Success?

[Bernie_the_Bolt]

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.

[petej2811]

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

[petej2811]

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

[Bernie_the_Bolt]

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.

[Guest interesting]

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.

[Guest interesting]

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.

[tom4rse]

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

[Steve__M]

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.

[Guest interesting]

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.

[Steve__M]

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

[Bernie_the_Bolt]

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.

[Guest interesting]

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.

[Bernie_the_Bolt]

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.

[tom4rse]

I am unsure if this has ever been used in a PPC case, ....

 

There's not been many PPC cases have there? (Approx) How many have ended up in court with both parties turning up and battling it out?

[Guest interesting]

I only know of 3, and that none refer to your company.

[tom4rse]

Just a ponderance, but could a Trespass type allegation be used against someone in a carpark/privateland?

[Guest interesting]

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.

[battyboomboom]

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.

[lewis1baby]

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!

[lewis1baby]

can i just add to the success stories that i recieved £4100 back off the natwest which was everything they owed me less the interest,,process took 16 weeks in total so stick with it right up to court day,ok!

[Barnsley Boy]

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.

[Guest interesting]

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.

[lewis1baby]

hope your advice turns out to be right. will fight this to the bitter end before i part with my money.thanxs for your interest.

[petej2811]

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

[petej2811]

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