PCN when i was jump starting a car |
PCN when i was jump starting a car |
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? |
|
|
Advertisement |
Tue, 23 Jan 2018 - 09:58
Post
#
|
Advertise here! |
|
|
|
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. |
|
|
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.
|
|
|
Tue, 23 Jan 2018 - 14:03
Post
#4
|
|
New Member Group: Members Posts: 7 Joined: 22 Jan 2018 Member No.: 96,100 |
|
|
|
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 |
|
|
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?
|
|
|
Tue, 23 Jan 2018 - 14:38
Post
#7
|
|
New Member Group: Members Posts: 7 Joined: 22 Jan 2018 Member No.: 96,100 |
|
|
|
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 |
|
|
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. |
|
|
Tue, 23 Jan 2018 - 15:06
Post
#10
|
|
New Member Group: Members Posts: 7 Joined: 22 Jan 2018 Member No.: 96,100 |
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? |
|
|
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! |
|
|
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 |
|
|
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. |
|
|
Tue, 23 Jan 2018 - 17:30
Post
#14
|
|
New Member Group: Members Posts: 7 Joined: 22 Jan 2018 Member No.: 96,100 |
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 |
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: Thursday, 28th March 2024 - 21:51 |