Jump to content

ManxRed

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Content Count

    164
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Everything posted by ManxRed

  1. So they're going down the trespass road? The same applies. If the RK wasn't driving and wasn't there then they didn't trespass!! Its even more clear cut than the contract one!
  2. You cannot clamp for a previously acquired private ticket. This is effectively siezure of goods in lieu of a debt. To do this they must first (1) prove the debt is 'real' and not simply 'alleged' by taking you to court and winning. Despite this being extremely unlikley you would still have a 28 day opportunity to pay up at this point and it finishes there. (2) they must apply for a court warrant and appoint an official bailiff. THEN they can clamp your car. If they clamp without following 1 and 2 above then they are breaking the law.
  3. If the signage is indeed inadequate (and yes, it is subjective, but the judge would look at it from a viewpoint of 'would a reasonable person have been aware of the risk of being clamped when they parked where they did?), only you can make a real call on this, we are not aware of the layout of the site in question. There is caselaw to support lack of signage (Vine vs. Waltham Forest) if you were to bring a claim. The way the claim works is that you would issue a claim that they have trespassed against your goods. They then defend (or sometimes they don't even bother) saying their signs would h
  4. You are wasting your time really. The clampers have your money and they won't give it back. The people who hired them don't have your money so they aren't going to refund you. The only recourse you have is legal action. There are plenty of cases of people taking action against clampers, and a significant number win. However enforceing judgement is impossible against clampers as they will invariably have no assets, whereas the people who hired them usually have (and hence you CAN enforce against them). If you are ot prepared to take legal action then your money is gone. The only possible except
  5. Appealing is a waste of time. They're not going to hand their profits back to you. The next steps are 1. Notice Before Action to both clampers and people who hired them, followed by 2. small claims action. The clampers will ignore both of these steps which is why you should also pursue the people who hired them.
  6. OK, I'll concede that point! However it seems strange to offer an 'out of court' settlement on the original ticket for the claim for breach of contract. Viewed by a judge it would appear far more to be a punitive charge with an incentive to pay. Some judges might agree. See point 9 of OBS v Thirlow - http://www.violetmount.com/page3.jpg Plus, if their losses really were £120 a time, and everyone paid at the £60 rate then they'd be making a massive amount of losses. It clearly doesn't stack up.
  7. A discount on liquidated damages? You obviously have problems grasping contract law.
  8. Their losses are fixed. Liquidated damages. They don't change over time. If its £120 now, its £120 in the future. If its £60 now its £60 in the future. It doesn't suddenly change on a specified date 14 days into the future. In this case, as its a free car park, the actual losses are £0 now and £0 after 14 days!
  9. ...which is difficult when it goes up to £120 after a set period of time. I mean, how can your actual losses be £60 one day, and then £120 the next? Can you see how ridiculous a judge would find that if it was put in front of him/her?
  10. Colour of the van is irrelevant. Instead, what your company needs to know is that this is NOT an enforcement notice or PCN, despite their efforts to make it look like one. This is actually a speculative invoice asking you to pay a contractual charge for breaching the terms of a contract. The contract is the sign at McDs that states 'you can only park here for blah blah blah....'. I put 'blah blah blah for a reason because it doesn't really matter that much what the sign says. The facts are (1) only the driver can be a party to any contract as they are the only ones that were capable of reading
  11. (a) this thread is nearly three years old. (b) read 'havinastella's' reply above. It is correct. Ignore these people and eventually they will go away.
  12. Anyone can take anyone else to court. In their case it would be pretty foolish of them to do so as (a) they have an extremely flimsy case which they are very likely to lose if defended well, (b) it might generate negative publicity warning people of the invalidity of these tickets, which might cause an increase in the small number of people that currently have enough basic grasp of contract law to realise that these tickets are pretty much unenforceable. I would keep on ignoring them personally. The fact that you are thinking about caving in and paying shows you just how effective sending scar
  13. On the subject of retail car parks that have a 'free time and then we charge after that' policy, there is usually a reference in the Planning Regs, its usually worth a busybody type letter to the council making sure the plot developers/managing agents are actually complying, and not simply making up stuff in contravention of any planning regs.
  14. I wonder if the camera system might somehow make mistakes if people visit twice in a day, by (say) for example omitting the records of the vehicle leaving the first time and arriving the second time and simply recording the first entry and the second exit. Not that I'm cynical or anything and have seen dozens and dozens of examples of this actually happening elsewhere.
  15. Everyone else should be ignoring these tickets completely. I'm surprised that the barrister interviewed didn't point out (or maybe he did and the paper edited it out) that the redress for breach of contract is ACTUAL LOSSES ONLY. This makes the £60 on their tickets unenforceable under contract law. The signs are just one line of attack should Excel actually decide to legally pursue anyone ignoring their demands for money.
  16. They can only send bailiffs or apply for CCJs or affect your credit rating IF 1. they take you to court (no chance), 2. They win (even less chance) and 3. you still refuse to pay up. Relax and ignore.
  17. I am assuming this is from a private company, rather than a local council or a police officer, judging by your description of a privately owned car park and a threat of court action? In that case, your debt to them is their actual losses caused by you parking there assuming you were the driver (don't answer this question on here). For trespass this might be a nominal amount (£1?), for breach of contract it depends on whether there are any charges to park there (free? a quid?). What you most definitely DON'T owe them is £80 or £120. Oh, and it isn't a fine, its an invoice. If it does say its a
  18. Bailiffs or Debt Collectors? They can't engage bailiffs until they take you to court, you lose, and then you still refuse to pay up. Debt collectors have no power whatsoever and she should have told them to sod off and get a warrant (see my previous sentence for how to get a warrant). Its unbelievably rare for a PPC to send a Debt Collector actually round to someone's house. They usually just pester you with letters and a few phone calls. Are you absolutely sure about this? It doesn't stack up.
  19. Apart from the fact that the landowners have suffered no losses whatsoever, it also useful to know that painted lines on private land are legally meaningless.
  20. Oh dear! Remembe, under civil law, all these companies are entitled to are their losses incurred as a result of the 'infringement' (breach of contract terms). That a company should claim by way of intimidating letters that they have incurred a genuine loss as a result of someone displaying a ticket upside down is fraudulent in my opinion. Your colleague has been well and truly mugged.
  21. I am assuming from your post (Car Parking Partnership, Visitors Bay on private land) that this is a private ticket. I am assuming in your case that PCN doesn't stand for Penalty Charge Notice (the correct definition) but something similar like Parking Charge Notice, and makes no mention of any legislation like the road traffic act, etc.? Therefore you should just ignore it, and break off any correspondence with them forthwith. Unless they sue the dirver for their actual losses only (zero, by the sounds of it) then they are powerless to do anything else. They certainly cannot sue you. By the wa
  22. Remember, this is a civil matter between two private parties (You and the PPC). Until such time as the PPC takes you to court and a judge decides you DO owe them the money (and this will NEVER happen because they haven't got a leg to stand on) then officially, there is no debt to collect. The debt only becomes an actual real debt when the judge says so. So relax.
  23. Any variation to an agreement has to be accepted by BOTH parties. You cannot unilaterally alter the terms of an agreement between two parties.
×
×
  • Create New...