PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

PCN, You may be ticketed.
mashman36
post Sun, 10 Jun 2018 - 16:54
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 828
Joined: 7 Jun 2010
From: planet earth
Member No.: 38,027



As previously discussed on here my team do a 24/7 on call emergency rota .
Our new oncall emergency pass now reads ;
Emergency paking after 18:00 till 6am monday to friday.
24 hours parking weekends n bank holidays.
If parked to attend outside these hours you MAY be ticketed.
So basically whatever the pco feels like on any given day ,very presumptuous and erroneous .
Your feeling and opinions please.

This post has been edited by mashman36: Sun, 10 Jun 2018 - 19:44
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
2 Pages V  < 1 2  
Start new topic
Replies (20 - 31)
Advertisement
post Sun, 10 Jun 2018 - 16:54
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
DancingDad
post Fri, 15 Jun 2018 - 11:23
Post #21


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18,700
Joined: 28 Jun 2010
From: Area 51
Member No.: 38,559



QUOTE (ManxRed @ Fri, 15 Jun 2018 - 10:41) *
Wouldn't 'may' get a ticket (you may get one, you may not) be an ambiguous contract term which should be interpreted in favour of the consumer? So 'you may not' is the 'correct' interpretation?

I realise this is a wild and crazy hypothesis, and am happy for it to be ripped apart.



Parking Contract Terms will be in the car park, "May" on the permit is simply a warning.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
southpaw82
post Fri, 15 Jun 2018 - 17:18
Post #22


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28,157
Joined: 2 Apr 2008
From: Not in the UK
Member No.: 18,483



QUOTE (ManxRed @ Fri, 15 Jun 2018 - 10:41) *
Wouldn't 'may' get a ticket (you may get one, you may not) be an ambiguous contract term which should be interpreted in favour of the consumer? So 'you may not' is the 'correct' interpretation?

I realise this is a wild and crazy hypothesis, and am happy for it to be ripped apart.

It’s not a contract term though, is it? It’s simply a mechanism for enforcement of contractual terms, it’s not a term any party is required to follow.


--------------------


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
mashman36
post Fri, 15 Jun 2018 - 19:28
Post #23


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 828
Joined: 7 Jun 2010
From: planet earth
Member No.: 38,027



I really do want to stick it them I just havnt the overall knowledge to contracrually turn it on its head and have em bang to rights
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
mashman36
post Tue, 19 Jun 2018 - 13:11
Post #24


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 828
Joined: 7 Jun 2010
From: planet earth
Member No.: 38,027



I believe the vehicle has been ghost ticketed.
The driver of the vehicle had been called out on an emergency to attend during the day and to respond ASAP. I have spoken with the driver who told me that the appropriate people had been made aware .A permit was placed in the window; the permit does say MAY be ticketed not Will be ticketed which is ambiguous and vexatious and is not a contractual term.
A member of staff took a photograph of two parking offices putting a ticket on the car but when the driver arrived the ticket was no longer present on the car. The driver was not aware of being ticketed.
The keeper was made aware at a later date that the car was ticketed.
I am appealing on the grounds of that no one was aware of any pcn ticket.
That the ticket was ghosted to affect any appeal process. Schedule 4 paragraph 7 of the PoFA
The wording on the permit ambiguous and vexatious.
The word May does not form a contractual term and is open to interpretation.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Churchmouse
post Thu, 21 Jun 2018 - 00:34
Post #25


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,675
Joined: 30 Jun 2008
From: Landan
Member No.: 20,731



Sounds like we're not in Kansas anymore? Perhaps a new thread in the PPT&C forum would be appropriate.

The permit is unlikely to be part of the contract; the signs are the contract or, rather, the contractual offer that was allegedly accepted by the driver when he or she decided to park in that location. (Is that the sign in post #7 by typefish? Not sure why he posted it and not you. In any case, that sign says nothing about permits.)

So, what do the signs where the driver parked say? Let's start there, and then move on to the wording of the actual PCN. Ghost ticketing won't be easy to prove and may be irrelevant to achieve your ends.

--Churchmouse
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
mashman36
post Thu, 21 Jun 2018 - 02:58
Post #26


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 828
Joined: 7 Jun 2010
From: planet earth
Member No.: 38,027



QUOTE (Churchmouse @ Thu, 21 Jun 2018 - 01:34) *
Sounds like we're not in Kansas anymore? Perhaps a new thread in the PPT&C forum would be appropriate.

The permit is unlikely to be part of the contract; the signs are the contract or, rather, the contractual offer that was allegedly accepted by the driver when he or she decided to park in that location. (Is that the sign in post #7 by typefish? Not sure why he posted it and not you. In any case, that sign says nothing about permits.)

So, what do the signs where the driver parked say? Let's start there, and then move on to the wording of the actual PCN. Ghost ticketing won't be easy to prove and may be irrelevant to achieve your ends.

--Churchmouse
the sign that is posted is nothing to do with the case!
I will post up the relevant one later today.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
mashman36
post Thu, 21 Jun 2018 - 15:08
Post #27


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 828
Joined: 7 Jun 2010
From: planet earth
Member No.: 38,027



QUOTE (mashman36 @ Thu, 21 Jun 2018 - 03:58) *
QUOTE (Churchmouse @ Thu, 21 Jun 2018 - 01:34) *
Sounds like we're not in Kansas anymore? Perhaps a new thread in the PPT&C forum would be appropriate.

The permit is unlikely to be part of the contract; the signs are the contract or, rather, the contractual offer that was allegedly accepted by the driver when he or she decided to park in that location. (Is that the sign in post #7 by typefish? Not sure why he posted it and not you. In any case, that sign says nothing about permits.)

So, what do the signs where the driver parked say? Let's start there, and then move on to the wording of the actual PCN. Ghost ticketing won't be easy to prove and may be irrelevant to achieve your ends.

--Churchmouse
the sign that is posted is nothing to do with the case!
I will post up the relevant one later today.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
notmeatloaf
post Thu, 21 Jun 2018 - 15:27
Post #28


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 966
Joined: 4 Mar 2017
Member No.: 90,659



Why don't you park in an area not signed as a no parking zone?

Even if you have a permit they are unlikely to be valid in areas where all parking is prohibited.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ManxRed
post Thu, 21 Jun 2018 - 16:06
Post #29


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 8,929
Joined: 20 Aug 2008
Member No.: 21,992



Strange sign.

It says no parking, and then it says you CAN park, but the charge is £70, regardless of whether you're a permit holder or not. It also forbids blue badge holders from doing ANYTHING.

Dunno what to make of it to be honest!!


--------------------
Sometimes I use big words I don't understand in an effort to make myself sound more photosynthesis.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Jlc
post Thu, 21 Jun 2018 - 16:26
Post #30


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 27,973
Joined: 25 Aug 2011
From: With Mickey
Member No.: 49,223



QUOTE (ManxRed @ Thu, 21 Jun 2018 - 17:06) *
It says no parking, and then it says you CAN park, but the charge is £70, regardless of whether you're a permit holder or not.

So it's not forbidding. It makes a genuine offer to park if you agree to the charge. Premiership footballers may actually think £70 is a reasonable sum.


--------------------
RK=Registered Keeper, OP=Original Poster (You!), CoFP=Conditional Offer of Fixed Penalty, NtK=Notice to Keeper, NtD=Notice to Driver
PoFA=Protection of Freedoms Act, SAC=Safety Awareness Course, NIP=Notice of Intended Prosecution, ADR=Alternative Dispute Resolution
PPC=Private Parking Company, LBCCC=Letter Before County Court Claim, PII=Personally Identifiable Information

Private Parking - remember, they just want your money and will say almost anything to get it.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Thu, 21 Jun 2018 - 18:25
Post #31


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 2,928
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



QUOTE (Jlc @ Thu, 21 Jun 2018 - 17:26) *
QUOTE (ManxRed @ Thu, 21 Jun 2018 - 17:06) *
It says no parking, and then it says you CAN park, but the charge is £70, regardless of whether you're a permit holder or not.

So it's not forbidding. It makes a genuine offer to park if you agree to the charge. Premiership footballers may actually think £70 is a reasonable sum.

It's only £35 if you pay promptly, which is cheaper than all day parking in some central London car parks.


--------------------
I am not on the "motorists's side", nor am I on the "police/CPS/council's" side, I am simply in favour of the rule of law.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Churchmouse
post Thu, 21 Jun 2018 - 23:31
Post #32


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,675
Joined: 30 Jun 2008
From: Landan
Member No.: 20,731



QUOTE (Jlc @ Thu, 21 Jun 2018 - 17:26) *
QUOTE (ManxRed @ Thu, 21 Jun 2018 - 17:06) *
It says no parking, and then it says you CAN park, but the charge is £70, regardless of whether you're a permit holder or not.

So it's not forbidding. It makes a genuine offer to park if you agree to the charge. Premiership footballers may actually think £70 is a reasonable sum.

"No Parking Zone" is unambiguously forbidding. So it is forbidding. But the terms go on to contradict one another by seeming to then offer parking in exchange for a fee/charge/penalty (whatever we're calling it these days). So it's not forbidding?

What it is, is a nonsense. It is a clumsy attempt to dress up a trespass claim as a breach of contract, and any jurist who cannot see that does not belong on the bench.

--Churchmouse
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

2 Pages V  < 1 2
Reply to this topicStart new topic
2 User(s) are reading this topic (2 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



Advertisement

Advertise here!

RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: Saturday, 23rd June 2018 - 07:54
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.