Putting the record straight

[perky88]

OK .. I'm back - not that I wanted to be, but I logged on the other day and the same old rubbish is being spouted by certain people about the legalites of private parking tickets ... so I invested some money from a recent case won for a judgement transcript as people didnt beleive me that as a company we DO take people to court and DO win !!!

PLEASE PLEASE read all of this carefully, for those on this group who are mentally challenged - read it twice, that way no confusion.

I am not condoning companies who trick people / hide signs / send out silly pretend court letters ... so now thats straight ...

I do work as a partner in a private parking company - we are 99% self managed, by this the sites issue their own tickets, eg. The pub landlord who is fed up with his car park being used by non customers so his deliveries cant get in .. .hes tried the polite messages, failed so now he issued private parking tickets.

We know that 99% of our customers have their own businesses to run, and just want their car park clear - not wardens waiting to pounce on the disabled person etc...

They have better things to do than sit around waiting for an illegally parked car - they have lots of signs on their carpark so we can enforce if needed.

You will always get people who whinge and moan after getting a ticket, even if theyre parked next to a sign they still argue it and most of them come to sites like this and get (sometimes, not all the time) bad advice about tickets not being enforceable.

This case was a coffee shop, lots of signs - obvious its parking for the coffee shop only - someone didnt pay attention/look for signs and wasnt a customer .. a ticket was issued and then they appealed.

The photos clearly showed the car parked with a sign nearby - clear .. they still refused it and ultimately went to court.

I attach the transcript of the judgement ... PLEASE READ CAREFULLY. (3 pages)


SO ... Some parking companies do take people to court and if everything is in place (signage etc..) then the tickets are issued lawfully and correctly and a court will award judgement.

IF you feel a private parking company has tricked you/not put adequate signage etc.. then you have a right to fight it in court and let the judge decide.

Obviously the county court does not set any legal rules, but it should hopefully stop the comments on this site like "they're not enforceable" etc..

If you get a ticket .. were signs on display and did you just miss them ?? are the signs clear ?? is it a fair cop ?? did you take a chance and got caught ?? .. each ticket is unique and the reasons for issue the same .. one glove/answer does not fit all .. except, if the signs are clear, the ticket wording correct the law is on the side of the landowner and if a company takes you to court they will probarly win.

I am NOT going to enter into long debates over this, I was asked a few weeks ago to get a transcript of a case and i have done it ...

AGAIN .. I donot condone the tactics I have read about on here by some companies, only 1 side of events ever written - wardens get paid on ticket issuing - its obvious ...

Not all private parking companies are the same and we all work and operate differently - I think that can be bourne out as I have done a search on the company we operate and were not on any forums about bad practices etc.. (well .. until now I suspect !!!) ..

So I will leave you to argue it between yourselves - but it should show that if issued correctly and the company wishes to pursue it and has the evidence .. PRIVATE PARKING TICKETS are 100% enforceable.

SORRY .. Just need to add, we are NOT connected to UKCPS or CPS based in Blackpool (I think) .... the only connection is initials.

[Bernie_the_Bolt]

Perky,

I read some of what went on before and I don't agree with much of what was said to you then.

I have no argument that it is perfectly possible to form a binding and enforcable contract for private parking.

It is a question of proof and evidence.

This guy was pretty much damned by himself. He admitted too much and he focused on the wrong things in his defence.

It is perfectly possible that the outcome would have been very different had he taken a different approach!

[perky88]

I agree totally with you Bernie ... In fact the same evidence presented in front of a different judge could have yielded a different outcome also.

The judgement posted was obviously the outcome, there was a good 45minutes debate before this basically arguing that he did not see the signs and as a result no contract was entered into (as he didnt see them).

The photogrpahs (as mentioned in the judgement) showed signage, clear and concise ...

The court took the view the signage was on display to be read, he (by his own negligance) did not take the time to read them - if he did he would have known the restrictions "Customers Only 1hr".

The signage was clear enough he must have seen it, whatever the reason for overstaying either he didnt take time to look at the sign, took the chance that private tickets are unenforcenable, forgot the time ... he got a ticket and the court upheld it.

I dont really see what other defence he could have used ... that was his defence (no contract as I didnt see the signs as they were not in correct place / confusing) - therefore not bound by the conditions - The court found otherwise and they do on many occasions when we have to enforce tickets this way.

As I said originally, I dont want to go into debate on this ... I posted it as requested sometime ago ... and mainly to dispel the myth that some on here give that ALL private parking tickets are unenforceable.

We are in the process of getting another judgement transcribed where the defendant stated they were only the RK and not driver - they refused to give the driver details, the judge asked them, they still refused - the court found on balance of prob they were as refusing/unable to supply details ... this will hopefully be through in a couple of weeks and I will post then...

All cases I have personally done, 2 have only been lost and these were all to do with genuine signage issues - thats why photogrpahs speak volumes (not only of the vehicle location when ticket issued, but site in general) !!!

[johno1066]

What a crock of [edited]!! this could be eaasily defended by a competant on appeal. Incidently scammer, how much in business rates are you paying on this land? We shall find out soon, thanks for the info. Hope you have your chequebook handy.

[perky88]

Hello johno1066, so elequantly put.

Without wishing to lower my standards, what exactly is a [edited] What does business rates have to do with things and why would I need my chequebook ready ??

What grounds would the appeal be on ?? (if you READ the judgement they defendant asked for leave to appeal and it was rejected) .. Do you know how the appeals system works or would you like it explaning .. well, to save you having to look it up.

An appeal can only be heard if there has been a legal or procedural error, not just because you think "the judge got it wrong"..

The original defendant asked for leave to appeal, it was declined - he/she would then have to request leave from a higher judge (In this case a circuit judge) - you would have to enclose a skeleton legal argument for the appeal to be considered.

Please feel free TO START A NEW THREAD with your skeleton legal argument as to why an appeal should be heard.

Over to you johno1066, but please keep it polite, to the point and factual (if possible)

[Zamzara]

Originally Posted by perky88

The signage was clear enough he must have seen it, whatever the reason for overstaying either he didnt take time to look at the sign, took the chance that private tickets are unenforcenable, forgot the time ... he got a ticket and the court upheld it.

I dont really see what other defence he could have used ... that was his defence (no contract as I didnt see the signs as they were not in correct place / confusing) - therefore not bound by the conditions -

Have you read any of the threads here? He should have argued that the charge is a penalty and an unfair term of the contract. He didn't, and used a losing defence instead.

If it's so easy for you to win in court, why do the vast majority of private parking cases get quietly dropped after the bluff is exhausted?

[perky88]

zamzara ... we keep going through this ... the charge is a CHARGE and not a PENALTY.

I dont know why other companies drop it, maybe badly worded signage - I have ALWAYS been careful only to comment on something I have sctually done and never guesswork ... I am awaiting 2 other judgements and one person argued the penalty bit ... I would say please bear with me and once I get it through and its posted have a discussion then as then you will see the actual legal argument rather than guessing (I appreciate that this forum is based on guesswork but hopefully real cases I put on here will change that).


I have selected 3 cases as they all had different defences/arguments put forward.

This case was about "how can a contract be formed if I did not see the signage" ... it shows that argument (as long as there are plenty of signs) is not valid.

The rest of his defence may of been poor, but that defendant truly thought he could not be held by the terms of the signage if he said he didnt see them ...

A REAL LIFE CASE ... The court found that excuse was not good enough.

The latest case I did last Friday will be one of the best for this site (transcript requested) ... This was argued by the defendant in great detail about penalties and being held to terms of contracts if he didnt see the signs and them being unfair etc...

It normally takes approx 4-weeks for a judgement to be transcribed and approved by judge, but I will post and then we can discuss then.

Many people (including yourself) didnt think we took people to court and constantly asked me to prove it .. I have done that, the others will follow once we get them.

As for why other companies drop cases, I dont know .. that is something you will have to ask them.

[Muggerbee]

Perky

welcome to the forums

I must say I'm impressed that someone who operates a company at the lowest end of the bottom feeders in PPC's has the nuts to come out.

Your're not Mr Brough are you ? It's just the screen name fits the
physical appearance

I must say that I am appalled by your business model, arms length extortion by proxy, i take it that you're too idle to go around
doing any kind of phsical labour yourself.

Tell you what though, If you'd care to post a list of your locations that you "manage " (pauses to laugh) then i'll personally make arrangements
for "someone" to park there and we'll see how you feel about a well
contested action.

I can afford to lose 60 quid, can you afford to have any N1 form you ever
issue thenceforth used as toilet paper ?

P.s.

Thanks for sending your thai pool boy over to pepipoo to let us all know
that you can con the bench as well as little old ladies and people who
have enough respect for the law to believe that you have some validity

[johno1066]

Originally Posted by Muggerbee

Perky

welcome to the forums

I must say I'm impressed that someone who operates a company at the lowest end of the bottom feeders in PPC's has the nuts to come out.

Your're not Mr Brough are you ? It's just the screen name fits the
physical appearance

I must say that I am appalled by your business model, arms length extortion by proxy, i take it that you're too idle to go around
doing any kind of phsical labour yourself.

Tell you what though, If you'd care to post a list of your locations that you "manage " (pauses to laugh) then i'll personally make arrangements
for "someone" to park there and we'll see how you feel about a well
contested action.

I can afford to lose 60 quid, can you afford to have any N1 form you ever
issue thenceforth used as toilet paper ?

I'm up for that, rather than talk the talk, let's see whether Mr Perky can walk the walk. |Comeon then Perky, post the list, then I'll also have a word with local authorities too, just to ensure that you or the landlord is paying the right level of business rates for the land that you "manage".

[legaladviser]

Despite what perky88 would have you believe any action by a private parking company can easily be defended in court. Properly defended there is no possibility of the private parking company winning the action. I can provide him with evidence of cases where private parking companies have taken legal proceedings and lost. Despite what he would have you believe the obstacles to a successful action by a private parking company are many and legion. Firstly, establishing a contract in the first place, which is extemely difficult to do by conduct in parking alone. Secondly, overcoming Vine v Waltham Forest where it is established that the driver needs to actually see the warning signage for a contract to be formed. Thirdly, establishing the liability of the RK for an act of the driver. Fourthly, proving that the "charge" is not a "penalty" (and therefore unlawful) or unreasonable under UCTA. And lastly, even if all of the preceding can be proven establising that the charge is a reasonable measure of damages for the loss suffered.

A properly defended case would highlight all of these issues and I would be amazed if a reasonable judge was ever to rule in favour of a private parking company in such a scenario.

In summary despite the misleading and entirely self-serving comments of perky88, private parking tickets are legally unenforcable and should any recipients of such actions need help they only need to go the Pepipoo fighback forums (parking tickets) where I and others will be more than happy to demolish the arguments of these leeches.

[Muggerbee]

Company Summary for Combined Parking Solutions

Unincorporated Number: UC5497002 Registered Office: PO Box 4487, Wolverhampton, West Midlands, WV1 9BP Company Status: Unincorporated

This is NOT personal data it is freely available if anyone wishes to note that
it is not a limited company and that if they sued for damages then the director/s would have the baliffs seizing their chatals then thats up to them.

Oh and perky, from your website you appear to have erected one of your signs and issuing an "invoice" where there is already a TRO and signage for residents and disabled parking in place :



Hope you took it down before you got nicked under the administration of justice act or section 28 of the theft act !!!

[johno1066]

Originally Posted by perky88

zamzara ... we keep going through this ... the charge is a CHARGE and not a PENALTY

Note

If, after 14 days the charge remains outstanding, we obtain the licensing details from the DVLA and our legal department pursue the motorist for the charge. During this process, we are bound at all times by the DVLA's code of conduct for the release and processing of data and The Administration of Justice Act 1978.
Should you wish to cancel any issued parking charge ticket for whatever reason within 14 days, it will be done free of charge. This ensures that only genuine offenders and not customers etc are penalised should a parking charge be issued in error.
On completion of the charge, a compensatory payment to the sum of either £10 or £25 (depending on your package) Inc VAT is returned to you.

[Muggerbee]

Originally Posted by johno1066

Note

If, after 14 days the charge remains outstanding, we obtain the licensing details from the DVLA and our legal department pursue the motorist for the charge. During this process, we are bound at all times by the DVLA's code of conduct for the release and processing of data and The Administration of Justice Act 1978.
Should you wish to cancel any issued parking charge ticket for whatever reason within 14 days, it will be done free of charge. This ensures that only genuine offenders and not customers etc are penalised should a parking charge be issued in error.
On completion of the charge, a compensatory payment to the sum of either £10 or £25 (depending on your package) Inc VAT is returned to you.

The phrase " Hoist by your own petard" springs to mind

[ScarletPimpernel]

"Unauthorised removal or interference is an offence" - really? Against which statute law is it an offence to remove or 'interfere with' a piece of paper stuck on your car by an employee of a private company not operating under the RTA?

The website says that this is an example of a ticket issued to "offending vehicles" - which offence will they have committed, contrary to which statute law?

[Muggerbee]

Originally Posted by ScarletPimpernel

"Unauthorised removal or interference is an offence" - really? Against which statute law is it an offence to remove or 'interfere with' a piece of paper stuck on your car by an employee of a private company not operating under the RTA?

The website says that this is an example of a ticket issued to "offending vehicles" - which offence will they have committed, contrary to which statute law?

I can tell you the answer to that, but i won't because I doubt if perky
knows, but lets just say it's very dubious and there is probably a way
round it using anti stalking legislation if he keeps sticking them on your
car

[B.A.Ts]

This is just my two pence worth and my personal opinion.. so please no one spout off about road traffic acts etc..as Im blonde and wouldnt Know what you were talking about

As I can appreciate that your land is your land and you pay X amount a year for the upkeep etc and why should Joe public park on your land for free or park there at all if uninvited or out stay their time limit etc etc etc you get the gist. Why does it have to be a money making business. You spend out x amount of pounds to get signs put up that most cant be read, pay out for printed tickets, pay wages to the man who gives them out or tows/clamps the cars.. pay out for the person to sit there all day waiting (like a vulture) to pounce on the car who has out stayed his welcome.
when so much time and effort can be saved if you just put a warning on the car to start with or just get people to pay for parking like a pay and display. I some times think that these people who do this sort of business have no compassion and thrive on making peoples lives miserable because they perhaps didnt see the signs and genuinely thought they were parking in a safe place to park. It makes me angry that these huge shopping complexes have free parking for customers up to two hours as long as you shop in their shops, but if you pop off to get something else off of the complex you get a ticket!!!!! even though they were a customer. or you get a ticket for parking over the two hours. when you are disabled or have children you tend to take your time when shopping and it often takes more than two hours when looking around the whole complex. why do we have to shop on a time limit? most of these shopping complexes have ample parking spaces so its not like you are taking up space. I would also like to point out that never have I seen in this area that a Valid blue badge has to be displayed to park in a disabled bay. some disabled drivers dont have a blue badge. I didnt for years does that mean I cant park in a disabled bay. my tax disc has clearly marked on it that it is registered disabled.
any way im rambling on now its just my opinion.