Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Just looking for some confirmation really.
FightBack Forums > Queries > Private Parking Tickets & Clamping
TPO
I think I know the answer to this question...well I hope I do anyway. I read through all the sticky threads but I just wanted confirmation really.

I went out to my car yesterday and found the attached parking ticket stuck to my window :

* Ticket was removed on the advice of bama.


Am I right in thinking that this was issued by a PPC? I noticed that there is a case in one of the sticky threads concerning Central Ticketing but their head office is in Bradford (I think) where as this ticket shows their head office as Edinburgh. Is it the same company?

Can I just ignore this and the letters that will no doubt follow?
bama
Its PPC.
The usual advice applies.
take down the pic - we have seen enough.
Broadsword
perhaps we should have a little competition to try and list as many faults as possible on PPC "tickets" so that people have a better understanding of why ignoring it is the correct course of action
TPO
Thanks for replying guys, much appreciated.

QUOTE (Broadsword @ Fri, 27 May 2011 - 19:29) *
perhaps we should have a little competition to try and list as many faults as possible on PPC "tickets" so that people have a better understanding of why ignoring it is the correct course of action


Out of interest, what is wrong with the ticket that I have received?
Gan
Correct

The history & financials of CT(UK) and some associated companies look quite interesting.

Safe to ignore. I don't think they'll want the publicity of any court cases that might come to the attention of Tesco and Lloyds TSB.

Regarding your questions -

Terms like "excess charge" and "offence to interfere with ticket" are trying to imitate council tickets to obtain payment = Administration of Justice and Fraud Act offences. The variable charges depending on when/if it's paid make clear that it's not a claim for damages but an attempt to charge a penalty = not enforceable in court.
Broadsword
QUOTE (TPO @ Fri, 27 May 2011 - 21:01) *
Thanks for replying guys, much appreciated.

QUOTE (Broadsword @ Fri, 27 May 2011 - 19:29) *
perhaps we should have a little competition to try and list as many faults as possible on PPC "tickets" so that people have a better understanding of why ignoring it is the correct course of action


Out of interest, what is wrong with the ticket that I have received?


What do you think might be wrong with it?
Bogsy
Gotta laugh at the coat of arms with motto.
Broadsword
QUOTE (Bogsy @ Fri, 27 May 2011 - 21:13) *
Gotta laugh at the coat of arms with motto.


Gotta be honest, I hadn't noticed the motto until you pointed it out, it made me squeal laugh.gif
TPO
QUOTE (Gan @ Fri, 27 May 2011 - 20:08) *
Correct

The history & financials of CT(UK) and some associated companies look quite interesting.

Safe to ignore. I don't think they'll want the publicity of any court cases that might come to the attention of Tesco and Lloyds TSB.

Regarding your questions -

Terms like "excess charge" and "offence to interfere with ticket" are trying to imitate council tickets to obtain payment = Administration of Justice and Fraud Act offences. The variable charges depending on when/if it's paid make clear that it's not a claim for damages but an attempt to charge a penalty = not enforceable in court.


Thanks very much. Am I right in thinking that it is actually the driver that parked the the car that is liable for the charge and not the owner? I am not the owner of the vehicle so any follow up letters wont be addressed to me. Do I just make it clear to the owner not to have any contact with them. My understanding is that they have to prove who was driving/parking the vehicle at the time of the change and thats almost impossible.

Haha, I just read their motto!!!
andy_foster
The bottom line with all of these 'tickets' is that the 'charges' are penalty clauses under a purported contract and therefore unenforceable.
The 'ticket' is in effect an invoice relating to the purported contract, although it designed to look like a real parking ticket - either that or the biggest coincidence since Kingdom Come, the only rock band who had never listed to Led Zeppelin, sounding exactly like Led Zeppelin.

We can pick holes in the 'ticket' and infer what the warning signs, which would have communicated the purported offer in the purported contract, might have said, but to identify the issues particular to that case/site, we would need to see the signs.

However, as all these car parking management services are 'sold' to the occupier on the premise of deterring the parking of unauthorised vehicles, and the purported contractual terms accordingly ostensibly deter unauthorised parking, the charges are by definition penalty clauses and unenforceable.
Broadsword
QUOTE (andy_foster @ Fri, 27 May 2011 - 21:52) *
The bottom line with all of these 'tickets' is that the 'charges' are penalty clauses under a purported contract and therefore unenforceable.
The 'ticket' is in effect an invoice relating to the purported contract, although it designed to look like a real parking ticket - either that or the biggest coincidence since Kingdom Come, the only rock band who had never listed to Led Zeppelin, sounding exactly like Led Zeppelin.

We can pick holes in the 'ticket' and infer what the warning signs, which would have communicated the purported offer in the purported contract, might have said, but to identify the issues particular to that case/site, we would need to see the signs.

However, as all these car parking management services are 'sold' to the occupier on the premise of deterring the parking of unauthorised vehicles, and the purported contractual terms accordingly ostensibly deter unauthorised parking, the charges are by definition penalty clauses and unenforceable.


Spoil sport
TPO
Am I right in thinking that it is actually the driver that parked the the car that is liable for the charge and not the owner? I am not the owner of the vehicle so any follow up letters wont be addressed to me. Do I just make it clear to the owner not to have any contact with them. My understanding is that they have to prove who was driving/parking the vehicle at the time of the change and thats almost impossible.
Gan
It's the driver who would be liable if a liability for the charges actually existed. The owner is under no obligation to help with the identification.

This is only one of the hurdles they have to jump but any correspondence risks giving them helpful information or an admission of a debt or mistake.

Advise the owner to blank them and point him at the sticky area of the forum for examples of the letter chain.

This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2024 Invision Power Services, Inc.