How To fight your Parking Ticket PCN's & PPC's

[seanamarts]

Found this and thought it would be very helpful especially the parts about PPC's

and clamping

 

 

Tickets issued by private companies

Private companies can issue tickets to drivers parked on their property, but the rules are not the same as local authorities. If you receive a ticket in a private car park, such as a supermarket car park, or private multi-story car park, remember that it is not criminal law, but contract law that applies. The driver enters into a contract with the landowner when they driver into the car park.

This means that it is only the driver that can be subject to a ticket from a private company. If they do not know who the driver was, they cannot claim a penalty. They have no legal right to demand that you identify the driver.

If you are approached by a member of staff inside a private car park there is no obligation for you to assist them in any way

If the company wish to pursue a claim in the small claims court, they have to prove that you were the driver of the car. Any comments that you make may assist them in this aim, so best to say nothing.

If you refuse to pay, the private company has to pursue you through the small claims court. It is up to them to prove a breach of contract so look at the terms carefully. These are usually printed on a sign at the entrance to the car park.

Additionally, you may be able to reduce any fine issued by a private company. Under contract law, they can only claim for any loss they have suffered because of your offence. They may try to claim a penalty of, say, £100, but in law they may only be entitled to any revenue they had lost. So, if you pay £2 to park for one hour, but stay for three hours, they can only claim for two hours of lost revenue, which is £4.

 

Clamped by a private company

Different rules apply if you are clamped by a private company for parking on private land. If you are clamped, you should ring the number the company provides to release your car. Do not damage the clamp as this would be criminal damage. Check that the company has a license from the Security Industry Authority by calling 08702 430 100. A 15-digit Security Industry Authority number should appear on the receipt they give you when you pay up. If they are not licensed, report them to the police.

Areas where private clampers operate still have to display warning signs that are clearly visible. Take pictures of the signs if you feel they are inadequate and complain to the Security Industry Authority.

 

 

 

Fight your parking ticket - how to appeal your parking fine | This is Money

 

 

there is some good advice for both PCN's & PPC's tickets

 

If this has been posted before then I apologise

[Mr Macintosh]

An excellent info - very useful.

 

By the way, is there any way of recovering the money in case if they managed to clamp the car. Because the amount of payment someone may have been forced to pay is in contradiction with "in law they may only be entitled to any revenue they had lost".

[seanamarts]

I suppose you would have to take them to a small claims court

[legaladviser]

This article is misleading in parts. It says the driver enters into a contract when he enters the car park. This is not correct. In certain very exceptional circumstances a contract may be formed in such a case but it is far from certain.

[lookinforinfo]

Legaladviser, could you please expand on your previous post? I have been

given to understand that when drivers enter a car park where notices are

clearly situated and easily read, that by thereafter parking, the driver has

accepted the conditions and a contract has been entered into.

You appear to be saying that normally this is not the case, as only in exceptional circumstances a contract may be formed.

[legaladviser]

It depends on the layout. If there is a barrier and the driver takes a ticket, there is little doubt that a contract is formed (but only for the payment of the parking fee and not a penalty). If the car park is however open, say at a retail park, and the signage is not prominent or the driver does not see it then there can be no contract formed (the Vine case means that the driver must actually see the warning signage and contract terms). You cannot accept contract terms that you are unaware of. It would be up to the private parking company as claimant to prove that the driver by his conduct in parking had accepted the "contract" terms and conditions.

[Guest interesting]

It depends on the layout. If there is a barrier and the driver takes a ticket, there is little doubt that a contract is formed (but only for the payment of the parking fee and not a penalty). If the car park is however open, say at a retail park, and the signage is not prominent or the driver does not see it then there can be no contract formed (the Vine case means that the driver must actually see the warning signage and contract terms). You cannot accept contract terms that you are unaware of. It would be up to the private parking company as claimant to prove that the driver by his conduct in parking had accepted the "contract" terms and conditions.

 

This is INCORRECT.

 

In referring to the original hearing it was said “the question whether a person voluntarily assumes a risk or consents to trespass to his or her property is to be judged objectively and not subjectively; one it is established that sufficient and adequate warning notices were in place, a car driver cannot be heard to say that he or she did not see the notice. Were that to be the law, it would be too easy for car drivers who trespass with their cars to evade the only method land owners have of stopping the unauthorised parking of cars in parking spaces or parking areas on their property (judgement p3)”

 

 

The court of appeal agreed and Lord Justice Roche stated “To show that the car owner consented or willingly assumed the risk of his car being clamped, it has to be established that the car owner was aware of the consequences of his parking his car so that it trespassed on the land of another. That will be done by establishing that the car owner saw and understood the significance of a warning notice or notices that cars in that place without permission were liable to be clamped. Normally the presence of notices which are posted where they are bound to be seen, for example at the entrance to a private car park, which are of a type which the car driver would be bound to have read, will lead to a finding that the car driver had knowledge of and appreciated the warning.” (judgement pg 6)

 

 

Lord Justice Waller confirmed the above by stating “But I would suggest that absent unusual circumstances, if it is established that a car driver saw a notice and if it is established that he appreciated that it contained terms in relation to the basis on which he was to come onto another's land, but did not read the notice, and thus fully understand the precise terms, he will not be able to say that he did not consent to, and willingly assume the risk of being clamped. (judgement pg 9)

 

 

SO .. A driver stating he did not see the signs is NOT a defence at all - if the court finds the signage was available to be read and it was reasonable for the driver to see and understand them - the driver CANNOT be heard to say he did not see them or is not bound by the terms contained. (Of course the terms must be legal).

 

The signage must be clearly displayed and normally any cases going to court photogrpahs are taken of the vehicle with ticket attached and a sign(s) clearly in view - together with site photogrpahs - if the court finds OBJECTIVLY the signage is sufficient then you will be held by the terms of them.

 

The vine case was upheld on a few key points: the signage was found to be insufficient (ie. 1 only on a wall obscured by a range rover parked in front when the driver was seated it could nto be seen - this was agreed by counsel for clamping company), the parking area looked like it could be part of the highway and more importantly this case was unusual due to the defendants state of health and the fact she pulled over, was gone for a few minutes to be sick (this would agree with the statement by LJ Waller in the appeal that absent unusual circumstances).

 

The full transcript is here if anyone wants to read it:

http://www.thepeoplesnocampaign.co.uk/a/no/assets/VINE%20CLAMPING%20CASE.pdf

 

(appols mods about links .. but I thought it would be useful on this occasion)

[lookinforinfo]

Interesting, I don't think the situation is quite as clear cut as you stated.

Judges have a way with words, that make paraphrasing them a tad diificult.

 

For instance Lord Justice Waller did not say that for a driver to say that he not see the signs was not a defence. What he actually said was first the driver had to admit that he had seen a notice and then it had to be established that although he hadn't read it, he was aware that the notice related to the conditions of parking on the site. If he carried on and parked,

then he ran the risk of being clamped, or charged for any breach.

So if the driver had not read the notice, and therefore did not know that

conditions were attached to parking there, [because he hadn't read the sign]

the Court may take a different view to yours.

From my reading of LJ Waller's summing up, the driver would have had to have

known that the notice applied to him, but didn't read it. If he didn't read the

notice because he didn't think that the notice was meant for him for example,

the Court would have to apply another set of criteria before coming to a decision.

Another example. The driver approaching the entrance to the car park may have to deal with cars coming out of the car park at the same time, with

pedestrians weaving through the traffic also, giving the arriving

driver little opportunity to read any notice at the entrance. Factor in rain and

darkness to the equation and cars following him in to the car park and there

would appear to be some mitigation at the very least, wouldn't you agree,

that the driver may not have seen the sign as he arrived. [My apologies for

the sexist use of "he" as the driver].

[Guest interesting]

I would agree with your comments lookinforinfo, as with many legal cases the situation is never as clear as one party may think - the majority of the legal profession is based on people having a different viewpoint after reading the same document.

 

The reality is, if a car park has a number of signs (on the entrance, located around) and they are of the type to be seen - and not taking into account any unusual circumstances (ie, the driver is sick or its pitch black with no lighting) - a judge will normally find it was reasonable for a person to have taken notice of them and the onus is on the person who is parking to be on notice as to where he/she was parking and wether or not he/she was permitted to park.

 

If a PPC were to take a person to court and rely on 1 sign, located in an overgrown area, 50yards away from the vehicle, taken at 11pm in the rain with no lighting - then I do not see how they could rely on the findings in the VINE judgement. (the whole point about a ticket being issued correctly is a person must have been given the opportunity to know the conditions attached to an area of land) - so yes I agree with your comments.

 

The vine case was an example, the sign was obscured when the driver went into the carpark and at seat level could not be seen, it was said that once she got out of the vehicle the sign would have been visible but with the unusual circumstances surrounding this case it was not on her priority list.

 

I suspect if the parking area vine was parked in had lots of signs and she hadnt parked just to be sick the case would have turned out very different (The arthur -v- anker case, in the initial hearing it was said that he did not see the signs, but on appeal, it was conceeeded by his counsel and the court that he did)

 

However, if a vehicle is parked next to a sign, in clear view, daytime and the terms are clear - together with site photographs showing a number of signs the person would have driven and/or walked past to enter/leave the parking area, and they still left the area and 'took the chance' - they would and do have a hard time convincing the judge they did not see them as their excuse for saying they donot apply and the ticket/invoice is invalid.

[DB_SamX]

What else defines adequate signage; are there guidelines that dictate how big they should be, how far apart, on every single entrance, what size font, etc, etc?

 

Do PPCs have to keep record of maintainance logs (when they were checked, replaced and so on)?

 

I ask because I am appealing a claim, whereby to me, the signs, were not clear at all at the time of the alleged offence and the PPC claim they are adequate. If I take a photo of a lack of sign at an entrance, too small to read as you drive in, not where I park, or fallen down on teh floor, do they count as inadequate?

[DB_SamX]

edit - double post.

[legaladviser]

Interesting has even posted the relevant quotes from the Vine case but still does not get it. Here they are for him again (EDITED)

"That will be done by establishing that the car owner saw and understood the significance of a warning notice or notices that cars in that place without permission were liable to be clamped."

 

and

 

" if it is established that a car driver saw a notice and if it is established that he appreciated that it contained terms in relation to the basis on which he was to come onto another's land, but did not read the notice, and thus fully understand the precise terms, he will not be able to say that he did not consent to, and willingly assume the risk of being clamped"

 

 

What's the betting he still does not get it?

[Guest interesting]

FAO: MODS

 

You have told legaladviser on a number of occasions to refrain from personal insults/comments.

 

Clearly "(Edited)" is a personal insult and I expect you to take action against this user as it seems he is unable to conduct a conversation in an adult way.

 

The post has been reported but I would like an open comment on the forum.

[legaladviser]

Nor the first time Interesting has gone running to the mods. EDITED If he does not get the reasoning in the Vine case, which he has himself quoted and is as clear as the nose on your face, EDITED.

[Guest interesting]

To all on here who can have a conversation without resorting to personal attacks.

 

Legaladviser stated "That will be done by establishing that the car owner saw and understood the significance of a warning notice or notices that cars in that place without permission were liable to be clamped. "

He forgot to add the rest of the paragraph, that read

"Normally the presence of notices which are posted where they are bound to be seen, for example at the entrance to a private car park, which are of a type which the car driver would be bound to have read, will lead to a finding that the car driver had knowledge of and appreciated the warning."

 

I think I have explained to the rest of the people reading the forum, in post 9 that "I would agree with your comments lookinforinfo, as with many legal cases the situation is never as clear as one party may think - the majority of the legal profession is based on people having a different viewpoint after reading the same document."

[legaladviser]

Interesting talks about avoiding personal attacks. But cannot write my handle (when he can actually spell it right) without including stupid winking smilies and putting "ahem" in brackets. Very grown up from the prince of adult conversation. And then when someone says something he does not like, goes rushing for the mods to try to get them censured.

[Bigmac versus]

Please Please show restraint and consider how your comments can be mistrued by others, we are all up for debating but this sort of behaviour dosent benefit anyone. Personal remarks about others will not be tolerated and quite frankly if you cant refrain from this then you will be put on moderation and possibly banned.

[lookinforinfo]

I li'ke your sporran Bigmac.

And you are perfectly correct about us watching our comments.

Bear in mind that many of our threads may end up on other websites when the topic is of interest and therefore sufficiently well visited to get listed by

Google -for instance on DCAs. Indeed quite a few new members come here as

a result of going to a DCA website and finding our posts helpful in their situations. So it doesn't look good when members get too personal and begin

to vilify each other. Not only that, but I am sure that Bigmac et al have enough to do without having to wade in to separate us because of some spat or other.

Here endeth the first lesson............

 

Thanks for your comments, Interesting and Legaladviser. One of my drivers

has picked up a ticket in a McDonalds carpark and I am really looking for

extra ammunition. I know that they cannot do anything in this case, because

the driver is not the owner/keeper of the car. However I am concerned that

should we appear to be too unhelpful, it may lead to the car being clamped on

a subsequent visit.

[Guest interesting]

They can only clamp it, if the signage states they can and clamping is a whole new ball game.

 

Again, Clamping the signage has to be clear etc.. (all of the cases used in PPC tickets are originally clamping) - so if the signage is not good enough for ticketing, the same will apply for clamping.

 

But in saying that, the clampers already have your money so changes the rules of engagement as such !!

[Goldlady]

Unless you do what I did

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/parking-traffic-offences/118539-18-shopping-117-50-a.html

[legaladviser]

I li'ke your sporran Bigmac.

So it doesn't look good when members get too personal and begin

to vilify each other. Not only that, but I am sure that Bigmac et al have enough to do without having to wade in to separate us because of some spat or other.

 

I agree with you. The problem is that there are a number of people on here whose only agenda appears to be to prove that private parking tickets are enforcable. They appear to have some sort of vested or financial interest in that outcome. In my opinion some level of conflict is inevitable if their misleading and self-serving statements are to be challenged. I suspect that if associates of the banks came onto the main boards here to defend penalty charges in a concerted way this would not go unchallenged.

[Bernie_the_Bolt]

The problem is that there are a number of people on here whose only agenda appears to be to prove that private parking tickets are enforcable.

 

I have to say that what I hear them saying is that the mantra "all private parking tickets are unenforcable" is wrong. But then that is not a mantra that I hear expressed.

 

The reality of the situation is (as I see it) that getting the two sides to see each others perspectives is about as likely as getting Gordon Brown or David Cameron to so so (in public at least).

 

The truth of the matter is that private parking tickets can be enforced in the correct circumstances but cannot in others. The majority of PPC tickets fall into the wide grey area in the middle and it is identifying where in the grey area any individual ticket lies.

 

Once there is a view on that the appropriate response needs to be established. There is an alternative view but I remain entirely unconvinced about the merits of the "ignore" argument. This is for two key reasons: 1) to demonstrate reasonable behaviour on the part of the motorist, 2) to demonstrate a dispute as to the purported debt and thereby give ammunition against the stacking of additional costs/charges.

 

To those who seem to relish in personal duels of which this thread is the latest example I would only offer the following:

In doing so you not only undermine your own credibility in any "regular" posts you may make but you also potentially drive others away and undermine the credibility of the forum as a whole.

[legaladviser]

BtB we have disgreed before on the enforcability of private parking tickets. There may be exceptional circumstances where they are enforcable but that should not in my opinion be emphasised over the vast majority of cases where they are not enforcable. I simply do not think that there is the doubt over this issue that you seem to think there is. Nor do I agree with you on the ignore option. If the ticket is unenforcable then it should be ignored. By writing to the originators you may well be giving them credibility. Would you write back to a 419 [EDIT]? What works for one person may not work for another, some people like the reassurance that they have written back and denied any liability. The evidence such as it exists is that it does not seem to make a huge deal of difference, in the end the PPCs go away and find another victim anyway.

 

Regards spats on the board, personally I take the view that if someone posts misleading and self-serving comments then we should stand up and challenge that. Others may take a different view and that is up to them. In my opinion these boards have been devalued for some time now anyway due to the preponderance of PPC associates that hang around.

[pin1onu]

Once there is a view on that the appropriate response needs to be established. There is an alternative view but I remain entirely unconvinced about the merits of the "ignore" argument. This is for two key reasons: 1) to demonstrate reasonable behaviour on the part of the motorist, 2) to demonstrate a dispute as to the purported debt and thereby give ammunition against the stacking of additional costs/charges.

Bernie is quite right. I spent over 10 years as an IT contractor and had to persue correspondence with some agencies over contract breaches and irregularities. I also had to seek damages in one case. Two of these matters eventually went before the county court and in one of them the defendent had failed to respond to any of the correspondence that I had sent them. In the end the only response was to issue a counterclaim against me after I raised the claim in court.

 

The adjudicator made the point that it is usually in the interests of both parties in a dispute to try and resolve the matter before it gets to court. He added that the courts take a very dim view if this approach is not tried. He also added that in ignoring my correspondence which I had proof of them receiving they could not claim to have tried to resolve the matter. He added that in doing this it added strength to the case I was presenting.

 

In my view you should respond to at least the first few letters you get from a PPC and go through the motions of trying to resolve the issue - even if it is only to deny liabilitity for the debt. Use the Bernie's template letters as a guideline of how to respond. You have to show the court that at least initially you tried to resolve the matter. You don't have to keep responding especially once you have you denied liability and issued a cease and desist letter. They should either put up or shut up.

[lookinforinfo]

Legaladviser- I was thinking of making some allusion to kettles and pots but

decided against it [almost ] to avoid being perhaps tangoed myself.

There have been occasions in the past when I have been at opposite ends of the spectrum to someone else on the forum and we have managed to put our views across without falling out with each other. And I feel that this is the way it should be.

 

No one is denying you the right to put your point of view across nor to prevent you challenging a opinion you disagree with. It is how it is done that

causes concern on a few occasions. I appreciate that you both hold strong

views on the matter, but most people come here to find an answer to their

problems not a confrontation between two factions.

I don't want to say any more as the thread is being hijacked by these asides

and there is a danger that the valid points in posts will be missed.

 

 

I understand your point about ignoring PPC invoices since many in the Debt section of the Forum advocate ignoring certain missives from DCAs. And in

some instances they are right to so advise. But not in all cases. You also have to bear in mind that if by ignoring the first letter, a second and third arrive, heaping on the charges, pressure and threats, not everyone reacts

in the same way. And fear of Courts, bailiffs CCJs etc can have a powerful effect on some people more than others. And it is to those people in particular

who are most affected by threats that I believe this Forum was designed to inform.

I do accept that it was started as a result of excessive bank charges rather

than parking issues, but there are similarities. Often small infringements

attracting penalties completely out of kilter with the offence, followed up

with increased fines, Court cases, CCJs bailiffs etc. And that is before the

PPCs are involved. Quite how they justify their charges when they are running

carparks with only a small turnover in vehicles per day, as opposed to TFL

for example who employ myriads of traffic wardens, cameras, backroom staff,

premises and massive overheads operating in central London, I am not sure.

Jumping on the gravy boat I suspect.

 

In my situation, there is a charge being demanded for £100 for overstaying in

a free carpark by 20 minutes. We complain about the banks charging £30 to

send a letter for exceeding ones limit-they could take lessons from these guys! Or perhaps not.

 

Interesting that this PPC claim to operate in accordance with DVLA Code of Practice yet I am sure that the DVLA mention that fines should be under

£75. I admit that there is an offer of a 50% reduction if paid within a certain

time but the fine is still £100 to begin with. And it goes really heavily on threats of failure to pay.