PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice Support health workers

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Can i fine the PPCs?
Naglfar
post 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...

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
 
Start new topic
Replies (1 - 12)
Advertisement
post Fri, 18 Jan 2008 - 18:08
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
roythebus
post 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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
legaladviser
post 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
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Naglfar
post 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 smile.gif

I looked way back but couldnt find any previous thread on the subject... some interesting reading nonetheless!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Naglfar
post 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? smile.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Alex B
post 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'
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Naglfar
post Sat, 19 Jan 2008 - 00:48
Post #7


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 11
Joined: 18 Jan 2008
Member No.: 16,726



Well spotted thanks!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
bama
post 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 .... smile.gif smile.gif


--------------------
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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Naglfar
post 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
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
leegomery16
post 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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
andy_foster
post Sat, 19 Jan 2008 - 02:29
Post #11


Member
Group Icon

Group: Life Member
Posts: 24,214
Joined: 9 Sep 2004
From: Reading
Member No.: 1,624



QUOTE (leegomery16 @ Sat, 19 Jan 2008 - 01:12) *
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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Naglfar
post 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 smile.gif

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!)
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
His Grace
post 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 ohmy.gif

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



Advertisement

Advertise here!

RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: Friday, 29th March 2024 - 01:12
Pepipoo uses cookies. You can find details of the cookies we use here along with links to information on how to manage them.
Please click the button to accept our cookies and hide this message. We’ll also assume that you’re happy to accept them if you continue to use the site.
IPS Driver Error

IPS Driver Error

There appears to be an error with the database.
You can try to refresh the page by clicking here