Do I have to pay this fine?

[leedsguy]

Facebook group started which is against the support of Mobilise by UKCPS and other PPCs Log in | Facebook

[lamma]

Sounds to me like UKCPS is writing those letters for Mobilise. Action under the DDA seems in order here.

[letshelp]

Wello done DBC taking UKCPS to task.

regards

[parking-fine]

I have been back to the retail park to see exactly what is written on UKCPS notice boards. It states the following:-

 

 

Welcome to *****

 

 

Customer Car Park

 

 

Private Land

 

 

Contractual Agreement

 

 

 

This land is strictly for the parking of motor vehicles that apply

 

 

With the following conditions indicated below.

 

 

 

3 hours maximum stay

 

 

No return within 2 hours

 

 

 

Only vehicles complying with the above time stay limit and displaying

 

 

A current valid disabled badge may park in disabled bays.

 

 

The badge must be displayed inside the front windscreen with

 

 

All appropriate details clearly visible.

 

 

 

 

 

IF YOU PARK A VEHICLE ON THIS LAND AND ARE NOT FULLY

 

 

COMPLYING WITH THE CONDITIONS LISTED ABOVE YOU ARE

 

 

CONTRACTUALLY AGREEING TO ONE OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWING

 

 

 

A parking charge notice being issued and a charge of £100 being enforced discounted

 

 

To £60 if paid within 14 days (failure to pay will lead to court action for recovery

 

 

And will incur additional costs

 

UKCPS

 

 

 

So it would seem I have made a contractual agreement. Does anyone know what this means?

I will still ignore any letters I receive, and trust what others have told me about ignore, ignore and they will go away!

[RichardM]

If you had to return to read exactly what was on the sign, presumably you wre not fully aware of what it said the first time you parked there.

 

Therefore, you presumably were not aware that you were entering into a contract. You have to be aware at the time that you are entering into a contract for the contract to be valid.

[Zamzara]

If you had to return to read exactly what was on the sign, presumably you wre not fully aware of what it said the first time you parked there.

 

Therefore, you presumably were not aware that you were entering into a contract. You have to be aware at the time that you are entering into a contract for the contract to be valid.

 

In English contract law there is generally an objective test for whether a contract was made (Centrovincial Estates v Merchant Investors Assurance Company (1983)), so this is not really a viable line of attack in itself. If the sign is not objectively clearly visible it would be.

[lamma]

usual Opt out to Opt in conflict in the signage. plus what rights to UKCPS have make the 'offer' ?

[Zamzara]

usual Opt out to Opt in conflict in the signage. plus what rights to UKCPS have make the 'offer' ?

 

Exactly, they are clear that you are not allowed to park there if you do not comply with the requirements, so they can hardly claim to be agreeing to be bound on acceptance to offer the parking space as consideration.

[parking-fine]

So what is everyone saying here about the 'contractual agreement'? Does it mean I am liable, because I have broken the contract?

[Zamzara]

No

[Coupon]

So what is everyone saying here about the 'contractual agreement'? Does it mean I am liable, because I have broken the contract?

 

 

No!

 

For any alleged contract here to even have a tiny possibility of applying:

 

- you would have had to have seen and understood the risk when parking and

 

- that contract would have to be 'fair'

 

(there's more to it than that - but on those two points alone it falls flat on its face of course).

 

Firstly if you did not see the signs first time and understand the risk then there's no contract. Simple contract law, and the reason most clamping fees can be reclaimed.

 

Secondly their alleged contract is unfair/unlawful because the amount claimed is clearly not related at all to any consequential damages or 'loss'. They are not the landowner, have made no loss, cannot claim a penalty amount in law and cannot breach the DDA like this.

 

It IS a DDA breach to hound disabled people to try to get them to pay a penalty amount (dressed up as a 'Parking Charge') for parking in a bay they have a LEGAL RIGHT to use.

 

A retailer (and their agent) cannot treat a disabled person in a discriminatory way.

 

IMHO, as soon as they are made aware that the driver or passenger meets the definition of disability under the Act (very difficult since they can't insist on a Blue badge) they need to cancel any ticket unequivocally or risk being sued under the DDA. Simples.

 

Finally, Mobilise want to discuss contract law and in particular, see cases where PPC contracts have been tested in Court do they? OK, what about these examples:

 

 

First example, a PPC try to take a motorist to Court (they lose):

Hetherington-Jakeman case

 

Second example, a motorist takes a PPC to Court (she wins):

Susan Pratt case (she paid a fake PCN then claimed it back in Court)

 

Do Mobilise REALLY believe that a disabled person receiving threatening letters mentioning Court and CCJs - when they had a legal right to park where they did which supersedes any alleged (unfair) contract - would not be viewed by a County Court judge as 'setting out to frighten and intimidate' (as quoted in the first example case above).

 

As well as being a DDA breach in a criminal Court as well of course...

 

parking-fine, stop worrying!

 

Just ignore the [problem] ticket and letters as per the Watchdog advice and the advice of EVERYONE on here (like most on here I have had such a ticket - but I would stress it was NOT for parking in a disabled bay and the person who was driving that day lives in Oz!).

[lamma]

It means their offer isn't capable of forming a contract even if they have sufficient rights to make an offer -which the probably don't.

[parking-fine]

Thanks so very much for all your help. I am going to continue to ignore this 'fine' (although I haven't received any threatening letters yet).

I have also contacted MOBILISE explaining exactly what has happened to me, and asking why they are associating themselves with UKCPS. (I wouldn't have had the courage to do all this without your help), but trust what you have all advised me. I will let you know what happens. Many thanks

[DBC]

I have now had a second reply from mobilise. They are still maintaining they what they say on contract law is correct:-

 

Thank you for your email. I have now had the opportunity to seek the views of both the British Parking Association and an independent disability advisor on the points you have made. Unfortunately Mobilise does not have the funds to spend on legal advice as you recommend but I am confident the advice I have been given on contract law is correct.

Is there a qualified lawyer out there who could give them some advice and put them straight on these matters? The email contact is :-

 

[email protected]

[Bernie_the_Bolt]

I have now had a second reply from mobilise. They are still maintaining they what they say on contract law is correct:-

 

Thank you for your email. I have now had the opportunity to seek the views of both the British Parking Association and an independent disability advisor on the points you have made. Unfortunately Mobilise does not have the funds to spend on legal advice as you recommend but I am confident the advice I have been given on contract law is correct.

Is there a qualified lawyer out there who could give them some advice and put them straight on these matters? The email contact is :-

 

[email protected]

 

I think I'd be tempted to go back and tell them that if they are feeling the pinch it's probably best not to chuck good money after bad by embarking on hopeless and speculative legal action.

[DBC]

I think I'd be tempted to go back and tell them that if they are feeling the pinch it's probably best not to chuck good money after bad by embarking on hopeless and speculative legal action.

 

It's not Mobilse who are are embarking on legal action. I am trying to get through to them the facts about contract law and the fact that they should not associate themselves with a PPC.

[lamma]

Sounds like its actually a PPC employee writing those letters.

 

respond with " care to test your confidence in court soon ?"

[DBC]

I get the impression that she thinks the BPA is some sort of official organization ( rather like Ofcom or Ofgem) with the powers to regulate the private parking companies. I have try to tell her that in fact it's just a cosy cub for the PPCs.

[parking-fine]

I did write to Mobilise, as advised, and am still ignoring UKCPS, although I haven't received any threatening letters yet!! Here is the reply I received from Mobilise:-

"Thank you for your email concerning Mobilise’s collaboration with the parking company UKCPS. We are well aware that there are problems within the private parking sector but it is only by working with organisations like UKCPS that we have any chance of improving the situation for disabled people. One of our reasons for working with these companies is because we are able to help educate them and their staff on Blue Badge and disability issues.

As you may be aware when you park in a private car park you have agreed to abide by certain rules and this is part of contract law. Therefore if it says only Blue badge holders in specific bays and you park there without a badge you would probably get a ticket. We can not dictate to companies like UKCPS how they should run their business but by working with them we can have a small amount of influence over how they deal with people who get a ticket.

One of your complaints is that the appeal is just an internal appeal and like you I believe that is wrong too. The British Parking Association also want there to be an independent appeals service which is similar to the service you receive if you get a ticket on the public highway. It is possible that this change will be brought in in the not to distant future.

I hope I have helped you understand why Mobilise is now working with organisations like UKCPS."

It would appear they are more than happy to be associated with UKCPS and I really don't understand why. I am still ignoring, ignoring, ignoring (but it isn't easy waiting for those threatening letters), but thanks for your support.

[DBC]

This is exactly the same letter I received from Mobilise. It might have been written by the parking company. Of course it's all nonsense and shows a complete lack of understanding of contract law.

 

To see how "ethical" UKCPS are supposed to be, take a look at this news item :- Disabled bus banned from Great Northern Retail Park

[vengeancedemon]

Subbing

[parking-fine]

I have contacted Mobilise again. My letter reads as follows:

 

"I wonder if you have approached (or would be happy to approach) UKCPS regarding their way of 'dealing' with the fact that they continue to harass and intimidate disabled people in this way. I forgot to put my blue badge in the window of my car, and appealed against the 'fine'. My appeal letter has been ignored and they are going to continue to frighten and intimidate me by sending threatening letters.

I feel this is discrimination against disabled people. What do you think?"

 

I will let you know as, and when, I receive a reply.

[crem]

I hope you included a printout or link to that article that DBC found also.

[DBC]

I have also written to them again pointing out that their "Baywatch Scheme" is tantamount to encouraging supermarkets to breach the DDA by punishing disabled people who do not have , or do not display, a blue badge.

 

On that point, I found this on another website that deals with disabled matters:-

 

The blue badge bays provided in supermarket and other off-street car parks are not covered by the regulations governing the Blue Badge Scheme, which only apply to on-street bays. These bays are in most cases not legally enforceable and their use depends to a large extent on the courtesy and consideration of other drivers. If you see bays being abused by non-disabled people, we suggest you bring this to the attention of the appropriate store or car park operator.

 

Of course that's not quite correct. They talk about "blue badge spaces" when it should be "disabled spaces".

Edited August 16, 2010 by DBC

[bonehead1]

. .

Edited August 18, 2010 by bonehead1
was asked to remove post