PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice Support health workers

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

PCN when i was jump starting a car
strooki
post Tue, 23 Jan 2018 - 09:58
Post #1


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 7
Joined: 22 Jan 2018
Member No.: 96,100



Hi all
As registered keeper i have recieved a PCN for non payment of parking charge.

The driver entered the car park only to jump start a car and was present for 1/2 an hour.

After much searching i believe this could come under frustration of contract but am i just clutching at straws?

How easy is this to defend should it reach county or small claims court?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
 
Start new topic
Replies (1 - 13)
Advertisement
post Tue, 23 Jan 2018 - 09:58
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Tue, 23 Jan 2018 - 10:07
Post #2


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28,687
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



The driver assisting was not "frustrated" - the car trying to leave was, as they couldnt leave as they needed to be jump started. They had NO intention of entering for the purpose of parking, so there was no meeting of minds and so no contract could be formed for parking services.

Fairly easy if you have evidence of this. By any chance did you post on MSE? There is a similar thread there. Worth a read if it isnt you.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ManxRed
post Tue, 23 Jan 2018 - 10:13
Post #3


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 9,985
Joined: 20 Aug 2008
Member No.: 21,992



Which Parking Company?

Is it possible to get a photo of the signs so we could see the wording?


--------------------
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
strooki
post Tue, 23 Jan 2018 - 14:03
Post #4


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 7
Joined: 22 Jan 2018
Member No.: 96,100



Attached Image
Here is the PCN

i'm not near home so i'm getting images sent now from the car park
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
strooki
post Tue, 23 Jan 2018 - 14:22
Post #5


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 7
Joined: 22 Jan 2018
Member No.: 96,100



Here are images of notices in the carpark
There are several of these
and 1 if these

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Tue, 23 Jan 2018 - 14:31
Post #6


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28,687
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



Have you had a look on MSE as advised?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
strooki
post Tue, 23 Jan 2018 - 14:38
Post #7


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 7
Joined: 22 Jan 2018
Member No.: 96,100



QUOTE (nosferatu1001 @ Tue, 23 Jan 2018 - 14:31) *
Have you had a look on MSE as advised?


Doing so now - thank you
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
strooki
post Tue, 23 Jan 2018 - 14:59
Post #8


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 7
Joined: 22 Jan 2018
Member No.: 96,100



So in summary the drivers defence at court would solely be on the grounds that they had not entered the car park to park but to assist a breakdown.
Wonder if AA vehicles and RAC vehicles get tickets?

The info on the pay and display machine does say there are no concessions. Am i merely clutching at straws?

Their largest sign says full t&c at ticket machine, the ticket machine says t&c at various signs around carpark, none of which i remember being lit.
I'm heading home later tonight and will have a look at the car park.

I believe the MSE thread could be my wifes! Will check with her later.
All i know was she was going to look into whether there was any paid for services out there to help form a defence but the only one she came across reviewed badly.


Thanks for all and any assistance
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Jlc
post Tue, 23 Jan 2018 - 15:01
Post #9


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 41,510
Joined: 25 Aug 2011
From: Planet Earth
Member No.: 49,223



HX do issue court claims - so be prepared. (It is almost certain they will reject any appeal)

There are arguments but there's no guarantee at court:
* Did not accept their offer
* The amount charged is far in excess of the tariff (and is a penalty not saved by Beavis)
* The predominate purpose of the scheme is to prevent those parking from not paying the tariff
* A parking space was not used and did not disadvantage the parking company nor the landholder

Of course, they could counter that the alleged contract was breached by not parking in a bay. (Presuming it wasn't when jump starting)

It's a reasonable argument but they won't care about any mitigating circumstances as they just want the cash.


--------------------
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, SAR=Subject Access Request

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
strooki
post Tue, 23 Jan 2018 - 15:06
Post #10


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 7
Joined: 22 Jan 2018
Member No.: 96,100



QUOTE (Jlc @ Tue, 23 Jan 2018 - 15:01) *
HX do issue court claims - so be prepared. (It is almost certain they will reject any appeal)

There are arguments but there's no guarantee at court:
* Did not accept their offer
* The amount charged is far in excess of the tariff (and is a penalty not saved by Beavis)
* The predominate purpose of the scheme is to prevent those parking from not paying the tariff
* A parking space was not used and did not disadvantage the parking company nor the landholder

Of course, they could counter that the alleged contract was breached by not parking in a bay. (Presuming it wasn't when jump starting)

It's a reasonable argument but they won't care about any mitigating circumstances as they just want the cash.


Thank you very much.

And the driver of my wifes car... they genuinely broke down in their car park.

Does frustration of contract on this bear the same odds at court or has it a stronger chance of success?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Tue, 23 Jan 2018 - 15:22
Post #11


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28,687
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



Same
Frustration is well defined
Lack of meeitng of minds is fairly obvious. There was never intention to park but to assist, and as you point out - no judge would saythe RAC or AA woul dhave to pay under those circumstances!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
kommando
post Tue, 23 Jan 2018 - 16:09
Post #12


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 4,167
Joined: 6 Oct 2012
Member No.: 57,558



And by assisting the driver was freeing up a space currently occupied by an immobile vehicle.

This post has been edited by kommando: Tue, 23 Jan 2018 - 16:09
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Jlc
post Tue, 23 Jan 2018 - 16:36
Post #13


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 41,510
Joined: 25 Aug 2011
From: Planet Earth
Member No.: 49,223



As pointed out earlier, 'frustration' doesn't necessarily apply to the car assisting. The driver of the broken down car obviously read all of the signage and wanted to comply but couldn't due to unforeseen circumstances. ParkingEye v Cargius is worth a read for example.

But the broken down car isn't being pursued?


--------------------
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, SAR=Subject Access Request

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
strooki
post Tue, 23 Jan 2018 - 17:30
Post #14


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 7
Joined: 22 Jan 2018
Member No.: 96,100



QUOTE (Jlc @ Tue, 23 Jan 2018 - 16:36) *
As pointed out earlier, 'frustration' doesn't necessarily apply to the car assisting. The driver of the broken down car obviously read all of the signage and wanted to comply but couldn't due to unforeseen circumstances. ParkingEye v Cargius is worth a read for example.

But the broken down car isn't being pursued?


Actually it is being pursued for not purchasing a ticket within the grace period (it took the driver an hour to get help and then realise they were dead in the water and purchased a ticket.

The assisting vehicle is being pursued twice, once for the assist at the night (28 min) and once again in the morning (19 min).

I didn't realise but my wife had mentioned this in a thread in the mse forum
link in mse forum
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: Thursday, 28th March 2024 - 21:51
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