PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice Support health workers

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

[Article] Private Parking Companies/Charges (everything you need to know), Guide to the law and practical procedure for victims of private compan
Tony-Medusa
post Thu, 15 Feb 2007 - 21:47
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 294
Joined: 17 Sep 2006
Member No.: 7,697



Article title: Private Parking Companies/Charges (everything you need to know)
Article description: Guide to the law and practical procedure for victims of private companies
Category: Parking FAQs
Date added: Thu, 15 Feb 2007 - 22:22
Article starter: LegalPete


This is a valuable post, very good for many people here, bags of info.
Trouble is posts like this slip down very fast. I would like to see it posted elsewhere too.
Thanks

This post has been edited by Fredd: Mon, 20 Aug 2007 - 12:11
Reason for edit: Added Article details and link
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
 
Start new topic
Replies (1 - 17)
Advertisement
post Thu, 15 Feb 2007 - 21:47
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
eddie1234567
post Thu, 15 Feb 2007 - 21:54
Post #2


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 863
Joined: 25 May 2004
From: Aberdeen
Member No.: 1,243



QUOTE (Tony-Medusa @ Thu, 15 Feb 2007 - 21:47) *
This is a valuable post, very good for many people here, bags of info.
Trouble is posts like this slip down very fast. I would like to see it posted elsewhere too.
Thanks


I've asked Insider or Andy Foster to pin this
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Teufel
post Thu, 15 Feb 2007 - 21:57
Post #3


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 6,783
Joined: 6 Jul 2006
Member No.: 6,518



excellent work

i have a few comments when i have some more time

perhaps when we hasve all commented a revised version could go as a sticky
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Tony-Medusa
post Thu, 15 Feb 2007 - 22:16
Post #4


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 294
Joined: 17 Sep 2006
Member No.: 7,697



Fred's post might be good for a sticky too. Soon I will add the args used, they came from parts of my own case, so they are not restricted to any agreement.
Restitution 2007 style.

I think this comment is apt here.

John v Rees (1970). Justice Megarry" It may be that there are some who would decry the importance of the rules of natural justice. ......those who take this view do not, I think, do themselves justice. As everybody who has anything to do with the law well knows, the path of the law is strewn with examples of open and shut cases which, somehow, were not: of unanswerable charges which, in the event, were completely answered ; with inexplainable conduct which was fully explained; ........ nor are those with any knowledge of human nature who pause to think for a moment likely to underestimate the feelings of resentment of those who find there is a decison against them as being made without their being afforded any opportunity to influence the course of events."

A great deal of resentment has been built up, packet bombs, stab proof vests, a million motorists signing downing st. It is a sign of the enormous resentment out there.

We need to get our rights back.

I am just tidying the 20 pages of the incompatabilty between many parts of RTA and the BoR, they are unequivocal.
They will all go here soon, the govt has unravelled their latest one, Wayne has it, the new dvla scam. It actually states the Bor is not incompatible with the new scheme, It'll be a pleasure.

If you are interested in the early BoR(e), that didn't get shown because there were too many bogged down minds that didn't want to tease out the truth, but just have a go.

the title is
DoR 1668 & RTA 1991, parking fines illegal appeal NOW

http://www.swarb.co.uk/phpbb/viewforum.php...f9df5144bf493c3

The early stuff was there, I prepared it for Robin Decrittenden but he never argued it, I waited to use it myself.I am going to provide it to all. The PATAS rulings are dismantled.

This post has been edited by Tony-Medusa: Thu, 15 Feb 2007 - 22:23
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
zamzara
post Thu, 15 Feb 2007 - 22:31
Post #5


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,286
Joined: 20 Nov 2004
Member No.: 1,898



I would add to it that the 'debt' usually gets past to a debt collection agency, rather than being pursued through any recognised legal avenue such as the county court.

Debt Collection Agencies are not official and have no powers. They are bound by OFT rules on conduct, and also by the Data Protection Act which emans they are not allowed to hold false information. If they are informed the debt is in dispute they are supposed to stop claiming it.


--------------------
Posts by me are intended as a discussion of the issues involved, as these are of general interest to me and others on the forum. Although it is hoped such discussion will be of use to readers, before exposing yourself to risk of loss you should not rely on any principles discussed without confirming the situation with a qualified person.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
zamzara
post Thu, 15 Feb 2007 - 22:46
Post #6


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,286
Joined: 20 Nov 2004
Member No.: 1,898



There's also the issue of rubbish signage. My local hospital car park is private pay + display, and in some parts of it the only signage says "civil penalty notices in operation". It should be needless to say that is not enough to form a contract, because it doesn't say for what reason an invoice (penalty) will be issued, how the driver can accept or reject the terms, how much the penalty is etc.

They also often write stupid statents, including suggesting that parking is illegal or unauthorised, which makes any valid contract impossible. They also try and do stuff like ticket for not being a customer when the sign doesn't mention this (I was verbally threatened with this at my local Staples; I didn't actually get a 'ticket' though). Or ticket people who shop there and then go elsewhere: the signage usually allows this.


--------------------
Posts by me are intended as a discussion of the issues involved, as these are of general interest to me and others on the forum. Although it is hoped such discussion will be of use to readers, before exposing yourself to risk of loss you should not rely on any principles discussed without confirming the situation with a qualified person.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
morphy
post Thu, 15 Feb 2007 - 23:15
Post #7


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 60
Joined: 27 Sep 2006
Member No.: 7,916



Welcome to the club Pete brave.gif wink.gif wink.gif wink.gif


What a great first post wav.gif


--------------------
AVoid BP and their sharks check out my auction no bid required just the publicity:

clicky,clicky: http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?Vie...E%3AIT&rd=1
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
LegalPete
post Fri, 16 Feb 2007 - 01:31
Post #8


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 15
Joined: 15 Feb 2007
From: North Wales
Member No.: 10,652



Thanks gents... This club is a fine place to be. I like the underdog, far more satisfaction in it!

I've been asked to post this elsewhere and will do so shortly.

I'd also be delighted to ammend it as required. This is the work as I see it right now, it can also form the basis of your case to sue the parking company IF YOU HAVE ALREADY PAID. Banks penalise consumers, those penalties are reclaimed after the fact. The law sees these penalties in the same light.

The offer is firm, any questions, queries, problems, suggestions and so forth - drop me an email (particularly if you're going to reclaim penalties, I want in on the ground floor on one of these).

All the best,

Pete
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
whitewing
post Fri, 16 Feb 2007 - 02:16
Post #9


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 2,167
Joined: 5 Aug 2006
Member No.: 6,999



This concisely makes most of the points discussed recently, but omits to mention that as shown by many examples on this site, even if a contract were formed, the wording often makes no mention of agreeing to actually pay anything ( or any timescale for payment) . e.g. 'a parking charge notice will be issued..'
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Dakota
post Fri, 16 Feb 2007 - 06:13
Post #10


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 319
Joined: 18 Mar 2004
From: The enemy is watching!
Member No.: 1,015



So where does this leave the threat of Newlyn to send people round to collect the money as shown in this thread: http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showto...4193&st=600 ? DCA's are well known for using intimidation and harrassment, so is the threat of calling round to collect the "debt" just bluff and bluster?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
LegalPete
post Fri, 16 Feb 2007 - 12:53
Post #11


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 15
Joined: 15 Feb 2007
From: North Wales
Member No.: 10,652



QUOTE (Dakota @ Fri, 16 Feb 2007 - 06:13) *
So where does this leave the threat of Newlyn to send people round to collect the money as shown in this thread: http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showto...4193&st=600 ? DCA's are well known for using intimidation and harrassment, so is the threat of calling round to collect the "debt" just bluff and bluster?


Whitewing makes an absolutely excellent point....

It would be possible to argue that the terms are insufficient to warrant a contract in instances where the signeage leaves the terms to vaguery... Typically you need A cost, a description of the deed and a timescale. This is a very much a side-branch off but it is worth a thought. If you're not overly familiar with the law of contract I would leave this be as while it's useable it really has the capacity to be a red herring.

It's classic first year contract law stuff...!!

As for debt collectors, by law if they are informed that the debt is in dispute they cannot pursue it. If they do then I suggest you report them to the police, trading standards and the OFT.

In my own case I had an invoice from Euro Car Parks. After telling them to 'poke it' they threatenned the debt collectors. I'm yet to be contacted and so I think it was a load of old twaddle.

Pete
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
fred2
post Fri, 16 Feb 2007 - 14:18
Post #12


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 267
Joined: 20 Jul 2006
Member No.: 6,739



QUOTE (LegalPete @ Thu, 15 Feb 2007 - 21:22) *
Let us examine this �" if you over-stay at a car park then the land owner loses revenue. Thus if parking is £1 an hour and you overstay by an hour then the damage is £1. Any company may argue that you are liable for the time of any attendant who may be involved in the issuing of an invoice. This is nonsense. The fact is that the PPC employ staff to be at the car park for all eventualities. Their job description will involve the issuing and preparation of these invoices, therefore to imply that damages are incurred by the involvement of an employee hired for this express purpose is a quite ridiculous prospect and should be sternly resisted (particularly when the cost of one of these invoices is more than the attendant is paid per day). Alternatively if you park incorrectly and use two bays I would suggest that in all reality the most that could be said to be valid damages is the value of the spaces you have used (so if you obscure a second space then double the cost of your parking). So as you can see actual damages in these cases will be absolutely minimal. Why, therefore, do the PPCs seek to charge the users of the car parks figures like £50 and £70? Simply because people do not know any better than to pay. The principle surrounding this is very similar to that surrounding bank charges. Banks cannot charge their customers extortionate rates for going over their overdraft limits (breaching their contract). The law is exactly the same for Private Parking Companies. Thus should matters progress with the parking company you should use this as the cornerstone of your defence.


I'm just thinking aloud here so forgive me if there may be errors in my thinking, but using the above as a basis for a defence;

If the PPC has followed all the correct procedures; signage, valid contract entered, has proof you are driver etc, and they proceed with issuing county court action. Then if they have followed all the correct procedures how about the defendant making an offer "Without prejudice save as to costs" offering the amount of the actual breach, which if you overstay an hour @ £1 p/h you make an offer for £1 in full and final settlement.

Now it is important your offer is worded correctly "Without prejudice save as to costs", which in legal terms means your offer is not an admission of guilt, but should the claimant refuse your offer and proceed with court action, the claimant will not only have to obtain judgement in their favour, but also any damages awarded by the DJ will have to be more than the offer you made. So therefore in the unlikely event that this gets to court and the judge finds in favour of the claimant but agrees that the only damages the claimant is entitled to is the £1 for the actual cost of the breach, then you can show the court your "Without prejudice save as to costs" letter and ask that the defendant pay ALL your own costs.

It may help focus the mind on a PPC who feels they have a rock solid case - do you feel lucky now punk!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Tony-Medusa
post Fri, 16 Feb 2007 - 14:54
Post #13


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 294
Joined: 17 Sep 2006
Member No.: 7,697



QUOTE
Now it is important your offer is worded correctly "Without prejudice save as to costs", which in legal terms means your offer is not an admission of guilt, but should the claimant refuse your offer and proceed with court action, the claimant will not only have to obtain judgement in their favour, but also any damages awarded by the DJ will have to be more than the offer you made. So therefore in the unlikely event that this gets to court and the judge finds in favour of the claimant but agrees that the only damages the claimant is entitled to is the £1 for the actual cost of the breach, then you can show the court your "Without prejudice save as to costs" letter and ask that the defendant pay ALL your own costs.
Fred! Hi. A Very useful point to bear in mind.

Re contract law, bear in mind that if the YOU on a PCN is not the owner, then YOU could end up as the non owner being accused, which is fine if the fine is gainst YOU, you could rely on the privity rule since consideraton has not moved. A far flung suggestion, but when they deliver penalties for trivia, then one looks for trivia to rebut it, fairs fair! Fine's' fine!

I would like to add, re unfair contract terms, and Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999
1999 Chapter c.31

I had a case with Amtrak Express Parcels Ltd two years ago, and at the second hearing, they relied on the Privity rule 1861,

I said I was ready to argue the three principles under the Contracts rights Act above, but to deal far more quickly with their primary defence;

I argued in a three minute delivery that their defence under the privity rule was flawed, turned it to the obverse, she; the solicitor burst in to tears, the Judge havnded her handkerchiefs, and reached for his books.

He sent us out for ten minutes to try and settle, on returning he said 'YES MR. W' you are right, I will give this a 2 and half hour hearing.

At that hearing the case I prepared 400 pages, it was too large, the judge asked can we resolve it in the time given otherwise we need five days. I said ok, I was not inetrested in the money but the principle of their breach of contract, we proceeded, and to cut a long story short they asked for costs of £1200 and judge said you are deplorably opportunistic. My claim was for £8 only.

The case is here, and more material to roll out soon. It is ongoing with the OFT.
http://www.logiclaw.co.uk/Reason1.html

PS re
QUOTE
So where does this leave the threat of Newlyn

They are involved with a party at TEC, and the material will be published soon, a complaint has and is being made, with more to come.

This post has been edited by Tony-Medusa: Fri, 16 Feb 2007 - 14:58
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
neil24103
post Wed, 28 Feb 2007 - 20:26
Post #14


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 173
Joined: 27 Feb 2007
Member No.: 10,869



hi pete could you have alook at my threads and tell me what you think thanks my threads are under my username (neil24103
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Roger
post Sat, 12 Jan 2008 - 13:25
Post #15


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 128
Joined: 27 May 2003
Member No.: 62



I wonder if anyone here is a driver of a lease car? I'm coming up for a lease renewal, and the wording around parking charges is words to effect "If we get a ticket for your car we'll payu it and claim it from you with a handling charge".

Not sure how legal it is, but basically since it is with my firm I can either take it or... not have a company car I think. Not happy, but I'll probably sign.

Thoughts?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
whitewing
post Sat, 12 Jan 2008 - 13:42
Post #16


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 2,167
Joined: 5 Aug 2006
Member No.: 6,999



If the wording of the lease co. contract just says 'parking ticket','fine','PCN' etc. then no problem as PPCs can't issue these, and you can tell the lease co. to shove it if they are dumb enough to pay.
However if it uses something more general like 'parking charges' I'd suggest you tell them that you will only renew on condition that they do not pass on, pay or charge you for fake PPC invoices.

However the flipside of this is that it may provide a route to force a ppc into court, by claiming against them for the lease co. fee incurred as a result of their fraudulent invoices.



This post has been edited by whitewing: Sat, 12 Jan 2008 - 13:45
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ormy
post Fri, 23 May 2008 - 14:41
Post #17


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 140
Joined: 18 Apr 2008
Member No.: 18,912



Would be interested in your take on signs which simply state the cost of parking without a permit is £70 or whatever, and don't actually mention penalties.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
zamzara
post Fri, 23 May 2008 - 16:32
Post #18


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,286
Joined: 20 Nov 2004
Member No.: 1,898



QUOTE (ormy @ Fri, 23 May 2008 - 15:41) *
Would be interested in your take on signs which simply state the cost of parking without a permit is £70 or whatever, and don't actually mention penalties.


This is my interpretation; others here may disagree:-

If the sign is very straightforward that the cost to park is £70, AND that is the genuine intention of the parties involved, then it is enforceable provided that the land owner in return provides that agreed service.

Where it changes is when the charge will only be issued in certain circumstances, and the consumer parks not expecting to have to pay. Then it becomes a penalty, as the intention of the consumer is to park for free but they end up getting caught out by an unexpected cost.

It's a fuzzy line, but the extremes are clear, and most PPCs are operating near the penalty end of that extreme.


--------------------
Posts by me are intended as a discussion of the issues involved, as these are of general interest to me and others on the forum. Although it is hoped such discussion will be of use to readers, before exposing yourself to risk of loss you should not rely on any principles discussed without confirming the situation with a qualified person.
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: Sunday, 14th April 2024 - 20:05
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