Jump to content

ManxRed

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Content Count

    164
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Everything posted by ManxRed

  1. IF it went to court (and it won't) then leaving site is not really an issue. The issue will boil down to how much money the landowner incurred in damages as a result of this happening. Which is nowt. Relax, and ignore everything. It won't go to court.
  2. Oh, they won't want to put this in front of a judge, no chance.
  3. They can use any wording they like, but using Penalty Charge Notice as a singular expression leaves them open to action for using a protected term used by the council. Using 'Penalty' anywhere else is their perogative - it is in breach of the BPA's code of practice, and it makes their case - should they take it to court - look stupid, as they cannot impose penalties under civil law, but there's nothing to prevent their admittedly stupid use of the word. They're trying to con the motorist into thinking its official, basically.
  4. Defo.They haven't got a legal leg to stand on, so they know they'd be wasting money. They'd also risk having their little scheme shown up in the local press which might discourage more drivers from paying these unenforceable charges and that would damage their revenues. Under civil contract law, penalties cannot be levied for breaching the terms and conditions of a contract, which is what this is, the contract being the signs in the car park. Remember, private companies cannot fine people. They can only sue for breach of contract. They are even in breach of the toothless British Parking
  5. Firstly, moral issues aside, disabled bays on private land have no legal meaning. Secondly, their redress from you is limited to the actual losses suffered by the landowner as a result of you parking there. This, in a free car park, is zero. So do not pay them anything, and ignore all the threatening letters they and their Debt Collector friends send to you. Come back here if you need reassurance at any point. As padja says, eventually they will give up and move on to someone else.
  6. Yep. Private. They won't do court, they'd be mad.
  7. And ignore Michael Sobell trading as Graham White's letters as well, they're all hot air threats with absolutely no substance at all.
  8. Does it state a piece of legslation at the top, such as the Road Traffic Act? Given that its a Cinema car park then 99% its from a private company, in which case it won't. And you can simply ignore it.
  9. Not sure on the contacts (there is a site called CEO contacts, if you Google). Why not wait for some more letters first? You may get some even worse ones from Debt Collectors or even a pretend Solicitor? The flaw you are pointing out to them is that the letters are baseless in law. Point out that under civil law they cannot fine anyone, nor can they pursue anyone other than the driver, however they have harassed the Registered Keeper. Also, under civil law, the redress for breach of contract is limited to a genuine pre-estimate of actual losses only. In a free supermarket car park, their losse
  10. The council's legal bod has everything correct apart from one major issue. you cannot charge penalties for breach of a contract - this is enshrined in contract law. So the statement about 'paying any financial penalties if you break their rules' is contrary to what contract law actually states. Have a read of clause 3.4 of this: http://www.goldsmithibs.com/resources/free/Breach-of-Contract/notes/Breach-of-Contract-Remedies.pdf
  11. Just ignore them, file away in a drawer but forget about them.
  12. Ignore them. A debt collector is a powerless person who can simply ask politely for the money. There is no hassle. Contacting them will alert them to the fact that you are taking them seriously and you will receive even more attention from them than if you'd simply ignored them in the first place. Just ignore them and the threat-o-grams they will send you, eventually they will twig that you are not fooled and they will go away.
  13. Clamping for unpaid tickets (and by tickets I mean private ones not council ones) is illegal.
  14. Sobell is a real person, but he doesn't work there, he simply allows Roxburghe to use his name (under the trading name of Graham White, who is also a real solicitor and who's website prominently displays a message that he has nothing to do with this awful company you are being sent letters by). Sobell is under investigation by the SRA for issuing lots and lots of letters threatening court action when in actual fact he (Roxburghe's) has no intention of ever initiating court action. Well, he did try it once, but screwed up the court papers and the claim was struck out.
  15. Contract law has not changed significantly for many many decades. You have received an invoice for breaching the terms and conditions of a contract (a parking sign or similar). Under contract law, the redress for breach is their actual losses only, not some arbitrary charge dreamt up by them (e.g. £50 or whatever). It would get thrown out of court. Also they need to be 100% certain that they are pursuing the driver only, and unless you've supplied them with that info then that is another hurdle for them. I doubt if they would risk court over it, and the usual tactic is simply to threaten legal
  16. They cannot affect your credit rating without a CCJ, and they can't get one of those without taking you to court and winning. I have more chance of winning the Euromillions. If they ring again you should inform them that the debt is denied and they should now refer the matter back to their client. Any further phone calls from them will be treated as harassment, and you are prepared to take appropriate action if necessary. DO NOT enter into a conversation with them about the parking ticket. If they try to prolong the conversation beyond you giving them the above statement then end the call. If
  17. Yep, carry on ignoring. Debt Collectors are powerless - they have the right to politely ask for the money and that's that. As for taking you to court, they haven't got a leg to stand on. Far better to just send a threatening letter in the hope that you'll just pay up without questioning it.
  18. Also, bear in mind that the vast majority of Management Companies we've come across have absolutely no legal grasp of the situation regarding spaces with rights conferred exclusively to the leaseholder (and if the leaseholder is a landlord, then conferred upon their tenants), and seem to think that they have carte blanche to implement parking schemes which contravene the lease conditions. They are of course completely wrong, but just bear this in mind when they inevitably tell you (incorrectly) that YOU'RE wrong.
  19. Their case has no legal standing whatsoever. They are probably bluffing with the court threat, and think you are close to buckling. The truth is, if that's your space then they have no right to operate a parking scheme on it anyway and the permits are unecessary. Even then, the only thing they can claim from you is the actual losses suffered as a result of you parking there. Which is zero. Pursuing you for anything other than zero (plus a few sundry costs - a fiver at best) constitutes a contractual penalty which legally cannot be enforced. They are effectively trying to scare you into paying
  20. That the charge levied was not a genuine pre-estimate of losses (if there is a discount payment period it helps - losses cannot typically be one thing on one day and something else the next), and hence constituted a penalty, which is unenforceable under contract law. There may have been other issues too, without seeing the details its hard to comment.
  21. No, no, no. The Freeholder's permission is irrelevant. The lease confers on you the exclusive right to that space. In order to operate a permit scheme on the space they MUST legally vary the terms of the lease. They have not done this so the act of their agent was unlawful. They CANNOT vary the terms of a lease without the leaseholders consent. Has this been given? No it hasn't. Try and impress upon them that their agent HAS acted unlawfully and THEY are liable. If you end up paying, you WILL sue the Management Company and include costs on top of the release fees. They will not be in a strong
  22. I have pointed out in my post above that if the OP starts getting letters mentioning Byelaws then they should come back for advice. However the ticket as issued does not mention byelaws, and does not mention such byelaw related conditions (for example that the only appeal is via Magistrates Court (they have stated that appeals must be sent to the parking company) and that the charge is for breaching terms and conditions laid down by the parking company, NOT for breaching rail byelaws. Hence, for now, they are trying to pocket the charge themselves (under byelaws this would not be the case - gr
  23. Reeks of a poor defence submitted. Sounds like the defence was 'didn't see the signs' only. With a CCTV of her walking past them this would be weak. Although the judge's statement along the lines of 'if it looks like a parking ticket it must be a parking ticket' amounts to legal incompetence in my opinion. The defence should have been much fuller, including references to the fact that the charge amounted to a penalty and that the ticket was not in fact a parking ticket at all.
  24. They will not take you to court, you have no case to answer. The driver (identity unknown to them) owes them actual losses incurred as a result of your car being parked there (zero pounds). So, they could possibly pursue someone who's identity they don't know, for errrr zero pounds. It wouldn't last five minutes in court. Instead, if they send you enough scary threats you might just stump up money that they can bank and then spend. So sending scary threats is what they do. And only that.
×
×
  • Create New...