Jump to content
Parcel delivery insurance is prohibited under section 57 – Consumer Rights Act – Read about It Here and in The Times. ×


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • BazzaS
      Manchester Council fine for residential parking

      By BazzaS · Posted

      “Not realising it was a no parking zone” doesn’t help you if the timing is correct, as (at least, on Google Maps / View) there is clear signage ('7am to midnight', parked at 15:22) What might be worth pursuing is the "ticket handed to driver" aspect : do you have any view on why they would be  stating that?
    • lolerz
      my Leasehold/Freehold property and its issues.

      By lolerz · Posted

      it's 85k of turnover (well, now £90k). However, you're digging yourself into another hole here. That ship has probably long since sailed. Is it worth pursuing this? You're not going to get anything back from it either way.
    • jk2054
      Techzone Mobile Buxton Ltd (dissolved 2022!) - Bought a dodgy phone from their Market stall - says doesn't do refunds with a sign up!!

      By jk2054 · Posted

      if they offer a refund then take it?
    • jk2054
      Evri lost again

      By jk2054 · Posted

      Hi,   A few pointers from yesterday to take note of evris cpr 27.9 failed again so we should really make issue of this also their WX fail to comply with CPR so again we should take issue with their statement of truth  you cant get tort if you get damages under subsection 7 of CRA because its double recovery  - not sure what we think of this? however its the first time i saw the judges make reference to your non automatic rights from s49 which s54 and 57 assist with. We should start stating this specifically for claims as I think its much better than just 49 and 57 as we need to make it clear where our non automatic rights come from as 54 automatic frankly dont help  I have sent the claim form and defences to the admin email because I can’t upload them for some reason as it wont let me but thought this may help as its the first time we’ve taken tort to trial. although i think the DDJ was honestly struggling to understand some parts of the law because he was asking me about them and how he should interpret them, especially for the automatic. Will apply for transcript if you want it?
    • HP Mum
      Private Land parking issue

      By HP Mum · Posted

      I decided on confrontation - which I hate.  Omg the arrogance of the driver.  They refused to say who had given them the alleged permission to park on the private land - unless I proved ownership.  I couldn't believe they could be so objectionable.   They advised they couldn't take public transport to work as they lived too far away.  They couldn't rent a local garage as none were available. I simply said that's their issue not mine. It was infuriating that this person had such misplaced entitlement.  However I decided to humour them and show them the title deeds.   They couldn't respond.  Although at this point they alleged some guy in a city up north - whose name they couldn't remember - gave permission!!    They then asked if they could buy the garages and land!! Yet can't afford to park on a meter !! They seemed to back down and agree to now park elsewhere.  I hope so. 

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.

      BankFodder posted a topic in Vehicle retailers and manufacturers,

      If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
      BankFodder

      Picked By

      BankFodder,

    • Big Motoring World Enfield /Blackhorse - done over on car - @BigMotoringWrld

      ATJ posted a topic in Vehicle retailers and manufacturers,

      Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
      BankFodder

      Picked By

      BankFodder,

    • A2Dominion - Housing Association property flooding - damning ombudsman report

      WanTToMoveOn posted a topic in Residential and Commercial lettings/Freehold issues,

      Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
      WanTToMoveOn

      Picked By

      WanTToMoveOn,

    • Post in Suing a parcel delivery company when you don't have a direct contract with them – third-party rights Copy of judgment available

      BankFodder posted a post in a topic,

      We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like
      BankFodder

      Picked By

      BankFodder,
    View All
Twitter X - Include the @company's twitter name in your post title – here's why…
The UK Stands With Ukraine - 'Slava Ukraini'
Parcel delivery insurance is prohibited under section 57 – Consumer Rights Act – Read about It Here and in The Times.
Latest activity

Success?

tom4rse

By tom4rse
in Private Land Parking Enforcement

 Share
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5975 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

Bernie_the_Bolt

Bernie_the_Bolt

Posted
Posted
The signage represents the offer. If you do not see it then how can you know of it, know of its terms and accept it? There must be a meeting of the minds, both parties must intend to be bound by these terms and in your case this does not exist.

 

Without disagreeing with what you say. The open gateway/entrance could be construed as an offer. If inquiries are not made as to what conditions apply then the standard conditions of the party providing the contract are deemed to apply and they are subject to a reasonableness test.

********************************************

Nothing in this post constitutes "advice" which I may not, in any event, be qualified to provide.

The only interpretation permitted on this post (or any others I may have made) is that this is what I would personally consider doing in the circumstances discussed. Each and every reader of this post or any other I may have made must take responsibility for forming their own view and making their own decision.

I receive an unwieldy number of private messages. I am happy to respond to messages posted on open forum but am unable to respond to private messages, seeking advice, when the substance of that message should properly be on the open forum.

Many thanks for your assistance and understanding on this.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 53
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

petej2811

petej2811

Posted
Posted
Im not sure pat, I saw it on another forum with regards to a personal injury case and apparantly its used alot, but the application for it costs more than the parking ticket charge normally is so it is not cost effective - I know no more than that.

I will try and find that post on forum and post more if I find it.

 

The case you're talking about is the Norwich Pharmaceuticals case from the House of Lords.

 

PJ

Link to post
Share on other sites
petej2811

petej2811

Posted
Posted
Without disagreeing with what you say. The open gateway/entrance could be construed as an offer. If inquiries are not made as to what conditions apply then the standard conditions of the party providing the contract are deemed to apply and they are subject to a reasonableness test.

 

It could be, but at the time you drive into a car park do you intend to park? Are you just driing around to look for a space?

 

Are the spaces and indeed the open gates merely invitations to treat?

 

Just a thought. What do you think?

 

PJ

Link to post
Share on other sites
Bernie_the_Bolt

Bernie_the_Bolt

Posted
Posted
It could be, but at the time you drive into a car park do you intend to park? Are you just driing around to look for a space?

 

If you are looking for a space you are intending to park. However it is actually parking not intending to that is acceptance of the contract. It may come down to a definition of what constitutes "parking".

 

Are the spaces and indeed the open gates merely invitations to treat?

 

Just a thought. What do you think?

 

PJ

 

I see what you're driving at (ha ha!) but if that were the case how would the offer be made? There would have to be a method of communicating the offer once the selection of space had been made.

********************************************

Nothing in this post constitutes "advice" which I may not, in any event, be qualified to provide.

The only interpretation permitted on this post (or any others I may have made) is that this is what I would personally consider doing in the circumstances discussed. Each and every reader of this post or any other I may have made must take responsibility for forming their own view and making their own decision.

I receive an unwieldy number of private messages. I am happy to respond to messages posted on open forum but am unable to respond to private messages, seeking advice, when the substance of that message should properly be on the open forum.

Many thanks for your assistance and understanding on this.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest interesting

Guest interesting

Posted
Posted
On what basis in law?

It is a "Norwich Pharmacal order", in essence it is an order that is available against an indivual to assist the plantiff (in this case PPC) by providing full information and disclosing the identity of the 'wrongdoer'

 

The order can be requested if the applicant has no other means of obtaining the information (eg. CPR 31.16 or 31.17)

 

There is no restriction of a wrongdoer and can be eg. a tort, a breach of contract.

 

The order would require the respondant on oath to identify the 'wrongdoer' by name.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest interesting

Guest interesting

Posted
Posted
If you are looking for a space you are intending to park. However it is actually parking not intending to that is acceptance of the contract. It may come down to a definition of what constitutes "parking".

 

Parking (according to wikipedia) means:

 

Parking is the act of stopping a vehicle and leaving it unoccupied for more than a brief time.

 

.... and I suspect brief is very subjective.

Link to post
Share on other sites
tom4rse

tom4rse

Posted
  • Author
Posted

I intend to take your advice and respond with the proforma letters you provided in the sticky when my threatening letters come through the door.

 

Thank you for your advice, should I get summonds to court I'll come back and form my defense with your help if I may?

 

Tom

Link to post
Share on other sites
Steve__M

Steve__M

Posted
Posted
It is a "Norwich Pharmacal order", in essence it is an order that is available against an indivual to assist the plantiff (in this case PPC) by providing full information and disclosing the identity of the 'wrongdoer'

 

The order can be requested if the applicant has no other means of obtaining the information (eg. CPR 31.16 or 31.17)

 

CPR Part 31 does not apply to claims on the small claims track.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest interesting

Guest interesting

Posted
Posted

Not sure Steve_M .. I was just copy/paste the other forum.

Therefore I suspect the PPC could just apply for the "Norwich Pharmacal Order" then if the CPR 31 is not available.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Steve__M

Steve__M

Posted
Posted

Ah yes. Here is a summary. If you are asked for the driver's name then you are entitled to require that the parking company applies to the court at their cost to see whether you ought to disclose it. They would have to prove that you were "mixed up" in the matter in some way.

 

Since the claimant pays the cost it would be vastly expensive and therefore only relevant to high value cases:

 

Norwich Pharmacal Co. v The Commissioners of Customs and Excise

Link to post
Share on other sites
Bernie_the_Bolt

Bernie_the_Bolt

Posted
Posted
Ah yes. Here is a summary. If you are asked for the driver's name then you are entitled to require that the parking company applies to the court at their cost to see whether you ought to disclose it. They would have to prove that you were "mixed up" in the matter in some way.

 

Since the claimant pays the cost it would be vastly expensive and therefore only relevant to high value cases:

 

Norwich Pharmacal Co. v The Commissioners of Customs and Excise

 

Fascinating!

 

But this was a dispute in tort not contract. You ought to be able to argue againt this case on the basis that if a contract is claimed to exist, the claimant ought to know who the counterparty is. If the claimant has been so reckless as to fail to establish the identity of the counterparty prior to entering into the contract then that is at their peril.

********************************************

Nothing in this post constitutes "advice" which I may not, in any event, be qualified to provide.

The only interpretation permitted on this post (or any others I may have made) is that this is what I would personally consider doing in the circumstances discussed. Each and every reader of this post or any other I may have made must take responsibility for forming their own view and making their own decision.

I receive an unwieldy number of private messages. I am happy to respond to messages posted on open forum but am unable to respond to private messages, seeking advice, when the substance of that message should properly be on the open forum.

Many thanks for your assistance and understanding on this.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest interesting

Guest interesting

Posted
Posted

The claimant would be arguing it is reasonable to raise the claim in the RKs name as normally (but I accept, not always) the RK would know who had/has access to a vehicle and is merely refusing to supply the information unless compelled to do so and by this the RK has got "mixed up" due to their own will to, rather than by accident.

I am unsure if this has ever been used in a PPC case, I suspect even if it has then the information is going to be hard to find .. but I will keep looking and update if/when I get news.

I only posted it, as it shows, it is technically possible for the court to compell a RK to disclose the details - however I accept that the use of it in this situation may be unlikely, but possible. - yet another uncertainty in this field.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Bernie_the_Bolt

Bernie_the_Bolt

Posted
Posted
The claimant would be arguing it is reasonable to raise the claim in the RKs name as normally (but I accept, not always) the RK would know who had/has access to a vehicle and is merely refusing to supply the information unless compelled to do so and by this the RK has got "mixed up" due to their own will to, rather than by accident.

I am unsure if this has ever been used in a PPC case, I suspect even if it has then the information is going to be hard to find .. but I will keep looking and update if/when I get news.

I only posted it, as it shows, it is technically possible for the court to compell a RK to disclose the details - however I accept that the use of it in this situation may be unlikely, but possible. - yet another uncertainty in this field.

 

Don't get me wrong, it's a great thought and bit of info.

What I also think is that to expect the RK to know who was driving (as opposed to who may have been driving) by the time it comes to court may well be unreasonable.

********************************************

Nothing in this post constitutes "advice" which I may not, in any event, be qualified to provide.

The only interpretation permitted on this post (or any others I may have made) is that this is what I would personally consider doing in the circumstances discussed. Each and every reader of this post or any other I may have made must take responsibility for forming their own view and making their own decision.

I receive an unwieldy number of private messages. I am happy to respond to messages posted on open forum but am unable to respond to private messages, seeking advice, when the substance of that message should properly be on the open forum.

Many thanks for your assistance and understanding on this.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest interesting

Guest interesting

Posted
Posted

Yes it could be, but very unlikely as they would then be claiming for damages and therefore claim for actual loss which would be nil (in most cases).

Enforcement is on the basis of a contract being entered into by the driver agreeing to pay £60 or whatever, you fail to pay the £60 and then they enforce the amount of the contract, not damages or for breach of contract.

Link to post
Share on other sites
battyboomboom

battyboomboom

Posted
Posted
Enforcement is on the basis of a contract being entered into by the driver agreeing to pay £60 or whatever, you fail to pay the £60 and then they enforce the amount of the contract, not damages or for breach of contract.

 

Incorrect. The signs say (quoting from Perky's website)

"...If you park on this land contravening the above terms and conditions you are contractually agreeing to pay a parking charge of £85...."

 

This is penalty charge (as it penalises you depending on your actions, as opposed to you paying £XX to use the car park - that would be a charge), and not a charge for use of the land therefore it is unenforceable as per case law.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Barnsley Boy

Barnsley Boy

Posted
Posted
has anyone had any success in disputing a parking ticket against ukpc ltd. im thinkin of going down the route where they have to prove who the driver is:idea: please advice much appreciated!

 

There are very cases of PPCs taking people to court as reported by the forums. ukpc certainly not one of them. All it should take to beat them is to just ignore the drivel that comes through your letter box.:D

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest interesting

Guest interesting

Posted
Posted
Incorrect. The signs say (quoting from Perky's website)

"...If you park on this land contravening the above terms and conditions you are contractually agreeing to pay a parking charge of £85...."

 

This is penalty charge (as it penalises you depending on your actions, as opposed to you paying £XX to use the car park - that would be a charge), and not a charge for use of the land therefore it is unenforceable as per case law.

 

The OP did not get a ticket from perkys company, they state on a number of occasions it was from ukpc, so not sure why you are referring to signs unrelated to this thread.

Link to post
Share on other sites
petej2811

petej2811

Posted
Posted
If you are looking for a space you are intending to park. However it is actually parking not intending to that is acceptance of the contract. It may come down to a definition of what constitutes "parking".

 

 

 

I see what you're driving at (ha ha!) but if that were the case how would the offer be made? There would have to be a method of communicating the offer once the selection of space had been made.

 

I think the signs purport to be the offer. They set out the terms etc and the claim states that once you park you are deemed to have accepted them. Loopholes and irregularities notwithstanding that would be the case, hence or success in arguing no contract exists when people haven't seen the signs.

 

PJ

Link to post
Share on other sites
petej2811

petej2811

Posted
Posted
It is a "Norwich Pharmacal order", in essence it is an order that is available against an indivual to assist the plantiff (in this case PPC) by providing full information and disclosing the identity of the 'wrongdoer'

 

The order can be requested if the applicant has no other means of obtaining the information (eg. CPR 31.16 or 31.17)

 

There is no restriction of a wrongdoer and can be eg. a tort, a breach of contract.

 

The order would require the respondant on oath to identify the 'wrongdoer' by name.

 

 

That's exactly right. Obtaining one, however, is not easy, particularly expensive and next to nobody really knows about it.

 

PJ

Link to post
Share on other sites
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


Follow: @real_CAG

Navigation Links

Welcome
CAG Community Centre
CAG Library
Banks & Credit
Other financial Institutions
Retail
Non-Retail
Work & Social
PayDay and Short term Loans
Debt
Motoring
Legal

Latest

Our Picks


Help and Support

CAG Library
Questions about This Site
Change your notification sound
Change your profile picture - FREE!


Useful LInks

County Court Forms
MoneyClaim Online
CPR - Pre-Action Protocols
Civil Procedure Rules
UK Legislation
Youth Consumer Service

Reclaim the right Ltd

registered in the UK
reg.05783665
reg. office:-
262 Uxbridge Road, Hatch End
England
HA5 4HS

The Consumer Action Group

The National Consumer Service
×
×
  • Create New...