OPC Private Parking Tickets

[GuidoT]

Originally Posted by perky88

By parking on this land you are also agreeing that if you are not the registered keeper, the registered keeper has authorised all acts that you perform as the driver of the vehicle and that the registered keeper has agreed to accept liability and responsibility for the above parking charge.

That above is probably unenforceable in law. You cannot effectively force an unwitting third party to enter into a contract that they are unlikely to have any knowledge of. This flouts the basic privity rule.

There are of course exceptions, like in the case of agency, but I see no such circumstances here.

But I do not suppose it matters, most people will not be aware of this defence and are likely to pay up.

[perky88]

Zamzara ... I must be missing the point here, the above sample signage CLEARLY states it is private land for permit holders only - People who donot have a permit can park here for a charge of £85 ......

It is in simple, straight forward english .. no legal jargon ... If someone parks next to the sign and it is in clear view then I struggle to see how they could presuade any judge that the charge was not due.

We could change it to say instead of a parking charge your vehicle would be clampled and the charge is £85 to release ...

The signage is clear, it is a parking charge if you donot have a valid permit - upto the driver .. get a permit or pay the parking charge.

[perky88]

Originally Posted by perky88

By parking on this land you are also agreeing that if you are not the registered keeper, the registered keeper has authorised all acts that you perform as the driver of the vehicle and that the registered keeper has agreed to accept liability and responsibility for the above parking charge.

Originally Posted by GuidoT

That above is probably unenforceable in law. You cannot effectively force an unwitting third party to enter into a contract that they are unlikely to have any knowledge of. This flouts the basic privity rule.

There are of course exceptions, like in the case of agency, but I see no such circumstances here.

But I do not suppose it matters, most people will not be aware of this defence and are likely to pay up.

That section (re: agency law) has only recently been added to signage over the last 3 months as a result of a case we are going through an appeal for - this was worded by our counsel who we are working with for the appeal, but at the moment we have not gone to court to enforce a new case.

So not really worth entering into a discussion until it is tested as it will be guess work on comments from everyone concerned and without any legal backing.

I posted the example sign to show the wording of a parking charge as opposed to penalty in response to an earlier posting

[Howard0181]

Perky
"WARNING
CONTRACTUAL AGREEMENT"
========================= ======

Do you own or lease this land or do you have arrangement with a landlord?

In any event you cant enforce a contract based on the signage "warning contractural agreement". Any court will see that you are trying to enforce a penaly and you have at no stage identified what your loss is.

In my view a defence will easily win the day in court against you.

Its a good try Perky but your terms cannot be enforced.

[perky88]

You are entitled to your opinion Howard your comments have been noted

[Howard0181]

my question was do you own the land or lease the land or have a licence deal with the landlowner?

[perky88]

Originally Posted by Howard0181

Perky
"WARNING
CONTRACTUAL AGREEMENT"
========================= ======

Do you own or lease this land or do you have arrangement with a landlord?

In any event you cant enforce a contract based on the signage "warning contractural agreement".
Its a good try Perky but your terms cannot be enforced.

The above is what you asked .. so regardless if I own the land and/or have a license agreement with the landowner .. in your expert and informed opinion it is unenforceable.

As I stated .. your comments have been noted .. just end it there

[Howard0181]

there are people out there who will read these threads and who have recieved official looking "invoices" from companies demanding large amounts of money. Some people will be threatened with bailiifs etc etc.

This is why it is important to have noted that these "invoices" are unable to be enforced in a court for reasons all stated in the various private parking threads.

Perky will not answer the question on if he owns the land, leases the land or just has a licence.

His failure to answer this simple question is very telling.

He also fails to explain how he has lost £135 for the car being parked.

He does not have to answer my question but in court he would have to.

Draw your own conclusions.

[Zamzara]

Originally Posted by perky88

Zamzara ... I must be missing the point here, the above sample signage CLEARLY states it is private land for permit holders only - People who donot have a permit can park here for a charge of £85

Yes you are missing the point: those two statements are inconsistent. It can't be for permit holders only, AND for anyone if they pay. Your sign does not say people are allowed to park there if they pay. It says permit holders only in large letters.

It is in simple, straight forward english .. no legal jargon ... If someone parks next to the sign and it is in clear view then I struggle to see how they could presuade any judge that the charge was not due.

And this is relevant because...? See above re: emotional arguments. I do think you are obviously one of the more honest and above board parking enforcers, all else aside. I think you could make your signs better though. You are half way down the trying to make it official/scary route which I am against.

[perky88]

Zamzara .. We're going around in circles here, we have a difference of opinion and we will never agree, but thats what these boards are about !

As I have stated on many of my other posts, our company does not employ wardens all are self managed sites by people/small business owners who just want their carpark back for their customers and are fed up of illgeal parking by non customers.

I understand why Central Ticketing and others have so many complaints, they employ wardens and have to issue tickets and their job is to issue tickets .. not to run the papershop etc... they are paid comission on tickets and have targets to reach and I am sure on occasions they are a little overkeen (to put it bluntly)

This is nothing different from the old days of clampers sitting in their cars, wait for someone to park and the minute a person leaves the car a clamp is on within 30seconds ..

In our cases our customers are busy running their own businesses to be waiting to pounce on someone, and thats why we try and make the signs as clear as possible to make it clear - and I think they are and when we have to enforce a ticket in court we have never experiecned problems (except 1 for appeal at present thus agency wording).

It takes alot for a small shop keeper/pub owner to resort to having to put up signs in his carpark and be distracted from his main business because people are abusing his carpark .. he is also aware that he doesnt want to issue tickets to his own customers.

I fully support people who have been ticketed and get false court papers / threatning letters from debt collectors as this is completely wrong - not just from parking companies but by anyone.

But as I said .. we have different views on illegal parking, because I suffer from it 1st hand/in reality on our businesses (unrelated to car park business) and see on a daily basis small shop owners completely frustrated by illegal parking ... but nothing wrong with difference of opinion !!

[Howard0181]

zamzara

you have picked up on one reason why Perky would not win in court if you were the defendent. Its not you going around in circles.

Also, its clear that Perky is not the landowner and therefore there is no loss.

Also, its not illegal.

Its games set and match agabist Perky. I would say 6-0 6-0 6-0

[perky88]

Originally Posted by Howard0181

Its games set and match agabist Perky. I would say 6-0 6-0 6-0

Thought the children went back to school today .. Must still be some off !!

Anyway, thanks for that Howard, looks like defeat for me .. always willing to accept defeat by a person who puts a strong, educated, adult argument across !!

[Howard0181]

Perky

Its clear that there is no basis to any of your claims.

Seems your loss is zero but you want £135 from a driver!

Good thing is that people can read my comments and other peoples comments and read your latest response and then judge for themselves.

People are not stupid.

[GuidoT]

No more hijacking please.

If you still feel you must, then play nicely and no more than one further post from each of you - you know who you are.

[Bernie_the_Bolt]

Originally Posted by patdavies

Perky,

We are still waiting for you to tell us how you identify the driver.

If you are relying on an implied contract from signage, then unless the RK was there ans read the signs, he/she cannot have entered into such a contract. And therefore cannot be pursued for any payment due under the contract.

So how do you identify the driver?

I would suspect that Perky (and others in the same position) rely on 1) the law of numbers being that many will sooner pay (for a variety of reasons), 2) the fact that many keepers are owners, 3) many will incriminate themselves and others by admitting who the driver was.

Basically it relies on ignorance, much the same as a confidence trickster. And/or the the same principle as the person who (allegedly) placed a small add in Private Eye saying "Last chance to send £1. Send £1 to PO Box 123" and got £thousands.

[GuidoT]

Another month passes and a few more tickets and Windsor - Smyth & Partners wrote to me saying (incorrectly) that I never responded to their last letters.

That letter gives me yet another 14 days before they say they will commence proceedings.

Anyway I responded with this:
'We are in receipt of your two letters dated x 2007.

Your letter erroneously states that we have failed to respond to your letters dated x 2007, this is incorrect, we responded on the 2007 and enclose a further copy of the same.

We have sent this letter by ordinary post in the pre-paid envelope provided and again in our own envelope and obtained a certificate of posting.'

They kindly sent me 2 pre-paid envelopes for my cheque, so I used one for the letter and the other I filled up with rubbish from my bin.

[Bernie_the_Bolt]

Originally Posted by GuidoT

the other I filled up with rubbish from my bin.

And posted it back to them?