Thread: UK CPS parking charges...the aftermath

I have ignored NCP three time in the last two years (supposed charge for not displaying blue badge on dash err it's on sun blind in perfect view) anyway no court papers after all the threats they have made and no letters from me to them at all.

dpick

thank you both

Hello the_looker

The Law is fairly smudged in some areas of this type of charge ...

The advice on this forum and research reveals many others like it, suggest you should ignore all the demands made of you - as the private car park companies (PCP's) do not have a leg to stand on.

This is NOT sound advice, especially depending on how the Courts decide to view the case.

Don't misunderstand me, some of the advice IS sound, but must not be confused with differing cases. Some charges can indeed be set aside in Court with good reason. Some will fall by the wayside and the 'fine' be 'forgotten' and unpursued.
Not all cases are the same, so the reader must not take comfort from the advice, as an across the board solution to all - and in particular, their own situation.

I am familiar and experienced with Courts, Law and Procedure. I looked long and hard at all the options and I considered a few possible avenues the Courts or the PCP might rely upon. I prepared good argument and can hold my own, but was also very aware of different aspects the Court may consider in the situation of parking on private land.

Let us look at how the Law interprets this type of charge ...

Firstly this is NOT a fine.
The fact is there are notices.
The Courts do not consider you must 'read' the notices, but considers in all probability you have at least 'seen' them.
The charge for parking is clearly stated.
There is no need in Law for them to prove who the driver of the car was at the time.
They do not need to define hours of operation I.e. 9 to 5 or 24 hours etc.
They cannot use bailiffs because this is not an enforceable 'fine/penalty'. So this aspect of any PCP correspondence is 'threatening' bull.
But, be clear, this is an enforceable debt, it is not considered in Law as an unenforceable 'invoice' or other such charge/cost. Albeit accepted by the Courts as 'extortionate'.

Yes a shock I know.

Their notice(s) state they will charge at the rate of "x" per day as 'blah blah' damages.
The Law states this is un-enforceable, and this element of their claim, depending on how far it goes, will not be upheld in Court.

This PCP will eventually - after five or so letters - cap their final charges at around £300 with an offer for you to settle at £200. This is absolute rubbish and can be ignored. The PCP claim the 'charge's will be to cover admin costs, letters, postage and of course DVLA details, which in truth amounts to just a few quid. The Court WILL throw this argument out.
The Courts state the Law about this type of additional cost as being a penalty. Private companies cannot use this area of Law, to enforce a penalty, thus it will fall at the hearing for them, in your favour.

But ..... this is a somewhat hollow victory ...

What cannot be ignored is the original bill of £60 will stand up in Court. The Court will not uphold the other charges imposed by the PCP but you will get hit with their costs - because ultimately you will lose the Court hearing.

Before going into Court I had researched and sought Legal advice, as I said above.
One thing had occurred to me and is something to remember; parking is to agree to their charge. Failure to pay does not become liable in Law under fines or charges levied by the PCP's, but can be enforced simply under the Law of Trespass.

In other words, plain and simple - this is private ground.
There are notices in effect giving a person 'permission' to park if they 'accept' there is a charge involved.
Failure to pay puts you right into the Law of Trespass. Even if the PCP does not rely on this area of Law, irrespective of what argument you put forward, this is what will trip you up in Court.

If you feel aggrieved and so minded, then write to the owner of the land complaining about the tactics employed.
Since this is private land that should not be used by the public, then notice to that effect should be on a barrier at the entrance - but that argument won't save you in Court.
Don't bother writing to the PCP appealing to their better nature with tales of woe, disability, time of day/night, blah blah, no one cares, and it won't help in Court either.

In my case, the PCP representative (the owner?) was a smug and clever ©üñ¿ - (although his secretary was very pleasant) - I gave the PCP a run for their money, and they got wrapped knuckles more than once by the Judge - but ultimately the £60 was still due the rest was squashed - (un)fair and square.

My advice ? - simple - it hurts, and yes PCP's are scum leaching bastards, but swallow and pay. On the other hand you may take the gamble not to and be successful, after all it costs the PCP to take you to Court, but with you picking up the costs this is not really a gamble for them.

Sorry to say this, but pay them their £60 and save yourself a lot of hassle.

Take care
sour cream

There is no need in Law for them to prove who the driver of the car was at the time

I very definitely take issue with this.

A PPC must sue the person who entered into any contract - implied or otherwise, They cannot simply go after wither the RK or owner of the vehicle concerned. Privity of contract makes it absolutely clear that only the driver can be involved in an such purported contract.

A PPC must prove - in small claims court, on the balance of probabilities - who the driver was.

Originally Posted by sour_cream

What cannot be ignored is the original bill of £60 will stand up in Court. The Court will not uphold the other charges imposed by the PCP but you will get hit with their costs - because ultimately you will lose the Court hearing.

Sorry to say this, but pay them their £60 and save yourself a lot of hassle.

Take care
sour cream

Well that proves that you can safely ignore them until they try to take you to court! (which 99.99% of the time won't happen). The worst that could happen is you have to pay the original £60 so why give them it up front? Better to amke them spaend a fortune on legal costs (whivch they can't claim back) to get thei 60 quid

IMO the_looker should ignore the rest of sour_cream's post and stick with the tried and tested route of ignoring the [problem]mers completely.

Originally Posted by patdavies

I very definitely take issue with this.

A PPC must sue the person who entered into any contract - implied or otherwise, They cannot simply go after wither the RK or owner of the vehicle concerned. Privity of contract makes it absolutely clear that only the driver can be involved in an such purported contract.

A PPC must prove - in small claims court, on the balance of probabilities - who the driver was.

In this circumstance - wrong on both counts. The water is muddied under the Law of Contract, this is not to be relied upon, by either party.

But the law of Trespass is simple, the car is there and it should not be. End of story. Try that argument in court and see how far you get. A Judge would be remiss not to consider Trespass even if the PCP does not, or he invites appeal.
I did. And I feel it was dealt with fairly by the Judge.
SC

Originally Posted by crem

Well that proves that you can safely ignore them until they try to take you to court! (which 99.99% of the time won't happen). The worst that could happen is you have to pay the original £60 so why give them it up front? Better to amke them spaend a fortune on legal costs (whivch they can't claim back) to get thei 60 quid

IMO the_looker should ignore the rest of sour_cream's post and stick with the tried and tested route of ignoring the [problem]mers completely.

Hence my comment

On the other hand you may take the gamble not to and be successful, after all it costs the PCP to take you to Court, but with you picking up the costs this is not really a gamble for them.

Your choice, if, and it is an 'if' - it hits Court - you can add the costs to the original £60. And remember I was talking about UK CPS not a generalisation of all PCP's

thank you all very much for your advice. you have been a great help. i shall keep you updated on my situation

So we have a new poster, sour cream, who claims to have been beaten in court but in doing so rehearses every known (and entirely wrong) argument ever spouted by a PPC. Perky, what do you take us for? Do you think that we cannot see through this latest and laughable paper thin attempt to pull the wool over our eyes? Or are you back off your tablets again? All you have shown, sour perky, is that you have no idea of the law. If trespass is involved and not contract the action can only be taken by the landowner. This rules out PPC claims straight away, as per the recent Excel defeat in Wrexham. Further any damages would be non existent, as the laws of trespass are much more restrictive in this regard than contract. The statement that there is no need to prove the driver of the car, who is the only one that enter into any "contract", is moronic to say the least. Try to do better sour perky and next time at least attempt a bit of subtlety in your pretence - we know you are not the sharpest tool in the pack but there is no need to make it quite so obvious.

Originally Posted by Pinnochio

Let this be a lesson to you all. Don't ignore your responsibilities - they will come back to haunt you

Excelent user name for a troll

Originally Posted by sour_cream

In this circumstance - wrong on both counts. The water is muddied under the Law of Contract, this is not to be relied upon, by either party.

But the law of Trespass is simple, the car is there and it should not be. End of story. Try that argument in court and see how far you get. A Judge would be remiss not to consider Trespass even if the PCP does not, or he invites appeal.
I did. And I feel it was dealt with fairly by the Judge.
SC

A parking charge of £60 can only be an contractual issue.

Any legal action for trespass can only be for actual damages by the ladnowner, not a pre-stated charge to an agent.

At least our oft lying, nose growing friend is right about one thing - he is living in a fairytale.

Insulting other users is against site rules. Posts containing insults will be edited.