Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Thank-you dx, What you have written is certainly helpful to my understanding. The only thing I would say, what I found to be most worrying and led me to start this discussion is, I believe the judge did not merely admonish the defendant in the case in question, but used that point to dismiss the case in the claimants favour. To me, and I don't have your experience or knowledge, that is somewhat troubling. Again, the caveat being that we don't know exactly what went on but I think we can infer the reason for the judgement. Thank-you for your feedback. EDIT: I guess that the case I refer to is only one case and it may never happen again and the strategy not to appeal is still the best strategy even in this event, but I really did find the outcome of that case, not only extremely annoying but also worrying. Let's hope other judges are not quite so narrow minded and don't get fixated on one particular issue as FTMDave alluded to.
    • Indians, traditionally known as avid savers, are now stashing away less money and borrowing more.View the full article
    • the claimant in their WS can refer to whatever previous CC judgements they like, as we do in our WS's, but CC judgements do not set a legal precedence. however, they do often refer to judgements like Bevis, those cases do created a precedence as they were court of appeal rulings. as for if the defendant, prior to the raising of a claim, dobbed themselves in as the driver in writing during any appeal to the PPC, i don't think we've seen one case whereby the claimant referred to such in their WS.. ?? but they certainly typically include said appeal letters in their exhibits. i certainly dont think it's a good idea to 'remind' them of such at the defence stage, even if the defendant did admit such in a written appeal. i would further go as far to say, that could be even more damaging to the whole case than a judge admonishing a defendant for not appealing to the PPC in the 1st place. it sort of blows the defendant out the water before the judge reads anything else. dx  
    • Hi LFI, Your knowledge in this area is greater than I could possibly hope to have and as such I appreciate your feedback. I'm not sure that I agree the reason why a barrister would say that, only to get new customers, I'm sure he must have had professional experience in this area that qualifies him to make that point. 🙂 In your point 1 you mention: 1] there is a real danger that some part of the appeal will point out that the person appealing [the keeper ] is also the driver. I understand the point you are making but I was referring to when the keeper is also the driver and admits it later and only in this circumstance, but I understand what you are saying. I take on board the issues you raise in point 2. Is it possible that a PPC (claimant) could refer back to the case above as proof that the motorist should have appealed, like they refer back to other cases? Thanks once again for the feedback.
    • Well barristers would say that in the hope that motorists would go to them for advice -obviously paid advice.  The problem with appealing is at least twofold. 1] there is a real danger that some part of the appeal will point out that the person appealing [the keeper ] is also the driver.  And in a lot of cases the last thing the keeper wants when they are also the driver is that the parking company knows that. It makes it so much easier for them as the majority  of Judges do not accept that the keeper and the driver are the same person for obvious reasons. Often they are not the same person especially when it is a family car where the husband, wife and children are all insured to drive the same car. On top of that  just about every person who has a valid insurance policy is able to drive another person's vehicle. So there are many possibilities and it should be up to the parking company to prove it to some extent.  Most parking company's do not accept appeals under virtually any circumstances. But insist that you carry on and appeal to their so called impartial jury who are often anything but impartial. By turning down that second appeal, many motorists pay up because they don't know enough about PoFA to argue with those decisions which brings us to the second problem. 2] the major parking companies are mostly unscrupulous, lying cheating scrotes. So when you appeal and your reasons look as if they would have merit in Court, they then go about  concocting a Witness Statement to debunk that challenge. We feel that by leaving what we think are the strongest arguments to our Member's Witness Statements, it leaves insufficient time to be thwarted with their lies etc. And when the motorists defence is good enough to win, it should win regardless of when it is first produced.   
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • 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
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
    • 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
  • Recommended Topics

Minster Baywatch PCN Claimform - xxxx hospital, xxxx (city)help!


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5379 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

Hi

 

This is my first post bu I have read a lot of the other similar posts, though speicific advice would be useful.

 

I was parked at a hospital in Newcastle without a pay and display ticket and received a "Parking Charge Notice" from Minster Baywatch (based in York(?)) for "A valid pay and display ticket was not clearly on display" adn "a valid permit was not clearly on display. As with all the other posters, it alos has notive that a £50 charge is now payable but £25 will be accepted in the first 14 days.

 

It also has however that "Legal action will be taken against the registered keeper if unpaid. Further costs will be incurred" but more worryingly, "Alternatively on your return to this car park you vehicle may be subject to additional parking fines. Your vehicle may be immobilised or towed away to recover any outstanding debt."

 

As I visit the hospital every month, I'm wondering, should I just pay the fine (I've gathered that there's no point appealing and that I should wait until they contact me before using one of the templates telling them to "take it up wiht the driver" - who - between this forum - MAY have been me) and do they have any legal right to provide additional fines and/or immobilise/tow away my car?

 

pieboy

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 78
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

It would be an offence to clamp or tow your car. Any member of society has go through the county court to claim any alleged debt and just taking goods is theft.

 

Private companies have no powers to issue fines, so that's a load of cobblers too.

 

Legally, they are not entitled to £25 or £50 - they are entitled to the cost of the P&D ticket. You can either completely ignore them, or you can send them a pound coin in the post, point out that this is all they're entitled too and to forward it to the landowner if required.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Al27, Could you confirm whether there are any sites on the net or law that can be quoted to Minster Baywatch with regards to them not legally being entitled to claim anything other than the P & D charge.

 

I had brought a ticket which was not displayed properly and they have taken a picture of my car and registration number. The ticket was on the drivers side window which they failed to see and apparently didn't take a picture of that side of the car. Also is this not a breech of Data Protection as my vehicle reg can lead someone to my personal details? Also the storage of such a phot would surely be on their computer system, how do I know what that picture could be used for if it fell into the wrong hands, I feel that this is an infringement of my rights and protection of my personal data. I have written to them explaining this but they just wrote back saying that a picture of a car is not classed as personal data. I have sent a copy of my ticket which was brought in good faith. Now they insist that I pay within 14 days.

 

After reading your response I am now enclined to send the £1.70 which they claim I didn't pay, would then dispute the fact and insist that they can charge a fine of £40 if paid in 14 days, if not then £60 thereafter ?? Any help wouuld be appreciated !

Link to post
Share on other sites

So you've already bought a ticket and even sent it to them?

 

Well, job done then. They offered a service, and you paid for it. Displaying a ticket is optional - if you bought a jumper in Debenhams, they can't fine you for losing your receipt!

 

There's no point trying to reason with them or explain the law - they just want to make some cash. They know the situation full well, but are hoping that you don't.

 

Expect more letters before they give up and go away. They can 'charge' any figure they like - the £60 is no more enforceable than £40 or £10,000.

 

You've done your bit. Sit back and ignore.

 

By the way, I don't think it's a breach of data protection to take a photo of your car I'm afraid.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Al27, you clearly dont know what your on about.

 

If you park on private property and their is signage saying that permits/tickets must be displayed or you will recieve a parking charge then this is what you must do, the term is pay and display, not pay and put it in your pocket / put it on the floor / put it behind the tinted section of your windscreen / put it face down so you cant read the time and date of expiry etc etc..

 

If you park your car then you have agreed to the terms and conditions and therefore entered into a contract.

 

The parking charge is for breach of contract, weather you bought a ticket or not is irrelevant.

 

Its quite simple, if you dont agree with the restrictions on privately owned property then dont park there.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
It would be an offence to clamp or tow your car. Any member of society has go through the county court to claim any alleged debt and just taking goods is theft.

 

Private companies have no powers to issue fines, so that's a load of cobblers too.

 

Legally, they are not entitled to £25 or £50 - they are entitled to the cost of the P&D ticket. You can either completely ignore them, or you can send them a pound coin in the post, point out that this is all they're entitled too and to forward it to the landowner if required.

not true trust me i know

Link to post
Share on other sites

Go on then ruddiger123, explain away why you think thats not true .......

 

Troll alert !

All opinions & information are the personal view of the poster, and are not that of any organisation, company or employer. Any information disclosed by the poster is for personal use only. Permission to process this data under the Data Protection act is NOT GIVEN to any company, only personal readers.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It would be an offence to clamp or tow your car. Any member of society has go through the county court to claim any alleged debt and just taking goods is theft.

 

Private companies have no powers to issue fines, so that's a load of cobblers too.

 

Legally, they are not entitled to £25 or £50 - they are entitled to the cost of the P&D ticket. You can either completely ignore them, or you can send them a pound coin in the post, point out that this is all they're entitled too and to forward it to the landowner if required.

 

 

In response to the person who requested an explanation as to why the above post was untrue.

 

Firstly it is not illegal to clamp or tow a vehicle (unless you live in Scotland). Would a government authority, namely the Security Industry Authority, issue vehicle immobilisation licences if it were an illegal act:?:

 

card_vi.jpg

 

Secondly, correct a private company cannot issue fines (unless contracted by the local council to conduct civil enforcement), this is why parking tickets are called ' Parking charge Notice' not 'Penaly charge notice'; the ticket is a charge not a fine.

 

penalty_charge_notice_white.gif

 

Finally with refrence to the comments regarding the amount of the charge, a business can charge what they wish for a product or service, you will find the charges printed on the car parks signage. If one of the charges is applicable to vehicles not following the terms and conditions of the car park then so be it, it so happens that the charge is requested after the charge is incurred, the P.C.N is in effect an invoice. If you do not agree to the charges then fine just park else where.

 

The mistake a lot of people make is that just because a car park is readily accessable to the public it is still private property and if you are not prepared to respect the land owners wishes then you have no right to be there. Put yourself in the landowners position if he did not have measures in place to sort out parking fee dodgers (who do not want to pay their way in life like everyone els), no body would pay. If no one paid the car park would close down and there would be very limited parking across the country, is that what some of you want:idea:

 

Parking enforcement is a necessary evil !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Secondly, correct a private company cannot issue fines (unless contracted by the local council to conduct civil enforcement), this is why parking tickets are called ' Parking charge Notice' not 'Penaly charge notice'; the ticket is a charge not a fine.

 

penalty_charge_notice_white.gif

 

 

You can call it what you like, it is still quite obviously a "penalty charge" based on it's size relative to the breaking of a particular term on an alledged contract.

 

As a term on a contract therefore it also falls foul of consumer acts deeming no term can be "unreasonable", which again it clearly is.

Edited by crem
Link to post
Share on other sites

As a term on a contract therefore it also falls foul of consumer acts deeming no term can be "unreasonable", which again it clearly is.

 

Whats unreasonable about insisting that motorists pay for their parking:-?:-?:-?

 

With reference to the amount of the charge usually between £30 and £75 if paid within the discounted period; the profits are not as high as you think.

 

The fee has to cover:

wages / staff training / fuel / vehicles / a ridiculous amount of admin / DVLA fees / printing / signage / pay and display machines 3-8 grand each / maintenance of machines / repairs to vandalised machines / commision to landowners.

 

The fees are quite reasonable taking the above into account, tecnically we :eek: oops, THEY could just clamp / tow and charge in the regeon of £400 to get your car back COMPLETELY LEGALLY but the good guys dont.

Link to post
Share on other sites

all the PPCs have to is act lawfully and legally. have yet to see a set of paper from any PPC that is either. In very many cases they do not even have the right to form any contract with driver. which PPC do you work for/run ?

 

If you have written permission from the land owner you have the right to form a contract with motorists.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you have written permission from the land owner you have the right to form a contract with motorists.

 

not if the landowner has not given you the appropriate rights - which the majority do not.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just one small part of the "lawfully and legally" problems they face. Of course if a PPC did act lawfully and legally their business model collapses !! here is something from the FSA about unfair contract terms. http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pubs/speeches/tmcl_slides.pdf

 

Take a look at the top of page 2 on your link; basically they state that a contract is considered fair if the terms are clear with no hidden pitfalls.

 

Generally parking companies signage / contracts comply with this statement

Link to post
Share on other sites

Whats unreasonable about insisting that motorists pay for their parking:-?:-?:-?

 

With reference to the amount of the charge usually between £30 and £75 if paid within the discounted period; the profits are not as high as you think.

 

The fee has to cover:

wages / staff training / fuel / vehicles / a ridiculous amount of admin / DVLA fees / printing / signage / pay and display machines 3-8 grand each / maintenance of machines / repairs to vandalised machines / commision to landowners.

 

The fees are quite reasonable taking the above into account, tecnically we :eek: oops, THEY could just clamp / tow and charge in the regeon of £400 to get your car back COMPLETELY LEGALLY but the good guys dont.

 

oops you have let the cat out of the bag - but relax we all knew it anyway. fees for losses. the cost of running your business is your affair. and losses to the landowner not you in most cases. If you are so sure then take up the Pepipoo challenge that Perky can't manage to do. Unless you are Perky (again) so which PPC are you ? did the cat get your tongue when it escaped the bag ?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Take a look at the top of page 2 on your link; basically they state that a contract is considered fair if the terms are clear with no hidden pitfalls.

 

Generally parking companies signage / contracts comply with this statement

 

read the rest of it. and the accompanying speech.

Link to post
Share on other sites

tecnically we :eek: oops, THEY could just clamp / tow and charge in the regeon of £400 to get your car back COMPLETELY LEGALLY but the good guys dont.

 

Clamping is only a remedy (and a flimsy remedy at that) for "trespass". If you park with one wheel over a white line in a private car park to which the public have been given reasonable access too, you cannot by definition be "trespassing". Therefore clamping would be an illegal remedy.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi

 

here's an update.

 

Because I'm living between 2 addresses, the letters are going to one address and then being forwarded. AS a result I'm receiving them about 7-10 days later.

 

I today got one from Roxburghe debt collectors saying that £100 is now due and that in the absence of payment or any valid dispute they will pursue this matter - with or without my coopoeration and that it will be passed on to Solicitors, Graham White to review the case rfor potential legal action.

 

Up to now I have just been ignoring the letters. Is this routine, and at what point do they usually stop? Should I write a cease and desist letter asking for evidence?

 

pieboy

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...