Jump to content


style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 2404 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

Recommended Posts

Seems CAB have no idea when it comes to parking on private land and offer incorrect advice in my opinion. Have a read here and see if you agree.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It appears that they were "advised" by the BPA about private parking matters. I will leave you to form your own opinions about that.

 

The ironic thing about all this is that the CAB are very critical of "civil loss prevention" companies who use more or less the same tactics as PPCs. This includes claiming for amounts of money that bear no relation to the actual loss suffered, and the use of threatograms to try and frighten people into paying those inflated sums of money.

Edited by DBC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, the CAB have been had over by the BPA. I have flagged this up to some people in the CAB.

We will also flag it up to some interested MPs and the press.

 

It is a serious disservice to CAB clients.


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

for instance:-

 

Vehicle Control Services vs HMRC

 

para.39

We find that there was no contract between VCS and the motorist.

para.40

In our judgment that was an error of law. On the facts of this case we do not

consider that any offer was made by VCS that was capable of forming the basis for a

contract between it and the motorist.


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The adviceguide has a feedback page. I suggest that people very politely tell the CAB that their advice is wrong and also give only one star


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This could only have been written by the parking companies themselves, this really does need to be corrected and with all urgency.

 

You should be told that if you don’t pay the ticket within 28 days or appeal, extra charges may be added to the cost if you are taken to court or if bailiffs are called in to recover the money you owe.

 

That is not just mis-information, that is a blatant lie.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I understand that the situation in Scotland is better in some areas, I can also confirm that a representative of our local CAB is very active and well read on this subject and has even highlighted the issues surroundig PPC's on local radio on more than one occasion.

It would however appear that there is a variation from area to area.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

for instance:-

 

Vehicle Control Services vs HMRC

 

para.39para.40

 

IMHO the new regulation Freedom Act still makes no difference to this ruling regarding assumed contract. Probably why the PPCs will not chance it in court at this time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Out of interest,I have just had this infomation e-mailed from my local CAB (Scotland)

 

If you get a ticket

 

 

If you get a ticket on your windscreen or through the post, and you think that it is unfair, for example, you had a good reason for staying over the time you had paid for, then you should contact the parking operator, giving your reasons and asking them to withdraw the ticket. You could also approach the private company with an interest in the car park, for example, the supermarket whose car park you had parked in, and ask them to withdraw the ticket.

If you get a ticket and you don’t think you should have to pay, you can decide not to pay and not to reply to the parking operator. It is possible that the parking operator will take enforcement action in order to recover the charge although in practice a threat of this nature may not be followed through as the amount of money being demanded is usually quite small. A parking operator has no power to recover a parking charge without first taking court action. The company may continue to send requests to pay and you can continue to ignore these unless they decide to take you to the small claims court. If the parking operator does take you to court, you may be able to defend the action, for example, on the grounds that you did not park in breach of the parking rules and/or that the fee being demanded is unreasonably high.

If the company keeps contacting you, you can ask them to stop harassing you. If the company behaves badly, you can also report to this to the landowner or to the British Parking Association if the company is a member.

If the company is a member of the British Parking Association, their procedures can be followed to complain against the parking ticket. Any member of the BPA should wait 28 days before sending a final demand.

If the ticket was incurred by the driver and the client was not the driver of the vehicle at the time that the ticket was issued (if this is the case, the client is under no legal obligation to inform the parking operator of the identity of the driver)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You could be asked to pay up to £100. If you are asked to pay more than this, any parking company who is a member of the British Parking Association must explain to the Association why in advance.

 

No, this still comes under contract law and as such they must mitigate their losses. How are they going to explain how they have lost £100 ? they can't because they haven't made any loss, and this is what is impossible to justify in court especially when the demand reaches the dizzy heights over £200. So what are the actual losses, is it the £100 initially demanded or the £40 if you pay within 14 days? It can't be both, you have either lost £100 in which case why are you taking a loss by reducing it to £40 or you have lost £40 in which case the increases to over £200 can only be penalties.

 

It's a conundrum that can't be explained in court so why only undefended cases are ever won.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Out of interest,I have just had this infomation e-mailed from my local CAB (Scotland)

 

If you get a ticket

 

 

If you get a ticket on your windscreen or through the post, and you think that it is unfair, for example, you had a good reason for staying over the time you had paid for, then you should contact the parking operator, giving your reasons and asking them to withdraw the ticket. You could also approach the private company with an interest in the car park, for example, the supermarket whose car park you had parked in, and ask them to withdraw the ticket.

If you get a ticket and you don’t think you should have to pay, you can decide not to pay and not to reply to the parking operator. It is possible that the parking operator will take enforcement action in order to recover the charge although in practice a threat of this nature may not be followed through as the amount of money being demanded is usually quite small. A parking operator has no power to recover a parking charge without first taking court action. The company may continue to send requests to pay and you can continue to ignore these unless they decide to take you to the small claims court. If the parking operator does take you to court, you may be able to defend the action, for example, on the grounds that you did not park in breach of the parking rules and/or that the fee being demanded is unreasonably high.

If the company keeps contacting you, you can ask them to stop harassing you. If the company behaves badly, you can also report to this to the landowner or to the British Parking Association if the company is a member.

If the company is a member of the British Parking Association, their procedures can be followed to complain against the parking ticket. Any member of the BPA should wait 28 days before sending a final demand.

If the ticket was incurred by the driver and the client was not the driver of the vehicle at the time that the ticket was issued (if this is the case, the client is under no legal obligation to inform the parking operator of the identity of the driver)

That's a bit better. They clearly aren't all singing from the same hymn sheet.

 

What is also clear is that on present parking company/car park owner arrangements, there is no authority for the parking company to take you to court. Only the car park owner can do so.

 

The BPA written advice is wrong to the point of being deceptive. The CAB has allowed themselves to be manipulated and it doesn't make them look very good.


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A further conundrum surrounds the fact that the BPA issued a maximum charge of £100 following the introduction of the Protection of Freedoms Act in England and Wales. However I understand that in Scotland some PPC's stil try and demand the upper fee of £150.00, this being the case it begs the question of how the PPC could possibly justify a greater level of loss in Scotland than the BPA allow in other parts of the UK.

 

I have e-mailed my local CAB with this question and referred them to VCS V Ibottson and HMRC V VCS, I will update when I receive a response.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's a superb article, everyone should read it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Further to my post this morning, I e-mailed my local CAB and raised a few questions, I received this reply this afternoon, (names have been deleted)

 

 

I thank-you for your e-mail dated the 10th January in connection with certain anomalies surrounding the private parking industry and the information provided by Citizens Advice in England.

I have now for the first time read the information provided to clients in England and Wales and concede that it varies significantly from that provided in Scotland. I find it remarkable that no mention is made to the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations or at least the fact that the pursuer could only claim consequential loss through the courts or the more recently established fact regarding sufficient interest in the property.

You also mention the variation in the upper level of charges between Scotland and England since the introduction of the Protection of Freedoms Act. On this point I can say that this is something that has been noted and is currently held on record.

I can also confirm that in this office at least we are fully aware and hold copies of VCS V Ibbotson and HMRC V VCS, the latter being the most important as it sets precedent throughout the entire country.

As well as collating information on this subject, I have also challenged the legitimacy of these charges for countless number of clients in this area over a period of years. Personally, I am in favour of writing as apposed to ignoring, simply because it is then possible to provide a paper trail in the event that an action is raised in the Sheriff Court, although this has never happened to date.

In returning to the subject of consequential or substantiated loss, I always make a point of requesting detail of how the figure was calculated. I find that this question is largely ignored other than one high profile company who state in writing that they will only produce this information to a court, should it go that far.

I hope this information answers the questions raised.

Regards

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Still no mention of updating the website due to misleading information?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Still no mention of updating the website due to misleading information?

 

In fairness, I obtained this information from my local CAB in Scotland, I not sure that he can do anything about the information on CAB websites in England.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Further to my post this morning, I e-mailed my local CAB and raised a few questions, I received this reply this afternoon, (names have been deleted)

 

 

I thank-you for your e-mail dated the 10th January in connection with certain anomalies surrounding the private parking industry and the information provided by Citizens Advice in England.

 

I have now for the first time read the information provided to clients in England and Wales and concede that it varies significantly from that provided in Scotland. I find it remarkable that no mention is made to the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations or at least the fact that the pursuer could only claim consequential loss through the courts or the more recently established fact regarding sufficient interest in the property.

 

You also mention the variation in the upper level of charges between Scotland and England since the introduction of the Protection of Freedoms Act. On this point I can say that this is something that has been noted and is currently held on record.

 

I can also confirm that in this office at least we are fully aware and hold copies of VCS V Ibbotson and HMRC V VCS, the latter being the most important as it sets precedent throughout the entire country.

 

As well as collating information on this subject, I have also challenged the legitimacy of these charges for countless number of clients in this area over a period of years. Personally, I am in favour of writing as apposed to ignoring, simply because it is then possible to provide a paper trail in the event that an action is raised in the Sheriff Court, although this has never happened to date.

 

In returning to the subject of consequential or substantiated loss, I always make a point of requesting detail of how the figure was calculated. I find that this question is largely ignored other than one high profile company who state in writing that they will only produce this information to a court, should it go that far.

 

I hope this information answers the questions raised.

 

Regards

A very thoughtful and well-reasoned response. It sets an example for the kind of care that the CAB website should be using before they decide to publish their advice.


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I understand that the CAB's incorrect advice on their website which has clearly been written or greatly influenced by the BPA is now being re-written.

 

For the meanwhile, best to heed the advice and experiences given on this forum and also the advice given out by the CAB in Scotland.


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

CAB advice? hope who all seeks their advice, shops around and find the most advice mentioned i.e. repeated then make your own mind up which way to go! Told By CAB you must this you have to that (An ex Lloyd s Bank Manager) and guess what found out bias in favour of Banks, luckily not followed his advice, be right in it now, a solicitor could not believe what the information given contained, and stated come here for 30 minute free advice, or loose.

Edited by Old Cogger

:mad2::-x:jaw::sad:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well if they have changed it or not, it is still the biggest load of rubbish published and must have come from the old boys club the BPA themselves.

 

Under no circumstances should anyone take any notice of what has been written by CAB, they are legitimising the private parking companies, the methods used and the amount being asked.

 

You do not have to pay these requests for payment, the courts have said so.

 

I would suggest CAB sticks to things it knows about and not attempts to popularise their site, or at least until they have researched the information and got it right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Once again this appears to vary significantly from tha advice given in Scotland, I contacted a friend in my local CAB this mornng and he has called back to say that he is extremely surprised that the information provided does not quote recent stated cases such as HMRC V VCS. It also seems quite remarkable that their information system quotes the figure quoted by the BPA in relation to charges,bearing in mind that this organisation is nothing more than a Private limited company.

In quoting my contact who is very big on this subject he goes onto say that in his opinion the figures quoted by the BPA are meaningless on the basis that the DFT has issued a statement regarding the level of charges, therefore each case could only be considered individually.

Unfortunately, it is my understanding that Ciitizens Advice Scotland and Citizens Advice in England and Wales are entirley separate bodies and do not interact to any great extent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You should be told that if you don’t pay the ticket within 28 days or appeal, extra charges may be added to the cost if you are taken to court or if bailiffs are called in to recover the money you owe.

 

Why are they continuing to publish this crap. This must be a case of don't bite the hand that feeds you.

Edited by Conniff

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I cant add anymore than it looks like its been copy and pasted direct from BPA website, scary that this advice will be seen by many people who will take it as the law


I know my rights Mr DCA I'm with the CAG......hello hello where you gone Mr DCA8)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, it is scary. People will believe these, what can only be rightly called, 'lies' because the CAB is a body that is seen as trustworthy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...