PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice Support health workers

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

The truth about parking charge notices, Common Misconception
iMatrix
post Wed, 15 Aug 2018 - 11:54
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 10
Joined: 15 Aug 2018
Member No.: 99,413



Good afternoon all

I hope you are all well.

There has long be a common misconception that private parking charges are NOT enforceable.

I have had 4 parking charges in my life and the last three i had i honestly believed that they were not enforceable so with the first one i argued the toss over it quoting legislation and then appealing to both the parking company and then POPLA both to be rejected. I then sent a final letter informing them that my solicitor will be involved if they were to contact me again in relation to this matter. Safe to say i never heard back from them, Mission complete TICK

the other two i just simply ignored them and never heard anything.

I advised my father to ignore them and also informed my buddy to ignore them too.

However i have been reading these forums the last few days because once again I have had another parking charge.

I have to admit now I am considering paying the charge and the beliefs i had before in regards to parking charges not being enforceable are slowly changing.
I am really really reluctant to pay this but I have worked so hard to rebuild my credit history and do not want a CCJ as i'm applying for a mortgage next year.

Not to mention i just cant be bothered with all the hassle of going back and forward with the companies and then having a nice day trip to the local county court.

I received the parking charge notice a couple of days ago now. I was clearly in the wrong i parked there knowing full well that there were signs in place and that i would in fact get a ticket as there were ANPR cameras in operation.

There is zero defence from my part - I could lie and say i was visiting my uncle at the hotel in question and state that the receptionist informed me it was ok for me to park in the carpark and that the car parking system was faulty at the time but i don't believe it will get me anywhere- it would simply be my word against theirs.

I was clearly in the wrong and parked there on purpose and just thought "thats ok when the charge comes through ill go online write another legal minded letter" and they will back off.

But to my amazement i have been reading that Parking Eye have been taking many claims to court and winning on a significant number of claims.

I will be honest i must of been naive because i honestly believed that parking charge notices were merely invoices and WERE NOT enforceable legally under current UK law.

There are a few solicitors on YouTube who state that if they got one they would make paper aeroplanes and throw them away.

I have observed lately that my beliefs are very wrong and that i could potentially lose at a court and pay a lot more than the £60 being asked for, so obviously these parking charges are enforceable and are legal because they are being won in courts by these scum companies.

Sorry to drag it on. What do you ladies and gents think?

many thanks

Neo
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
2 Pages V  < 1 2  
Start new topic
Replies (20 - 35)
Advertisement
post Wed, 15 Aug 2018 - 11:54
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
Korting
post Fri, 17 Aug 2018 - 21:50
Post #21


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,570
Joined: 13 May 2010
Member No.: 37,524



I always presumed that unlike Council tickets, PPC's can only take action against the driver. They do not know who the driver is, unless you tell them and unlike criminal infringements, ie speeding, traffic lights etc, you are under no legal obligation to tell them who was actually driving.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
southpaw82
post Fri, 17 Aug 2018 - 22:03
Post #22


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 33,610
Joined: 2 Apr 2008
From: Not in the UK
Member No.: 18,483



QUOTE (Korting @ Fri, 17 Aug 2018 - 22:50) *
I always presumed that unlike Council tickets, PPC's can only take action against the driver. They do not know who the driver is, unless you tell them and unlike criminal infringements, ie speeding, traffic lights etc, you are under no legal obligation to tell them who was actually driving.

PoFA?


--------------------
Moderator

Any comments made do not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon. No lawyer/client relationship should be assumed nor should any duty of care be owed.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
DancingDad
post Fri, 17 Aug 2018 - 23:08
Post #23


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 25,726
Joined: 28 Jun 2010
From: Area 51
Member No.: 38,559



QUOTE (southpaw82 @ Fri, 17 Aug 2018 - 23:03) *
QUOTE (Korting @ Fri, 17 Aug 2018 - 22:50) *
I always presumed that unlike Council tickets, PPC's can only take action against the driver. They do not know who the driver is, unless you tell them and unlike criminal infringements, ie speeding, traffic lights etc, you are under no legal obligation to tell them who was actually driving.

PoFA?


Yup
They have to jump through a few, no too difficult hoops and can invoke keeper liability.
Or not jump through hoops and try it anyway, proceeding on the "reasonable (cough) presumption" that the keeper was the driver.
All very well saying don't say but according to Parking Hell the other night, only something like 1% of PPC charge notices get appealed to POPLA.
Which means that a hell of a load are either paid, ignored or chased to court. (Assuming that is the percentage that can be appealed to POPLA)
No idea how many actually get to court but I reckon many fall by the wayside when legal letters start flowing and court papers appear.
It can be very tempting when a court date is set and two days before deadline for evidence, a letter appears saying we can settle for.....
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Redivi
post Sat, 18 Aug 2018 - 07:18
Post #24


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 4,126
Joined: 31 Jan 2018
Member No.: 96,238



All very well saying don't say but according to Parking Hell the other night, only something like 1% of PPC charge notices get appealed to POPLA

Without knowing the percentages for parking notices originally appealed and rejected, that number on its own isn't very helpful

The industry will present it as evidence that parking notices are issued correctly and appeal systems are fair

Our experience is that they automatically reject appeals and issue the POPLA codes in the knowledge that they won't be used and, if they are, not to effect

Can no longer remember the exact figures but met a ParkingEye representative at a trade show years ago (pre POFA) who told me that 70 - 80% of notices were paid immediately and most of the remainder after a follow up
The BPA's own evidence to Parliament was that "only" 85% of parking notices were paid and the rest had to be taken to court
When I commented that surely people Googled his company he looked as if I was an idiot. They didn't

At the time amount is a penalty was a winning defence in court and the BPA representative at the show was confirming that notices weren't enforceable

This post has been edited by Redivi: Sat, 18 Aug 2018 - 07:20
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
bama
post Sat, 18 Aug 2018 - 12:39
Post #25


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28,931
Joined: 29 Nov 2005
Member No.: 4,323



QUOTE
they have done it perfectly


if the OP knows this then I see no need for their other questions

(plus it would be pretty rare for a PE case for it to be true).
Haven't PE just been sold.....


--------------------
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
notmeatloaf
post Sat, 18 Aug 2018 - 13:39
Post #26


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 3,306
Joined: 4 Mar 2017
Member No.: 90,659



Isn't it just that people on here aren't really a representative sample because we're all bloody difficult, whereas most people if they get a letter saying they need to pay money or they will be taken to court and their credit rating wrecked, assume it is legit and just hand over the money?

I have a colleague at work who is a single Mum and, literally, living hand to mouth. She lives a long way from the hospital because it's the only place she could afford and didn't do any checks. She can't afford a staff parking permit and so has got several tickets which of course she also can't afford and so has racked up extra charges.

Despite fairly frequent attempts to convince her that she could still take steps to reduce or get rid of the charges, she still looks at me as if I am mad and just says that she doesn't have a permit and the tickets must be right. It is a company who do take people to court and to be honest at this stage I think they likely will and she will still put her head in the sand. These companies make their money on people like her, and people like us are just a cost of business.

FWIW this was my, successful, appeal letter.





They didn't use the form though and I did consider rejecting their cancellation on that basis.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Churchmouse
post Sun, 19 Aug 2018 - 14:31
Post #27


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 2,356
Joined: 30 Jun 2008
From: Landan
Member No.: 20,731



QUOTE (The Rookie @ Fri, 17 Aug 2018 - 20:44) *
QUOTE (Churchmouse @ Fri, 17 Aug 2018 - 19:14) *
QUOTE (iMatrix @ Wed, 15 Aug 2018 - 19:05) *
is it possible to to pay the fine and then make a claim against the parking company?

Pay the fine in the first instance with a view to getting it refunded at a later stage once i do investigation into the contractual side of things parking eye have with the hotel?

No. If you pay the invoice, it stays paid. If you disagree with its legal basis, don't pay it and let the PPC take you to court.

Why is that No? I believe the answer is yes, not an adviseable route to take but doesn’t mean it’s not possible.

Really?

I know we sometimes go off on tangents when discussing anti-PPC tactics, but surely paying an invoice and then suing the PPC to recover the money supposedly paid in error is such a bad option as to be not really an option? Or perhaps you're just humouring the OP...

--Churchmouse
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
DancingDad
post Sun, 19 Aug 2018 - 15:33
Post #28


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 25,726
Joined: 28 Jun 2010
From: Area 51
Member No.: 38,559



QUOTE (Churchmouse @ Sun, 19 Aug 2018 - 15:31) *
.........Really?

I know we sometimes go off on tangents when discussing anti-PPC tactics, but surely paying an invoice and then suing the PPC to recover the money supposedly paid in error is such a bad option as to be not really an option? Or perhaps you're just humouring the OP...

--Churchmouse


Surely it depends on circumstances?
Someone pays having checked obvious items like signage but believing bang to rights, grabs the discount.
Then a little while later finds that PPC cannot enforce where they did, have no legal right whatsoever, a claim would not be out of order.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
southpaw82
post Sun, 19 Aug 2018 - 16:01
Post #29


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 33,610
Joined: 2 Apr 2008
From: Not in the UK
Member No.: 18,483



QUOTE (DancingDad @ Sun, 19 Aug 2018 - 16:33) *
a claim would not be out of order.

What would the basis of claim be?


--------------------
Moderator

Any comments made do not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon. No lawyer/client relationship should be assumed nor should any duty of care be owed.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Sun, 19 Aug 2018 - 22:07
Post #30


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 38,006
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



QUOTE (southpaw82 @ Sun, 19 Aug 2018 - 17:01) *
QUOTE (DancingDad @ Sun, 19 Aug 2018 - 16:33) *
a claim would not be out of order.

What would the basis of claim be?

If we accept the theory that the PPC had no legal right to the money that's been handed over, I would have thought unjust enrichment would fit nicely.


--------------------
If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
DancingDad
post Sun, 19 Aug 2018 - 22:09
Post #31


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 25,726
Joined: 28 Jun 2010
From: Area 51
Member No.: 38,559



QUOTE (southpaw82 @ Sun, 19 Aug 2018 - 17:01) *
QUOTE (DancingDad @ Sun, 19 Aug 2018 - 16:33) *
a claim would not be out of order.

What would the basis of claim be?

I was hoping you would tell us biggrin.gif
My thoughts are that if there is no legal right for the PPC to enforce then a claim based on fraud, false representations, unjust enrichment, whatever ?
After all they have taken your money against something that they have no legal base to use.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
southpaw82
post Sun, 19 Aug 2018 - 22:29
Post #32


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 33,610
Joined: 2 Apr 2008
From: Not in the UK
Member No.: 18,483



QUOTE (cp8759 @ Sun, 19 Aug 2018 - 23:07) *
QUOTE (southpaw82 @ Sun, 19 Aug 2018 - 17:01) *
QUOTE (DancingDad @ Sun, 19 Aug 2018 - 16:33) *
a claim would not be out of order.

What would the basis of claim be?

If we accept the theory that the PPC had no legal right to the money that's been handed over, I would have thought unjust enrichment would fit nicely.

That’s the only one I can see having legs. The difficulty would be showing what was unjust about it - the lack of a lawful claim on the money generally wouldn’t be enough. It appears there would be no mistake so one would be into the realms of duress or misrepresentation (though if the payer knew the PPC’s claims were groundless I don’t see how they would have been misled).

One does also wonder whether the court would be willing to assist such a claimant in an equitable remedy. I’m still not sure why someone would want to adopt this course of action though - presumably they paid to avoid being sued but they’ll end up in court anyway, as a claimant with a burden of proof, having paid court fees. What benefit do they get?


--------------------
Moderator

Any comments made do not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon. No lawyer/client relationship should be assumed nor should any duty of care be owed.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
anon45
post Mon, 20 Aug 2018 - 07:44
Post #33


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,114
Joined: 7 Aug 2009
Member No.: 31,007



I wondered whether fake byelaw 14 tickets might constitute a 'special case', where a RK pays Northern or similar a ransom under protest to avoid being prosecuted, (notwithstanding that Northern invariably have no evidence of the identity of the driver and thus a prosecution ought not to succeed, there has been at least one case on this forum (rsooty) where magistrates convicted regardless and even a NG verdict will probably involve the motorist in a lot of time, stress, hassle, and considerable unrecoverable cost, if he/ she decides he/ she needs to pay for a local solicitor to represent him/ her).

Some have suggested that, in this circumstance, it is worth paying the ransom demanded under protest, waiting six months (so that any prosecution is time-barred) and suing for their ransom money back, plus additional damages. Would this be stronger than a 'normal' case, due to the element of duress/ misrepresentation?

In the alternative, I wondered whether it might be possible for an acquitted defendant to argue that Northern, a private company, act in bad faith in threatening prosecutions of RKs as a means of extorting ransoms, lying about their purported statutory authority and precise byelaw allegedly broken, and abusing the court system by ruthlessly prosecuting RKs in the absence of any evidence at all on driver identity as a way of pressuring others to pay their ransoms, such that, under the circumstances, Northern should be ordered to pay the full cost of the defendant's solicitor?

This post has been edited by anon45: Mon, 20 Aug 2018 - 07:45
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
bama
post Mon, 20 Aug 2018 - 10:33
Post #34


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28,931
Joined: 29 Nov 2005
Member No.: 4,323



I think the remedy is in Tort.
I don't have access to a full set of Atkins though sad.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
cp8759
post Mon, 20 Aug 2018 - 20:21
Post #35


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 38,006
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



QUOTE (southpaw82 @ Sun, 19 Aug 2018 - 23:29) *
QUOTE (cp8759 @ Sun, 19 Aug 2018 - 23:07) *
QUOTE (southpaw82 @ Sun, 19 Aug 2018 - 17:01) *
QUOTE (DancingDad @ Sun, 19 Aug 2018 - 16:33) *
a claim would not be out of order.

What would the basis of claim be?

If we accept the theory that the PPC had no legal right to the money that's been handed over, I would have thought unjust enrichment would fit nicely.

That’s the only one I can see having legs. The difficulty would be showing what was unjust about it - the lack of a lawful claim on the money generally wouldn’t be enough. It appears there would be no mistake so one would be into the realms of duress or misrepresentation (though if the payer knew the PPC’s claims were groundless I don’t see how they would have been misled).

Granny Grimble parks in a private car park with her blue badge and commits some trivial breach of T&C (overstays by two minutes, underpays by 10p or whatever else), gets PPC and assuming it to be legitimate just pays. Her friend / neighbour / grandson whatever then informs her that the PPC is not enforceable and she decides to recover the money that she was going to donate to GOSH had she not spent it on the PPC. There's never certainty when asking for an equitable remedy, but one can envisage a scenario where the court would be willing to grant the remedy sought.

QUOTE (bama @ Mon, 20 Aug 2018 - 11:33) *
I think the remedy is in Tort.

Did you have a particular one in mind?


--------------------
If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
southpaw82
post Mon, 20 Aug 2018 - 21:35
Post #36


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 33,610
Joined: 2 Apr 2008
From: Not in the UK
Member No.: 18,483



QUOTE (cp8759 @ Mon, 20 Aug 2018 - 21:21) *
one can envisage a scenario where the court would be willing to grant the remedy sought.

Absolutely. Chrissy McChav who deliberately flouts the rules might get a different reaction, though.


--------------------
Moderator

Any comments made do not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon. No lawyer/client relationship should be assumed nor should any duty of care be owed.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

2 Pages V  < 1 2
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: Thursday, 28th March 2024 - 18:40
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