Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I know dx and thanks again for yours and others help. I was 99.999% certain last payment was over six years ago if not longer.  👍
    • Paragraph 23 – "standard industry practice" – put this in bold type. They are stupid to rely on this and we might as well carry on emphasising how stupid they are. I wonder why they could even have begun to think some kind of compelling argument – "the other boys do it so I do it as well…" Same with paragraph 26   Paragraph 45 – The Defendants have so far been unable to produce any judgements at any level which disagree with the three judgements…  …court, but I would respectfully request…   Just the few amendments above – and I think it's fine. I think you should stick to the format that you are using. This has been used lots of times and has even been applauded by judges for being meticulous and clear. You aren't a professional. Nobody is expecting professional standards and although it's important that you understand exactly what you are doing – you don't really want to come over to the judge that you have done this kind of thing before. As a litigant in person you get a certain licence/leeway from judges and that is helpful to you – especially if you are facing a professional advocate. The way this is laid out is far clearer than the mess that you will get from EVRi. Quite frankly they undermine their own credibility by trying to say that they should win simply because it is "standard industry practice". It wouldn't at all surprise me if EVRi make you a last moment offer of the entire value of your claim partly to avoid judgement and also partly to avoid the embarrassment of having this kind of rubbish exposed in court. If they do happen to do that, then you should make sure that they pay everything. If they suddenly make you an out-of-court offer and this means that they are worried that they are going to lose and so you must make sure that you get every penny – interest, costs – everything you claimed. Finally, if they do make you an out-of-court offer they will try to sign you up to a confidentiality agreement. The answer to that is absolutely – No. It's not part of the claim and if they want to settle then they settle the claim as it stands and don't try add anything on. If they want confidentiality then that will cost an extra £1000. If they don't like it then they can go do the other thing. Once you have made the amendments suggested above – it should be the final version. court,. I don't think we are going to make any more changes. Your next job good to make sure that you are completely familiar with it all. That you understand the arguments. Have you made a court familiarisation visit?
    • just type no need to keep hitting quote... as has already been said, they use their own criteria. if a person is not stated as linked to you on your file then no cant hurt you. not all creditors use every CRA provider, there are only 3 main credit file providers mind, the rest are just 3rd party data sharers. if you already have revolving credit on your file there is no need to apply for anything just 'because' you need to show you can handle money. if you have bank account(s) and a mortgage which you are servicing (paying) then nothing more can improve your score, despite what these 'scam' sites claiml  its all a CON!!  
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 160 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like
  • Recommended Topics

The morals of private parking thread


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3609 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

  • Replies 85
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

i thinkw eneed to end it there. Its going round and round, and porky seems to be walking round with his fingers in his/her ears going "lalalalala".

Any advice i give is my own and is based solely on personal experience. If in any doubt about a situation , please contact a certified legal representative or debt counsellor..

 

 

If my advice helps you, click the star icon at the bottom of my post and feel free to say thanks

:D

Link to post
Share on other sites

That's it, lose the debate and throw your toys out of the pram. It's a simple discussion guys. Do you not think I've made a fair point? PPCs wouldn't be able to fine anyone if people parked as they should instead of (in some cases) being lazy or cutting corners. In some cases it's an accident, but then just learn from it and don't do it again.

 

I am sorry if it appears I am not understanding your side of it, because I really can't see my way to helping (some people) who have been caught out.

 

I have posts where I have given advice in cases where people are innocent in terms of their actions, so it's not like you can say i am on a wind up.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is fundamentally unfair - either the bank should accept that it is a free service or else split the cost fairly (as in many other countries which often have a e.g. £2 monthly charge to have a current account).

 

This I do agree with...

Link to post
Share on other sites

That's it, lose the debate and throw your toys out of the pram. It's a simple discussion guys. Do you not think I've made a fair point? PPCs wouldn't be able to fine anyone if people parked as they should instead of (in some cases) being lazy or cutting corners. In some cases it's an accident, but then just learn from it and don't do it again.

 

I am sorry if it appears I am not understanding your side of it, because I really can't see my way to helping (some people) who have been caught out.

 

I have posts where I have given advice in cases where people are innocent in terms of their actions, so it's not like you can say i am on a wind up.

 

I think it's important to understand the mechanics of PPCs, and I fear this is something that you seem unable to grasp. For a start you keep mentioning the word 'fine' - I assume you understand that a PPC cannot fine somebody? It's important to bear in mind that parking tickets are founded within the law of contract, the others have already succinctly discussed the position as regards penalties.

 

All that said, I do think you have a bit of a point. If someone was parking all day in a private car park for a shop and thus deprives someone who could be a legitimate customer from parking I feel that there should be the option for proportionate recourse. Trying to sting someone £75 for overstaying twenty minutes is, of course, totally disproportionate. I personally cannot see much of a moral argument, this sort of thing is very process based from where I'm sat.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Has anyone actually argued one of these in court and the judge has accepted that whilst there was a parking infringement, the amount being asked for is disproportionate? And has thus agreed a lower amount is due to the parking firm?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Plenty of times. Not one has succeeded where there was a proper defense/representation. Also, very few PPC's actually go to court. PE do, but they issue claims en masse hoping for a default judgement.

Any advice i give is my own and is based solely on personal experience. If in any doubt about a situation , please contact a certified legal representative or debt counsellor..

 

 

If my advice helps you, click the star icon at the bottom of my post and feel free to say thanks

:D

Link to post
Share on other sites

There is a rule of common law that says liquidated damages clauses (clauses which specify an amount due in damages if a contract is breached) must be a genuine pre-estimate of the loss which would be suffered if the contract is breached. If the liquidated damages clause is a penalty, it is not enforceable. In this case the person who breached the contract can only be required to pay damages equivalent to the actual loss the other side has suffered.

 

This is the big problem for PPCs. Clearly, the amounts imposed are completely disproportionate to the loss the PPC would suffer from someone overstaying in a carpark. At most they could claim what someone else would have paid to go in the spot, but as these are generally free carparks there is no loss to claim for.

 

There was one case where the PPC was successful in justifying its charges. But in the vast majority they have not succeeded. However I am sure there have also been many cases where the PPC either got default judgment because no defence was filed, or won because the person defending tried to use a dodgy defence.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Lets just say in the case of the woman who parked in a disabled bay, and shouldn't have. How do you go about figuring out actual costs?

 

I thought the whole point of a larger than cost penalty was to act as a deterrent. If the amount charged was a nominal actual cost amount, surely people wouldn't pay much notice to the limitations.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought the whole point of a larger than cost penalty was to act as a deterrent.

 

Not in private parking. In council parking you are correct.

Any advice i give is my own and is based solely on personal experience. If in any doubt about a situation , please contact a certified legal representative or debt counsellor..

 

 

If my advice helps you, click the star icon at the bottom of my post and feel free to say thanks

:D

Link to post
Share on other sites

So how much do you think private companies should be charging to ensure people park correctly and fairly whilst on their land? Just out of interest. Surely the same deterrent needs to be there.

Link to post
Share on other sites

ok ill end up arguing with you when i see u later PP but..

 

i do not mind a proportional charge for inconsiderate parking, personally i have had a go at several people who park in parent and child, including making an old man move the car after having a go at in him infront of several dozen people in a supermarket

 

however there is a "deterrent" level and a disproportionate level, £15 where a normal ticket is a £1 is a deterrent, £100 is disproportionate

 

i will admit to once "accidently" blocking a car in that parked across two parent and child bays because he was too lazy to walk to the cash machine, (rear bumper at bollard, i parked across front) but i was annoyed that day (Around march last year you will remember why PP)

 

personally the thing i hate is how many car parks still have clamping signs up, i have also got to admit ive written "clamping banned on private land October 2013" on a couple

Please note:

 

  • I am employed in the IT sector of a high street retail chain but am not posting in any official capacity,so therefore any comments,suggestions or opinions are expressly personal ones and should not be viewed as an endorsement or with agreement of any company.
  • i am not legal trained in any form.
  • I have many experiences in life and do often use these in my posts

if ive been helpful kick my scales, if ive been unhelpful kick the scales of the person more helpful :eek:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Fair enough, but the signs saying they will charge a £100 penalty for parking over two spaces, or parking in a disabled bay etc would make you and me think twice about doing that right? Some people see the signs and still think sod it I'll park how I want regardless as they know they are unlikely to be caught or hit with a bill. They do this with no thought of anyone but themselves, certainly not for you and me.

 

Then when some do get caught, they come on here and ask for help as to how to avoid the charges. Thy ask for ways to worm out of it and avoid paying. Without establishing facts first people on here offer their pearls of wisdom and the fact is some of those being helped are a result of scenarios like that listed above.

 

Tell me this don't sit right with you labrat?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thats pretty much what porky's saying MB

Any advice i give is my own and is based solely on personal experience. If in any doubt about a situation , please contact a certified legal representative or debt counsellor..

 

 

If my advice helps you, click the star icon at the bottom of my post and feel free to say thanks

:D

Link to post
Share on other sites

Right, so first we should sit in moral judgment of people before we decide whether they are worthy of help?

 

By not doing so, I think people will be aiding those out of sticky situations who got themselves their in the first place. Let me ask you a question, if it were your disabled family member who had to work further because they were denied a parking space by someone who shouldn't be there, would you advise that person how to challenge the pcn?

Link to post
Share on other sites

You gonna answer my point renegade? How do you quantify a loss where someone has parked in a disabled bay.

 

There is no loss. Therefore there cant be a penalty. You can discourage it sure, by saying something like £20 instead of a fiver. But £100 is extortionate and not proportional. if it was, then everyone would do it and hike the charges up and up and up.

Any advice i give is my own and is based solely on personal experience. If in any doubt about a situation , please contact a certified legal representative or debt counsellor..

 

 

If my advice helps you, click the star icon at the bottom of my post and feel free to say thanks

:D

Link to post
Share on other sites

I dunno, I just think if there is a sign up saying they will charge £100 (and I agree it's a lot) if you park where you shouldn't and you ignore it, then you are accepting the risk of being done for £100. You make your bed, you lie in it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The law says different. Otherwise it would be a free for all.

Any advice i give is my own and is based solely on personal experience. If in any doubt about a situation , please contact a certified legal representative or debt counsellor..

 

 

If my advice helps you, click the star icon at the bottom of my post and feel free to say thanks

:D

Link to post
Share on other sites

Basically the point I was trying to make are that those who choose to park wrongly and know the consequences of doing so somehow try and exploit loopholes with the aid of some on here advising on legal get outs to avoid paying up. Surely if someone has abused the system (even the harsh world of private parking) and isn't a genuine victim of the system, then they should face the consequences of their actions. Albeit harsh consequences, as in the case of topics like these.

 

For example, someone might post they got caught on ANPR. They don't state the alleged offence (as most don't) and it could be something such as parking in a disabled bay and they weren't entitled to use the space. Surely they should be paying the fine for being lazy etc, rather than being told on here how to get out of paying. I don't think that the CAG should be used in cases like this and the facts of the offence should be established before advice is handed out willy nilly. I know you guys don't like to judge, but surely you don't want to be helping people in these circumstances.

 

 

 

 

You call it a fine...

It cannot be a fine... Or penalty... That is the point.

Link to post
Share on other sites

OK Porkyp1g. Rather than "Run round and round". Please allow me to put a very valid point.

 

9 times out of 10 there is "No contract" in place on private land between the" land owner" and the "parking co." So the signs mean nothing... because there is no contract to breach.

 

You however think it is correct that innocent people pay . Motorists are getting "Conned" here and it might just be someone related to you.

 

How can you accept this as OK ?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Citizens advice would disagree with you f16

 

http://www.adviceguide.org.uk/wales/consumer_w/consumer_cars_and_other_vehicles_e/consumer_driving_and_parking_e/consumer_parking_tickets_e/consumer_parking_tickets_on_private_land_e/youve_got_a_parking_ticket_on_private_land_what_can_you_do.htm

 

By parking on their private land, you enter into contract law with them, and you agree to their rules parking on said land.

 

I would ask if it were my relative and if they ignored the signs and parking stupidly then I would laugh at them and tell them to learn from it. If they were a victim of circumstance and hadn't breached the terms of the contract then I would help. See the difference.

 

Now answer my question please? If it were your family member wronged by someone's awful parking, would you advise the 'offender'?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Citizens advice would disagree with you f16

 

http://www.adviceguide.org.uk/wales/consumer_w/consumer_cars_and_other_vehicles_e/consumer_driving_and_parking_e/consumer_parking_tickets_e/consumer_parking_tickets_on_private_land_e/youve_got_a_parking_ticket_on_private_land_what_can_you_do.htm

 

By parking on their private land, you enter into contract law with them, and you agree to their rules parking on said land.

 

I would ask if it were my relative and if they ignored the signs and parking stupidly then I would laugh at them and tell them to learn from it. If they were a victim of circumstance and hadn't breached the terms of the contract then I would help. See the difference.

 

Now answer my question please? If it were your family member wronged by someone's awful parking, would you advise the 'offender'?

 

 

What do the Citizens advice know...

 

 

Parking and contract law

 

Parking on private land is all about the law of contract. If landowners allow you to park on their land, you enter into a contract with the landowner. If you break the landowner’s parking rules, you break your contract with the landowner. You might do this by not paying, staying longer than the time you have paid for or parking in the wrong place.

If you park without any permission at all you are trespassing.

If you break the parking rules private landowners can issue a parking ticket and recover the losses they’ve suffered. These losses are likely to be a small amount of money.

 

 

'Contract with the land owner...' Not agent.

'Recover losses... likely to be a small amount of money.'

 

 

Must admit they've updated it since I last looked.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...