Jump to content


CC surcharges on parking fines are unlawful


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5369 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

BFS GROUP LTD V LONDON BOROUGH OF KINGSTON-UPON-THAMES Case No. : 2090271442 and DASKALOVA V LONDON BOROUGH OF CAMDEN Case No. : 2090272445 and London General Transport Services Ltd v London Borough of Camden Case No. : 2090198127 all three are PATAS key cases. All find against the CC surcharge. G&M didn't you know about these cases already ?

Link to post
Share on other sites

BFS GROUP LTD V LONDON BOROUGH OF KINGSTON-UPON-THAMES Case No. : 2090271442 and DASKALOVA V LONDON BOROUGH OF CAMDEN Case No. : 2090272445 and London General Transport Services Ltd v London Borough of Camden Case No. : 2090198127 all three are PATAS key cases. All find against the CC surcharge. G&M didn't you know about these cases already ?

 

Has Camden and PATAS moved out of London now, you really are a font of knowledge there was me thinking PATAS cases did not apply to Gloucester!

Link to post
Share on other sites

What ? you are the one who claimed that the linked article was a bit misleading as it didn't cover PATAS "The article is a bit misleading since Gloucester is not in London and has a different adjudication service." I showed that PATAS has made the same finding in multiple cases and so there is nothing misleading in the linked article at all. Once anyone reviews the mentioned PATAS cases they will see that the LLA 2003 aspects are dealt with - and the councils' claims around the LLA 2003 dispensed with summarily. CC surcharges have been nailed inside London and outside. You have lost me with the comments re Glos, they just don't make sense.

Link to post
Share on other sites

What ? you are the one who claimed that the linked article was a bit misleading as it didn't cover PATAS "The article is a bit misleading since Gloucester is not in London and has a different adjudication service." I showed that PATAS has made the same finding in multiple cases and so there is nothing misleading in the linked article at all. Once anyone reviews the mentioned PATAS cases they will see that the LLA 2003 aspects are dealt with - and the councils' claims around the LLA 2003 dispensed with summarily. CC surcharges have been nailed inside London and outside. You have lost me with the comments re Glos, they just don't make sense.

 

Did you actually read the link?? Neil Herron was claiming Gloucester tickets are invalid due to the PATAS ruling, which was why I said the story was misleading since PATAS has nothing to do with with Gloucester PCNs. TPT has not made a ruling on CC charges as far as I'm aware if it had I'm sure Mr Herron would have mentioned it rather than go on about the PATAS cases.

Link to post
Share on other sites

yes I read the link, It is about a Camden case !! "In January, London General Transport Services Limited was given a £120 penalty charge notice by Camden Council." the article then goes on "Mr Heron from Parking Appeals said some councils - including Gloucester City Council - were trying to get "a little bit extra blood out of the stone". Glos not alone many councils are trying to squeeze more out by a multitude of means. And PATAS cases can have implications beyond PATAS e.g. Jane Packer Flowers

Link to post
Share on other sites

EEErrrrrr,

 

Sorry folks I just thought that the general principle of the charge being illegal as it makes the penalty greater than legislation permits.

 

I will return to hiding in Notts

 

 

GK

 

It was the descision of the London adjudicators that it did make it illegal although personally I don't see how since no one forces you to pay by credit card and debit card is free and there is nothing in law apart from a section in the guidance to Councils that says there is no justification for it. However PATAS rulings can be considered by TPT they are not always accepted and visa versa.

Link to post
Share on other sites

TPT key cases also hold a credit card surcharge case relating to Bristol from 2005...the other grounds are also interesting & have wider relevance to appelants

Example Cases - Traffic Penalty Tribunal

BS881

A Council is required to inform the motorist how payment of a penalty charge may be made. Various methods may be used including, for example, payment by cash, cheque or card. What the Council may not do, however, is add a surcharge on payments made by credit card. That would amount to an unlawful increase of the amount that may be charged by way of penalty. The Council has no power to demand the payment of any extra charges of this nature.

The appeal was allowed (also on other grounds)

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...