Anyone up for a challenge?!

[Northern_Lass]

Firstly 'Hi', I've just registered but have been viewing this forum for the last month for info. You're an amazing bunch of people with a wealth of knowledge

 

Secondly, I have registered as I need your help. I have trawled this fantastic site over the last month and as far as I can see no-one has had this same parking problem (although my eyes are very blurred and sore from all the reading I have done so I may well have missed something!)

 

This is a long post as I have included the 2 letters I have sent but honestly, I am begging for help from anyone as I'm now really stuck.

 

My problem is this:

 

I work on a university campus and have to park on a pay and display car park. The parking situatin is dire and if you aren't here early enough you dont get a space and have to park just off the car park either on the kerb or at a 'T' junction spot that goes no-where and is surrounded by grass. Its the grass boarder where the other side is the car park.

 

On this occasion the vehicle was parked up on the grass verge outside of the car park. There was a car infront - about 4 -5 meters away, and one behind again about 4-5 meters away. The parking warden booked the vehicle for 'Parked so as to cause obstruction or inconvenience to others'. The vehicle was not blocking anyone in and not parked near any building so in its simplest form i feel they have ticketed for something which clearly wasnt done!!

 

Using advice from this site but not wanting to use all the big guns on the first letter as i know from the office grapevine they are really stubborn and will not let tickets drop, and cut and pasting various templates and info my first letter to them was this:

 

I understand a Civil Penalty Notice was issued to vehicle registration number ******* (CPN no. CP0600****) on 25/11/2007 at 13:47. The notice states that it has been issued because : Code 07 - Parked so as to cause obstruction or inconvenience to others.

 

The photographic evidence of the vehicle does not show any obstruction. The vehicle was parked off the road (and not in the car park) and approximately 5 meters away from any other vehicle. This can be clearly seen. It was not parked in front of any building or emergency exit/ doors. Therefore the vehicle was not in breach of any parking conditions.

 

Essentially when a driver of a vehicle drives into a car park and parks his car he is implied to accept the offer for parking on the terms of the offertory.

 

You as the Private Parking Company must make the terms clear to the user of the car park. Therefore you are obliged to place ample and appropriate signage about the car park to make those persons using the facilities aware of the terms. These signs are displayed at intervals about the car park. Thus when the driver parks the vehicle in the car park and pays or otherwise he accepts by way of his actions and a contract is formed between he and the owner of the land.

 

At the location of the alleged offence the signage does not conform to the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions (TSRGD) 2002. The parking conditions notices are not in the area where the vehicle was parked. The notices are in a pay and display car park which was adjacent to the land the vehicle was parked on clearly defined by a boundry. The entrance to the car park was in fact behind the vehicle and so the vehicle was outside the area which is under the conditions. Other vehicles parked 5 meters away on the same piece of land were not issued a notice for obstructing this vehicle so how can one be issued to this vehicle for obstructing them on the same piece of land?

 

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

 

Their response was as I expected and they said signs are placed in the car park and they cover ALL internal roads whether there are parking lines displayed or not. The guidance is displayed on the notices. The land is private and so not bound by the regulations you refer to.

 

I was very very careful not to incriminate myself in the letter using 'the vehicle' etc. This was because I'm aware they have to prove it was me and so i was saving this for a second letter should I need it.......

 

and i did!

 

My second letter was using more of the templates on this site and also trying to get from them some definitive and quantative measure of what they deem an 'obstruction' to be. As the crux of my issue here is that i was not obstructing anyone or anything. Also if there is no definitive measure, the wardens can ticket any car half a mile away saying its an obstruction.

 

Second letter......

 

 

Thank you for your letter in response to the appeal.

 

In accordance with the appeal process, I wish to exercise my right to a second appeal.

 

As you stated earlier the land the vehicle was parked on is privately owned. Firstly and most simply when a person parks in a car park and over-stays or misuses the facilities in some way that person is in breach of contract with the land owner. The terms state the vehicle owner will not overstay or misuse the facilities, these are terms on which the contract for parking is based, thus when something contrary to these terms happens there is a breach of the contract. The common law holds that the remedy for breach of contract is damages. Therefore the land owner is entitled to damages covering the costs incurred as a result of the vehicle owner breaching the contract.

 

To examine this if a vehicle owner over-stays at a car park then the land owner loses revenue. Thus if parking is £1 an hour and you overstay by an hour then the damage is £1. Alternatively if parked incorrectly and use two bays, in all reality the most that could be said to be valid damages is the value of the spaces you have used (so if a second space is taken then double the cost of the £1 parking fee). So as you can see actual damages in these cases will be absolutely minimal. Why, therefore, do you seek to charge the users of the car parks figures like £25/ 50? For damages to be justifiable and enforceable by the courts they must be a reflection of actual loss to the land owner. The principle surrounding this is very similar to that surrounding bank charges. Banks cannot charge their customers extortionate rates for going over their overdraft limits (breaching their contract). The law is exactly the same for Private Parking Companies. So please explain exactly what damages to the land owner have occurred with the suggestion the driver of the vehicle was obstructing.

 

Secondly there is a piece of little known consumer legislation called the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations (1999).

 

Schedule 2 Indicative and Non-Exhaustive List of Terms which may be Regarded as Unfair

 

(e) requiring any consumer who fails to fulfil his obligation to pay a dis-proportionately high sum in compensation. Thus when you look to charge £25/ 50 for what is a minimal loss on your part, the regulations will apply.

 

Statutory Instrument 1999 No. 2083

 

Pay particular attention to section 5, which reads:-

 

“Unfair Terms

5. - (1) A contractual term which has not been individually negotiated shall be regarded as unfair if, contrary to the requirement of good faith, it causes a significant imbalance in the parties' rights and obligations arising under the contract, to the detriment of the consumer.

 

(2) A term shall always be regarded as not having been individually negotiated where it has been drafted in advance and the consumer has therefore not been able to influence the substance of the term.

 

(3) Notwithstanding that a specific term or certain aspects of it in a contract has been individually negotiated, these Regulations shall apply to the rest of a contract if an overall assessment of it indicates that it is a pre-formulated standard contract.

 

(4) It shall be for any seller or supplier who claims that a term was individually negotiated to show that it was.

 

(5) Schedule 2 to these Regulations contains an indicative and non-exhaustive list of the terms which may be regarded as unfair.”

 

 

 

Even the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 Section 4 states that:

 

(1) A person dealing as consumer cannot by reference to any contract term be made to indemnify another person (whether a party to the contract or not) in respect of liability that may be incurred by the other for negligence or breach of contract, except in so far as the contract term satisfies the requirement of reasonableness.

 

(2) This section applies whether the liability in question

 

(a) is directly that of the person to be indemnified or is incurred by him vicariously;

 

(b) is to the person dealing as consumer or to someone else.”

 

Clearly per the Act £25/50 for parking as an obstruction is not reasonable by any stretch of the imagination and the onus is on the claimant in a civil action to prove their case.

 

Next, on the subject of obstruction, as stated in previous correspondence, your pictures clearly show NO obstruction. The nearest vehicle is clearly approximately 5 meters away so I would like to see a copy of your regulations as to what exactly you deem an obstruction. Surely you have a definitive and quantative measurements as to what you deem to be an obstruction? Otherwise how do your ticket officers know which vehicles to ticket? If a car is 10 meters away, with no quantative regulation could be said to be an obstruction. Any adjudication will ask the same.

 

Finally, only the driver and the owner of the land are a party to the contract unless the parking company acts as their agent, which I am led to believe you don’t.

 

Therefore unless you have any evidence of who was driving/ parking the vehicle I suggest you provide it as increasing requests demanding money without proof that the person you are writing to was the person who commited the alleged breach may be interpreted as harassment for money.

 

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

 

True to form they have written back saying I breached condition 7 - 'Parking to as to cause obstruction or inconvenience to others'. Please note this is the second letter we are writing to you to confirm our decision on this matter. We have investigated all the claims you have raised in your previous correspondence and our decision still stands.

 

I am astonished they say they have investigated the claims as they clearly haven't as I asked for definitive and quantative measurements from their rules as to what they define an obstruction to be - which they haven't supplied!!

 

My problem now is that i'm stuck. And starting to worry. I have never been behind on payments and my credit score is very good. I have never been to court for payments or anything like that so am in uncharted waters and dont want/ cant afford a CCJ.

 

Any advice/ help as to what to do next/ where to go/ what to write. I haven't admitted liability but dont know where i stand if i persue that avenue and even if its strong enough. What happens next for them - will they issue a court summons?

 

Thanks in advance for any help

Edited December 19, 2008 by Northern_Lass

[68904]

If it is a Private Parking ticket, what is the problem?

Its an unenforceable invoice, and has no standing in law.

Stop wasting you time talking to them.

Batten down the hatches and it will go away.

[Steve__M]

Using advice from this site but not wanting to use all the big guns on the first letter as i know from the office grapevine they are really stubborn and will not let tickets drop, and cut and pasting various templates and info my first letter to them was this:

 

What *exactly* does the grapevine say?

 

The only real sanction they have is a court action which in this case they will not do since as you say their evidence does not support their allegation.

 

CCJs are only an issue if you don't pay a court judgement. But it won't come to that anyway. Stop writing and stop worrying.

[lamma]

if it says "Civil Penalty Notice" they are stuffed. End of. and TSGRD does not apply in car parks , suggest a bit more research. which PPC is it ?

[Northern_Lass]

PPC is Car Parking Partnership - and yes, it says Civil Penalty Notice.

 

Steve: Its just other people in the office who have been a victim of the ticketeting officers and have written but had the same response as i have had. Basically 'Pay up'. So they have. But i just dont think its right that they can ticket for something I havent done!

 

Although I have no intention of paying and was worried, you guys have just re-inforced what I wanted to do which is ignore them and now I know I wont have the bailiffs knocking on the door!

 

Thank you

[green_and_mean]

If it is a Private Parking ticket, what is the problem?

Its an unenforceable invoice, and has no standing in law.

Stop wasting you time talking to them.

Batten down the hatches and it will go away.

 

Whilst enforcement is unlikely stating its unenforceable in law is incorrect. Most PPC tickets fall at the first hurdle because there is no way of proving in Court who is liable. Civil cases however do not require a burden of proof and are based on balance of probability. Therefore if the OP works on the site the Court may decide that the fact the car is registered to an employee is suffient to find in favor of the PPC.

[Northern_Lass]

Whilst enforcement is unlikely stating its unenforceable in law is incorrect. Most PPC tickets fall at the first hurdle because there is no way of proving in Court who is liable. Civil cases however do not require a burden of proof and are based on balance of probability. Therefore if the OP works on the site the Court may decide that the fact the car is registered to an employee is suffient to find in favor of the PPC.

 

But I still have the what they have booked me for not actually being true as the vehicle wasnt obstructing anyone - surely that will stand up in court?

Edited December 19, 2008 by Northern_Lass

[green_and_mean]

But I still have the what they have booked me for not actually being true as I wasnt obstructing anyone - surely that will stand up in court?

 

As in any case if you are not 'guilty' of doing something it will be in your favour. I doubt if the ticket will be chased up but advising its garbage and suggesting that you can carry on parking and getting them with no legal comeback is in my advice poor advice.

[Northern_Lass]

Thanks - just looked again at the pics and there is no doubt, there is no obstruction to anything or anyone.

 

Thats it now, the heels are firmly dug in now and there is no way I'm paying it unless a judge tells me too - even then i would appeal!!

[Steve__M]

Steve: Its just other people in the office who have been a victim of the ticketeting officers and have written but had the same response as i have had. Basically 'Pay up'. So they have. But i just dont think its right that they can ticket for something I havent done!

 

That's kind of what I expected, in which case you need to add *your* experiences to the grapevine.

[crem]

I doubt if the ticket will be chased up but advising its garbage and suggesting that you can carry on parking and getting them with no legal comeback is in my advice poor advice.

 

G&M, why would you not agree that the invoice is garbage when the OP clearly states the invoice is headed as a "Civil Penalty Notice"?

 

For the PPC to try and enforce any type of PENALTY through a court you know is a non starter.