jan 2008 Member No.: 16,726 |
Well spotted thanks!
|
|
|
Sat, 19 Jan 2008 - 00:53
Post
#8
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 28,931 Joined: 29 Nov 2005 Member No.: 4,323 |
maybe 'by sending any unsoliceted correspondence' would be better... It may be asking for some drunken smart ar$e to stick a For Sale board through your windscreen or somesuch... parking the vehicle in a 'selected location' may help inprove the odds of a bite .... -------------------- Which facts in any situation or problem are “essential” and what makes them “essential”? If the “essential” facts are said to depend on the principles involved, then the whole business, all too obviously, goes right around in a circle. In the light of one principle or set of principles, one bunch of facts will be the “essential” ones; in the light of another principle or set of principles, a different bunch of facts will be “essential.” In order to settle on the right facts you first have to pick your principles, although the whole point of finding the facts was to indicate which principles apply.
Note that I am not legally qualified and any and all statements made are "Reserved". Liability for application lies with the reader. |
|
|
Sat, 19 Jan 2008 - 01:03
Post
#9
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 11 Joined: 18 Jan 2008 Member No.: 16,726 |
Oh, I have a car park at the bottom of my block of flats that does not allow residential owners/tenants to park there, ony staff of the shops at the bottom of the block.
As I have had about 4 tickets there in the last week I think my chances are good! I'm working on the theory that they wont get far charging me anyway as: a) it is not trespass as I am allowed foot access to my property b) they have made some errors on their notices that I will not post here in case PPCs read this board, which they undoubtedly do! c) damages are zero, as the car park is never anywhere near full and I am not obstructing anything. While their £40 "Civil Penalty Charge Notices" are, by their own name, a "penalty" for breaching their terms, and therefore challengeable as "unfair", surely as my contract is purely an agreement to pay £50, mine is not a penalty and more enforceable, as it is not a "penalty", but a charge for a service (receiving a letter)? Heh... As only 3 people in the block own cars and the car park never has less than 5-10 spaces free, it makes no sense to bar residents from parking here. For my part, the only other place I can park is the nearby council owned free car park, where I have had 2 cars vandalised to the point of writing them off over the last year, so I really don't want to park there! This post has been edited by Naglfar: Sat, 19 Jan 2008 - 01:07 |
|
|
Sat, 19 Jan 2008 - 01:12
Post
#10
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 1,080 Joined: 8 Dec 2007 Member No.: 15,918 |
I'd suggest your charge of £50 for receiving a letter might well fall foul of the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977, I'm afraid. Good for a bit of a wind up though.
-------------------- Someone not paying VAT when they should? Email: HM Revenue & Customs
Laws, like men, are born to die. Justice is immortal. |
|
|
Sat, 19 Jan 2008 - 02:29
Post
#11
|
|
Member Group: Life Member Posts: 24,214 Joined: 9 Sep 2004 From: Reading Member No.: 1,624 |
I'd suggest your charge of £50 for receiving a letter might well fall foul of the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977, I'm afraid. Good for a bit of a wind up though. If the PPC isn't a 'consumer' and is not chooses to send threatening letters to the OP without inducement, I can't see that it would be deemed 'unfair' under the 1977 Act. I'm not entirely convinced that there would be a consideration from the driver or RK, privity may be an issue if the person posting the warning is not the RK, and it would seem to be a penalty rather than a charge for the 'service' of receiving a letter. If the service went beyond merely receiving the letter, I would be concerned that the RK could be deemed to be acting as a lawyer. Basically, the 'contract' is unenforceable, as is the 'fine' from the PPC. The OP seems to be trying to be clever, and making the unenforceable fine unenforceable by countering with another equally unenforceable fine. If he wants to have fun with the PPCs, surely it would be easier just to send them a note with "Please turn over" on both sides. BTW, if you have licence to enter land on foot to get to your own property, that does not mean that leaving your chattels on that land is not tresspass. -------------------- Andy
Some people think that I make them feel stupid. To be fair, they deserve most of the credit. |
|
|
Sat, 19 Jan 2008 - 02:32
Post
#12
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 11 Joined: 18 Jan 2008 Member No.: 16,726 |
Well, at the very least my claim is no less valid than theirs, and I cannot be found guilty in court without them also being found guilty
They also give residents permission to use the carpark on weekends, so if I were to park there on sunday, leaving the car there overnight, could it suddenly become trespass the next day? (when the car was left there it was allowed!) |
|
|
Sat, 19 Jan 2008 - 17:39
Post
#13
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 110 Joined: 9 Dec 2007 Member No.: 15,934 |
If the OP is proposing a charge for receiving unsolicited correspondence, then I think £50 might be a tad OTT.
However, were the OP to be offering a proof-reading service, following which he would reply to sender with appropriate commentary, £50 would seem eminently reasonable. I am, of course, overlooking minor typographical errors in the notice, which might call into question the standard of proof-reading to be expected for the £50 |
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: Friday, 29th March 2024 - 01:12 |