UK CPS parking charges...the aftermath

[the_looker]

Hello, I found these boards a little earlier today after being charged £60 for my car being parked in a small car park in Scarborough that has been referenced in several other threads.

 

I've read all of your advice which seems to be to just ignore these horrible little men and they should go away. However, I haven't been able to find any accounts of what has happened AFTER you have ignored them. Did they go away and forget that you 'owed' them money?

 

Obviously your advice has been a great help as I nearly coughed up £60 but I don't want to make the wrong decision by not paying and acrew a huge fine.

 

Please put my mind at rest!

 

Many thanks,

 

the_looker

Edited June 30, 2009 by the_looker

[maroondevo52]

Hello and Welcome,

 

I'll move this thread to the appropriate Forum.

 

Regards.

 

Scott.

[dpick]

I have ignored NCP three time in the last two years (supposed charge for not displaying blue badge on dash err it's on sun blind in perfect view) anyway no court papers after all the threats they have made and no letters from me to them at all.

 

dpick

[the_looker]

thank you both

[sour_cream]

Hello the_looker

 

The Law is fairly smudged in some areas of this type of charge ...

 

The advice on this forum and research reveals many others like it, suggest you should ignore all the demands made of you - as the private car park companies (PCP's) do not have a leg to stand on.

 

This is NOT sound advice, especially depending on how the Courts decide to view the case.

 

Don't misunderstand me, some of the advice IS sound, but must not be confused with differing cases. Some charges can indeed be set aside in Court with good reason. Some will fall by the wayside and the 'fine' be 'forgotten' and unpursued.

Not all cases are the same, so the reader must not take comfort from the advice, as an across the board solution to all - and in particular, their own situation.

I am familiar and experienced with Courts, Law and Procedure. I looked long and hard at all the options and I considered a few possible avenues the Courts or the PCP might rely upon. I prepared good argument and can hold my own, but was also very aware of different aspects the Court may consider in the situation of parking on private land.

 

Let us look at how the Law interprets this type of charge ...

 

Firstly this is NOT a fine.

The fact is there are notices.

The Courts do not consider you must 'read' the notices, but considers in all probability you have at least 'seen' them.

The charge for parking is clearly stated.

There is no need in Law for them to prove who the driver of the car was at the time.

They do not need to define hours of operation I.e. 9 to 5 or 24 hours etc.

They cannot use bailiffs because this is not an enforceable 'fine/penalty'. So this aspect of any PCP correspondence is 'threatening' bull.

But, be clear, this is an enforceable debt, it is not considered in Law as an unenforceable 'invoice' or other such charge/cost. Albeit accepted by the Courts as 'extortionate'.

 

Yes a shock I know.

 

Their notice(s) state they will charge at the rate of "x" per day as 'blah blah' damages.

The Law states this is un-enforceable, and this element of their claim, depending on how far it goes, will not be upheld in Court.

 

This PCP will eventually - after five or so letters - cap their final charges at around £300 with an offer for you to settle at £200. This is absolute rubbish and can be ignored. The PCP claim the 'charge's will be to cover admin costs, letters, postage and of course DVLA details, which in truth amounts to just a few quid. The Court WILL throw this argument out.

The Courts state the Law about this type of additional cost as being a penalty. Private companies cannot use this area of Law, to enforce a penalty, thus it will fall at the hearing for them, in your favour.

 

But ..... this is a somewhat hollow victory ...

 

What cannot be ignored is the original bill of £60 will stand up in Court. The Court will not uphold the other charges imposed by the PCP but you will get hit with their costs - because ultimately you will lose the Court hearing.

 

Before going into Court I had researched and sought Legal advice, as I said above.

One thing had occurred to me and is something to remember; parking is to agree to their charge. Failure to pay does not become liable in Law under fines or charges levied by the PCP's, but can be enforced simply under the Law of Trespass.

 

In other words, plain and simple - this is private ground.

There are notices in effect giving a person 'permission' to park if they 'accept' there is a charge involved.

Failure to pay puts you right into the Law of Trespass. Even if the PCP does not rely on this area of Law, irrespective of what argument you put forward, this is what will trip you up in Court.

 

If you feel aggrieved and so minded, then write to the owner of the land complaining about the tactics employed.

Since this is private land that should not be used by the public, then notice to that effect should be on a barrier at the entrance - but that argument won't save you in Court.

Don't bother writing to the PCP appealing to their better nature with tales of woe, disability, time of day/night, blah blah, no one cares, and it won't help in Court either.

 

In my case, the PCP representative (the owner?) was a smug and clever ©üñ¿ - (although his secretary was very pleasant) - I gave the PCP a run for their money, and they got wrapped knuckles more than once by the Judge - but ultimately the £60 was still due the rest was squashed - (un)fair and square.

 

My advice ? - simple - it hurts, and yes PCP's are **** leaching bastards, but swallow and pay. On the other hand you may take the gamble not to and be successful, after all it costs the PCP to take you to Court, but with you picking up the costs this is not really a gamble for them.

 

Sorry to say this, but pay them their £60 and save yourself a lot of hassle.

 

Take care

sour cream

[patdavies]

There is no need in Law for them to prove who the driver of the car was at the time

 

I very definitely take issue with this.

 

A PPC must sue the person who entered into any contract - implied or otherwise, They cannot simply go after wither the RK or owner of the vehicle concerned. Privity of contract makes it absolutely clear that only the driver can be involved in an such purported contract.

 

A PPC must prove - in small claims court, on the balance of probabilities - who the driver was.

[crem]

 

What cannot be ignored is the original bill of £60 will stand up in Court. The Court will not uphold the other charges imposed by the PCP but you will get hit with their costs - because ultimately you will lose the Court hearing.

 

Sorry to say this, but pay them their £60 and save yourself a lot of hassle.

 

Take care

sour cream

 

Well that proves that you can safely ignore them until they try to take you to court! (which 99.99% of the time won't happen). The worst that could happen is you have to pay the original £60 so why give them it up front? Better to amke them spaend a fortune on legal costs (whivch they can't claim back) to get thei 60 quid

 

IMO the_looker should ignore the rest of sour_cream's post and stick with the tried and tested route of ignoring the [problematic] completely.

[sour_cream]

I very definitely take issue with this.

 

A PPC must sue the person who entered into any contract - implied or otherwise, They cannot simply go after wither the RK or owner of the vehicle concerned. Privity of contract makes it absolutely clear that only the driver can be involved in an such purported contract.

 

A PPC must prove - in small claims court, on the balance of probabilities - who the driver was.

 

In this circumstance - wrong on both counts. The water is muddied under the Law of Contract, this is not to be relied upon, by either party.

 

But the law of Trespass is simple, the car is there and it should not be. End of story. Try that argument in court and see how far you get. A Judge would be remiss not to consider Trespass even if the PCP does not, or he invites appeal.

I did. And I feel it was dealt with fairly by the Judge.

SC

[sour_cream]

Well that proves that you can safely ignore them until they try to take you to court! (which 99.99% of the time won't happen). The worst that could happen is you have to pay the original £60 so why give them it up front? Better to amke them spaend a fortune on legal costs (whivch they can't claim back) to get thei 60 quid

 

IMO the_looker should ignore the rest of sour_cream's post and stick with the tried and tested route of ignoring the [problematic] completely.

 

 

Hence my comment

On the other hand you may take the gamble not to and be successful, after all it costs the PCP to take you to Court, but with you picking up the costs this is not really a gamble for them.

 

Your choice, if, and it is an 'if' - it hits Court - you can add the costs to the original £60. And remember I was talking about UK CPS not a generalisation of all PCP's

[the_looker]

thank you all very much for your advice. you have been a great help. i shall keep you updated on my situation

[Gambling Commission Rule]

So we have a new poster, sour cream, who claims to have been beaten in court but in doing so rehearses every known (and entirely wrong) argument ever spouted by a PPC. Perky, what do you take us for? Do you think that we cannot see through this latest and laughable paper thin attempt to pull the wool over our eyes? Or are you back off your tablets again? All you have shown, sour perky, is that you have no idea of the law. If trespass is involved and not contract the action can only be taken by the landowner. This rules out PPC claims straight away, as per the recent Excel defeat in Wrexham. Further any damages would be non existent, as the laws of trespass are much more restrictive in this regard than contract. The statement that there is no need to prove the driver of the car, who is the only one that enter into any "contract", is moronic to say the least. Try to do better sour perky and next time at least attempt a bit of subtlety in your pretence - we know you are not the sharpest tool in the pack but there is no need to make it quite so obvious.

[Michael Browne]

Let this be a lesson to you all. Don't ignore your responsibilities - they will come back to haunt you

Excelent user name for a troll

[kiptower]

yep its the "perky nose" that gave him away

[patdavies]

In this circumstance - wrong on both counts. The water is muddied under the Law of Contract, this is not to be relied upon, by either party.

 

But the law of Trespass is simple, the car is there and it should not be. End of story. Try that argument in court and see how far you get. A Judge would be remiss not to consider Trespass even if the PCP does not, or he invites appeal.

I did. And I feel it was dealt with fairly by the Judge.

SC

 

A parking charge of £60 can only be an contractual issue.

 

Any legal action for trespass can only be for actual damages by the ladnowner, not a pre-stated charge to an agent.

[dx100uk]

Let this be a lesson to you all. Don't ignore your responsibilities - they will come back to haunt you

 

 

troll alert!!!!

 

troll alert!!!!

 

dx

[maroondevo52]

[kiptower]

its countdown time again 10 9 8 7 6

 

maroondevo52 we all know whats next :rolleyes:

[sour_cream]

So we have a new poster, sour cream, who claims to have been beaten in court but in doing so rehearses every known (and entirely wrong) argument ever spouted by a PPC. Perky, what do you take us for? Do you think that we cannot see through this latest and laughable paper thin attempt to pull the wool over our eyes? Or are you back off your tablets again? All you have shown, sour perky, is that you have no idea of the law. If trespass is involved and not contract the action can only be taken by the landowner. This rules out PPC claims straight away, as per the recent Excel defeat in Wrexham. Further any damages would be non existent, as the laws of trespass are much more restrictive in this regard than contract. The statement that there is no need to prove the driver of the car, who is the only one that enter into any "contract", is moronic to say the least. Try to do better sour perky and next time at least attempt a bit of subtlety in your pretence - we know you are not the sharpest tool in the pack but there is no need to make it quite so obvious.

 

theres always one {person} in a forum, guess that must be you huh.

I am not a new poster.

I spoke of my circumstance only.

The area of trespass was interpreted by the Court from the notice displayed, suggesting the landowner is giving 'permission' to trespass or park in this instance for a fee, then uses his agent to administer and collect.

 

I also stated this was not an 'across the board advice' the same as the 'overall forums opinions' and or experiences cannot be considered as 'across the board advice' , merely the reader must make his own informed choice of what to do.

Edited June 30, 2009 by freakyleaky
insults are aginst site rules.

[Gambling Commission Rule]

At least our oft lying, nose growing friend is right about one thing - he is living in a fairytale.

[freakyleaky]

Insulting other users is against site rules. Posts containing insults will be edited.

[My Real Name]

Firstly this is NOT a fine.

This appears to contradict your own advice. If there is, say, a £1 per hour charge, and a £60 ticket is issued for being over a line, or the permit has fallen down, then this very much constitutes a fine, and, as such, is a penalty.

 

The fact is there are notices.

The Courts do not consider you must 'read' the notices, but considers in all probability you have at least 'seen' them.

The charge for parking is clearly stated.

Agreement may be implied, providing that a test of reasonableness is satisfied. Specifically, would a reasonable person have seen and been able to understand the terms and conditions of parking.

 

Hidden, obfuscated, obscured or otherwise unreadable notices could not be considered to infer agreement.

 

There is no need in Law for them to prove who the driver of the car was at the time.

Perhaps, then, you could point out what makes the registered keeper responsible? The principle of privity of contract is well established.

 

But, be clear, this is an enforceable debt,

What is - The original parking charge, or the penalty arbitrarily applied?

 

Yes a shock I know.

I would suggest, rather, that you don't know.

 

What cannot be ignored is the original bill of £60 will stand up in Court.

I will not deny that this might occasionally occur, but it would not be on the basis of sound legal argument.

 

Before going into Court I had researched and sought Legal advice, as I said above.

One thing had occurred to me and is something to remember; parking is to agree to their charge. Failure to pay does not become liable in Law under fines or charges levied by the PCP's, but can be enforced simply under the Law of Trespass.

 

In other words, plain and simple - this is private ground.

There are notices in effect giving a person 'permission' to park if they 'accept' there is a charge involved.

Failure to pay puts you right into the Law of Trespass. Even if the PCP does not rely on this area of Law, irrespective of what argument you put forward, this is what will trip you up in Court.

The capitalisation of "Law of Treaspass" is confusing. Is there a specific statute or document that you are referring to?

 

Perhaps you could enlighten us as to the remedies available to the landowner against trespasser.

 

You have already stated if a person parks, it may be implied that they have entered into a contract. If the charge for parking is £60, it would be for the driver to show that this was unreasonable and unfair, or for the landowner to prove that it was not.

 

If the charge is £1, with a £60 fine, it would be for the driver to show that this was an unlawful penalty.

 

If it could be shown that a contract was not entered into, the landowner might sue for damages arising from the trespass. Which would have to be demonstrated.

 

My point being that you can't be chased to enforce contractual terms and for a tort arising not agreeing to those terms at the same time.

 

 

Sorry to say this, but pay them their £60 and save yourself a lot of hassle.

Or, continue to ignore them, on the basis that their demands are unlawful.

[Gambling Commission Rule]

Dear oh dear Perky, what did I say about that temper? You are now telling us that an unnamed PPC (any guesses folks?) took an action in CONTRACT against you and the Judge found against you in TRESPASS. Thus making legal history in finding for the PPC in an area of law that was not even claimed or alleged. Someone around here is indeed a [edit] but I don't think its me.

Edited June 30, 2009 by steven4064
insult that Freaky missed

[My Real Name]

theres always one {person} in a forum, guess that must be you huh.

I am not a new poster.

I spoke of my circumstance only.

The area of trespass was interpreted by the Court from the notice displayed, suggesting the landowner is giving 'permission' to trespass or park in this instance for a fee, then uses his agent to administer and collect.

Service + consideration = Contract. It is not some new offshoot of trespass.

 

I would suggest an appeal on this basis alone, given that it's a poor interpretation of the law by the judge.

[sour_cream]

nope - basically the notice says you may park for a fee

it is private land.

 

people stop trying to apply every case as being the same - a car parked over a line thus taking up two spaces is wholly different, there is no charge here by the hour for parking ....

I spoke only of the car park mentioned by the OP

 

sc

[sour_cream]

Service + consideration = Contract. It is not some new offshoot of trespass.

 

I would suggest an appeal on this basis alone, given that it's a poor interpretation of the law by the judge.

 

things are so clear cut for some of you guys.

I spoke only of the incident with me at the car park the OP spoke about. I can't speak for anyone else's situation.

 

sc