Unqualified advice for PRIVATE parking tickets

[Guest perky88]

I have been reading the stickys and general advice given to people about Private Parking Tickets and feel it is sometimes misleading and incorrect, as a result people may be making the wrong decision.

 

There seems to be lots of advice to ask the PPC "on what basis do you feel I have entered a legal contract" - If the signage is clear/concise there is a legal contract formed IF it would be expected a resonable person should have seen them and made the decision still to park.

 

The next one relates to "Please address the invoice to the driver, as I am only the RK" ... I have only had 1 previous example of this and we wook it to court and won (transcript of judgement will be posted when we receive it) and have another one planned for December with the same argument.

 

In the case we took to court the person told the judge they did not have to identify the driver to us, the judge asked them the direct question who was driving - they refused to answer ... as a result the judge considered on the balance of probabilites due to them being difficult they were either the driver or knew the identity of the driver and if that person was driving with the consent of the RK then as their agent they took responsibility.

 

If the RK considered the "driver" had caused them a loss then the RK could take an action against the "driver" for any loss incurred.

 

The judgement transcript will show all and like the other judgement, once I receive I will post it....

 

BUT my question is .. the people giving this advice have they had any real experience of going to court and winning on this - or has the PPC just backed down. (as a PPC backing down does not mean another one will)

 

If someone has been taken to court by a PPC and their defence accepted about "prove I am the driver" then I would be interested in getting a transcript of the judgement as I am sure this would be useful to other members of this forum before deciding on their appeal.

 

Please send me a private message with the case details or post on here.

 

I say this because the person we took to court with the "prove im the driver" had got their defence from a site similar to this and their £60 ticket ended up costing almost £300 with court fees/interest and our costs to travel to court.

 

 

The next issue I see is with advice being given about damages only being given for actual loss (ie. overstaying by 30mins in a free carpark=no loss)... This is absolute rubbish, a PPC will never take a person to court for tresspass (or is they do they will soon be out of business) - a PPC will always state the terms stated any person staying in excess of the permitted time can do so but agrees to pay a charge of £xx ... This is not a penalty but an agreeement.

 

I would also be interested in any person has gone to court with this defence and won ... please post details and I will obtain a judgement transcript.

 

I know that in small claims courts they set no precedance, but we always put transcripts of similar cases in our evidence bundle .. and in reality if a judge sees other similar cases it helps the PPC case as the legal arguments used/evidence given (normally in way of photogrpahs) is very similar and the PPC really has to show 1 main thing, that being was the signage clear enough for a resonable person to see and understand - not many judges like to contradict their colleagues.

 

 

So ... does anyone have any REAL experience to back up their advice (court action/judgements) if so please advise so this site can do what it was designed to do and help people by giving qualified/correct information to help people.

 

When I first started using this site I suffered lots of abuse from people who stated we never take cases to court/tickets were useless and asked me to prove I/We do .. I have done that and hopefully now people beleive that if a ticket is issued correctly / the signage is sufficient and charges reasonable then a private ticket is 100% enforcable.

 

 

I also think the moderators have a duty to review the template letters on the site posted by bernie_the_bolt - they could result in costing the driver more money if they rely on them too much - I know there is a disclaimer at the bottom .. I think this should also be at the top just to re-enforce to people it is not qualified advice and should be used with the utmost caution. (some of the advice on bernies letter is very valid and useful, mainly about debt collectors etc..)

[Zamzara]

I agree with you that if you are the driver, it's foolish to go to court and simply refuse to comment on it. But what if they hadn't been the driver, and could prove so in court? Then you would have been stuffed.

 

And what if they'd defended it on the basis of unfair terms in consumer contracts? If you just have a sign saying it costs £x to park here, then that could be held to be a core term and not subject to a fairness test, but in practice every case which gets posted here is more complex than that, and the charge is a penalty, not a price for the service.

[Zamzara]

I would also be interested in any person has gone to court with this defence and won ... please post details and I will obtain a judgement transcript.

 

Kind of difficult, as I have only ever seen 4 confirmed cases that have gone to court at all. The parking companies won the first 3. The first was very old, and was defended on the basis that a private company cannot fine you (faulty emotional defence). The second used an unknown defence but a written contract was involved. The third was a default judgment for S+B parking, undefended. The fourth case I have seen was also S+B but was defended and S+B did not turn up, case dismissed.

[green_and_mean]

And what if they'd defended it on the basis of unfair terms in consumer contracts? If you just have a sign saying it costs £x to park here, then that could be held to be a core term and not subject to a fairness test, but in practice every case which gets posted here is more complex than that, and the charge is a penalty, not a price for the service.

 

The 'cost' is set high not as a penalty but as a deterent who is to say what is a fair price for parking? If the cost of failing to follow the signs is displayed how can you claim its unfair? I can get coke for 45p a litre in Tesco but if I go to a posh club its £4.00 a glass is this an unfair contract or a matter of choice? Parking is 50p an hour in Council car park or £200 a day in my office car park for non employees, its your choice where you choose to park? There is also the cost of inconvenience to the land owner who has to pay to park elsewhere, pay for goods to be redelivered or loss of custom. If I parked in your front garden and popped a fiver thru the door to cover the cost of my parking would you deem this as fair?

[Zamzara]

That's what I said.

 

But in practice the cases posted here and at pepipoo are very rarely that straightforward, and the charge is usually for breaching some condition rather than a simple fee for parking there.

[Guest perky88]

I agree with you that if you are the driver, it's foolish to go to court and simply refuse to comment on it. But what if they hadn't been the driver, and could prove so in court? Then you would have been stuffed.

 

Sorry, I may not have explained the case correctly.

 

The defence was to take it up with the driver, the defendant went to court and said they were not the driver and did not know - The judge then ruled in our favour.

 

I have another one in Leicester County Court, in essence DVLA made a mistake then a person sold their car to a friend - we issued proceedings against person A - he sold the car to a friend and left it to the friend to deal with.

 

The friend did not, judgement by default was awarded - we then issued a warrant - at this time person A went to court and asked for the judgement to be set aside as he was not the owner or in fact the driver.

 

A hearing was set to put judgement aside, person A stated he was not the driver - The judge asked who was - He responded with a name & address - The court paperwork was reissued in the persons B name.

 

 

But .. we are going a little off topic... This thread asked if anyone knew of cases which supported general advice given - as I was concerned advice was being given 'one glove fits all' - where every ticket issued should be trated on its mertis and comments like "tickets are unenforcenable" is not the best advice to give.

[petej2811]

Oh dear.

 

The voice of impartiality speaks!

 

Lets establish here and now that the only people with an interest in these proceedings as they are represented here are the parking companies, their owners, directors and so forth. Therefore add sufficient salt to anything they say, bearing in mind that they people are drawn from the same stock as those who have mysteriously extended vicarious liability to include anyone who drives my car!

 

Now clearly there are common law presumptions as regards who the driver of a vehicle is. The fact is that we're not talking about that. And clearly anyone who refuses to answer a question when asked by the District Judge will be entered into the little black book of idiots and is likely to lose their case.

 

While our friend here may seem to want to portray himself as the voice of reason and sense - "by all means pay up, its easier. We win cases against you lot all the time. Honest". The fact is he has an interest in the advice people follow, a material interest and therefore those of you looking for simple advice would do well to simply ignore this chap offhand.

 

The fact of the matter is that any litigant in person (unrepresented claimant/defendant) who goes to court without preparing or properly researching their case is either going to come a cropper or is going to have to catch a District Judge who doesn't like PPCs. That much is common sense. While I applaud our friend for pointing this out, if in slightly grand language, this is simply common sense.

 

Keepers are NOT liable for the actions of drivers. If you were the driver then don't admit it, but don't deny it or refuse to answer. There are plenty of other ways to beat a case such as this without relying on your oponent not passing the first hurdle and then not preparing. If you weren't the driver then deny so being. While you can be compelled to disclose this, the PPCs are not going to know how to obtain such an order, nor for a case on the small claims track would it be worth their while.

 

"The next issue I see is with advice being given about damages only being given for actual loss (ie. overstaying by 30mins in a free carpark=no loss)... This is absolute rubbish, a PPC will never take a person to court for tresspass (or is they do they will soon be out of business) - a PPC will always state the terms stated any person staying in excess of the permitted time can do so but agrees to pay a charge of £xx ... This is not a penalty but an agreeement."

 

The fact is that PPCs don't word it like this. They want to tell you that you're in a contract, that you saw the signs, that you committed some minor transgression and breached the contract (which to an uninitiate sounds terrible) and that you now owe £XX. Most people know no better and simply pay. However, if indeed as the PPC says you do enter a contract then is this £70 a charge? How can it be a charge? The Supply of Goods And Services Act states that any charges/ prices must be reasonable. How can £XX for a short while of parking be a reasonable price? No, clearly its not a charge for a service. The terms of these contracts clearly state that you must not do X, Y or Z. If you do any of these things, such as overstaying, no matter what out friend says you are in breach. The only remedy in contract for a breach is damages. Those damages must represent an actual loss. While it is as easy for a PPC to argue that the £XX is a charge for a service our good friends the banks seem to be having trouble with the OFT in that regard. The OFT recently announcing that bank charges are not charges for a service provided, the same principle applies here. These so called charges are only triggered if you breach the contract and reflect no actual loss. That is the very definition of a penalty.

 

The examples given by our friend are poorly thought out, ill concieved and have, if at all, been won in the face of fools. There are plenty of idiots out there who will lose to a PPC in a courtroom. The purpose of this advice is to thin out that list.

 

Lets not lose sight of our goals here. Private parking is, essentially and in my opinion, a [problem] perpetrated by unscrupulous businessmen on an unsuspecting public. Arm yourselves with knowledge because the best friend the PPC has is your ignorance.

[Guest perky88]

petej2811, Have you had any real life experience to back up your comments, I would like to know more if you have.

[Bernie_the_Bolt]

Frankly I think this is a bit of a "whose schlong is bigger?" debate.

The simple fact is that this whole issue is a law of numbers, probabilities and risk.

For PPCs it's an issue of if they issue enough charges enough people will pay to make them money.

For the informed consumer it's an issue of well phrased letters that are to the point and credible will make them look for easier pickings.

Yes it is perfectly possible to enter into a binding contract to pay large sums of money for parking. It is equally possible to dispute the contract - remember the fundamental points of contract law - there must be unqualified offer and acceptance together with consideration.

The issue of who has won the most cases is irrelevant.

The point that Perky made on the disclaimer is a fair one and I will edit the posts.

Finally, anyone who goes to court on an "I was not the driver" defence without a credible answer deserves what they get!!

[green_and_mean]

Frankly I think this is a bit of a "whose schlong is bigger?" debate.

 

 

[petej2811]

petej2811, Have you had any real life experience to back up your comments, I would like to know more if you have.

 

Yes I have. That said you work for a parking company and so its not in my interest to tell you how I conduct my advice or business is it?

 

I would have to be an idiot to muck in and share my dealings and experience with you because I know that if you had any sense you'd use my experience and knowledge to your commercial advantage. As I don't like what parking companies do I don't think that would be a good use of my time.

 

You have something to prove here, that much is clear. I don't. You can do what you like with my advice. You can buy into it, you can disagree. You can embrace it or you can go up the road. I'm not here to convert anyone. That said if anyone wants help, just read my paper and I'll be happy to.

 

PJ

[Guest perky88]

Yes I have. That said you work for a parking company and so its not in my interest to tell you how I conduct my advice or business is it?

 

I would have to be an idiot to muck in and share my dealings and experience with you because I know that if you had any sense you'd use my experience and knowledge to your commercial advantage. As I don't like what parking companies do I don't think that would be a good use of my time.

 

You have something to prove here, that much is clear. I don't. You can do what you like with my advice. You can buy into it, you can disagree. You can embrace it or you can go up the road. I'm not here to convert anyone. That said if anyone wants help, just read my paper and I'll be happy to.

 

PJ

 

Well have to take your word for sucsess stories with PPCs, I do not dis beleive you just the internet is full of myths and stories, when someone posts a fact that can be checked then I take it as a truth.

 

I know you dont like PPCs, in the same way as landowners despise drivers who intentionally park on their land to which they have no legal right to be and in essence stick their two fingers up and the landowner for trying to keep what is theirs to themselves knowing they can speak to someone like you to try and wriggle and worm out of it.

 

If people like the ones you advise to get out of paying did not park where they shouldnt in the first place then PPCs/Wheel Clampers would not be in business.

[Zamzara]

But if you're charging a parking fee (and not a penalty for breach of conditions), they do have a legal right to be there if they've agreed to the fee....

[TideTurner]

I know you dont like PPCs, in the same way as landowners despise drivers who intentionally park on their land to which they have no legal right to be and in essence stick their two fingers up and the landowner for trying to keep what is theirs to themselves knowing they can speak to someone like you to try and wriggle and worm out of it.

 

Perky,

 

If you take the car parks which suddenly spring up around any Prem football match, on any particular night, each of which are manned with a money collator, you can see there can be a cross purpose with reference to any supposed contract.

 

If I didn't want anybody on my private land, I would make sure they could not gain access. To leave an open door and then impose a fine is simply a money making [problem].

 

I went to see the Lions last week, and on the way in there was a sign saying "DO NOT GET OUT OF YOUR CAR". Imagine if I did get out, and on return was eaten prior to seeing some obscure agreement pinned to a tree.

 

It's a money making [problem], carried out by people who purport themselves to be acting on behalf of the authorities (with their bright yellow warnings and careful wording which carries no weight).

 

They are no different to any other business, and should be reported to Trading Standards and the local Authorities on every occasion.

 

Get a proper job, and tell your clients to simply gate their properties or have them manned. That's a service.

 

Tide

 

PS Still waiting on three replies from you, maybe then I'll have the opportunity to challenge you in Court.

[Guest perky88]

PS Still waiting on three replies from you, maybe then I'll have the opportunity to challenge you in Court.

I have no messages from you awaiting my reply ???

Maybe you want to check who you sent them to.

[petej2811]

Well have to take your word for sucsess stories with PPCs, I do not dis beleive you just the internet is full of myths and stories, when someone posts a fact that can be checked then I take it as a truth.

 

I know you dont like PPCs, in the same way as landowners despise drivers who intentionally park on their land to which they have no legal right to be and in essence stick their two fingers up and the landowner for trying to keep what is theirs to themselves knowing they can speak to someone like you to try and wriggle and worm out of it.

 

If people like the ones you advise to get out of paying did not park where they shouldnt in the first place then PPCs/Wheel Clampers would not be in business.

 

Its not that I don't like them and hate their existence. I just dislike that they make a mockery of the legal system. They misuse rules I went to great pains to learn and that is done to the gain of few at the expense of many. I would say I disapprove.

 

They get out of it because they're in the right. Not because of some vastly unjust loophole. We're not talking about getting a shoplifter off here. We're talking about people paying fines they have no need to pay. Landowners are free to clamp cars, there is good caselaw on the topic (though I suspect we're months, not years away from that being overturned). These tickets are a money making exercise, that's not a great mystery. We know what the situation is as well as each other and in essence this is as much about policing private land as it is about making a gingerbread house. Its a profit making enterprise. Not a thing more.

 

If the PPCs used good law then people who park on their land would have no defence. Its a double edged sword. You're not going to convince me I'm wrong by showing me the virtues of parking enforcement. I don't want you to agree with me, I already know I'm right so please don't try to sing the praises of PPCs because the fact is I don't agree with you.

[petej2811]

But if you're charging a parking fee (and not a penalty for breach of conditions), they do have a legal right to be there if they've agreed to the fee....

 

Calling it a fee doesn't mean that it is not still a penalty. Penalty is a legal term, not a descriptive one. It bears no relevance to everyday language and meanings for words.

 

Look at the facts to see if something is a penalty.

 

Does a contract tell you not to do something?

 

What happens if you do it?

 

Do you pay money that is nothing like the loss you may or may not have caused?

 

Regardless of what its called in the contract the fact is its a penalty in law.

 

PJ

[Alianmid]

Well have to take your word for sucsess stories with PPCs, I do not dis beleive you just the internet is full of myths and stories, when someone posts a fact that can be checked then I take it as a truth.

 

I know you dont like PPCs, in the same way as landowners despise drivers who intentionally park on their land to which they have no legal right to be and in essence stick their two fingers up and the landowner for trying to keep what is theirs to themselves knowing they can speak to someone like you to try and wriggle and worm out of it.

 

If people like the ones you advise to get out of paying did not park where they shouldnt in the first place then PPCs/Wheel Clampers would not be in business.

 

This is a no brainer - People are invited to park to use whatever facilities the car park services and supports - For Perky to turn round and say that he and his ilk are defending the rights of landlords against trespass by people invading their property is completely fatuous. - By the way Perky it's I before E except after C and you had better belIEve it - I do hope your legal education was better than your English language edukashun or the punters are on a sure fire winner.

[Forever Forest]

This is a no brainer - People are invited to park to use whatever facilities the car park services and supports - For Perky to turn round and say that he and his ilk are defending the rights of landlords against trespass by people invading their property is completely fatuous. - By the way Perky it's I before E except after C and you had better belIEve it - I do hope your legal education was better than your English language edukashun or the punters are on a sure fire winner.

 

 

LOL !!!! Did anyone notice that Trespass had been spelt Tresspass??!! I'm not usually one for flaming people's spelling or grammer....I do find it funny though that someone posting with the intention of putting the 'frighteners' on us all makes his posts look so amateurish (Hope I spelt that right) !!