NE Parking Ltd 2 windscreeen PCNs - General Street Car Park, Blackpool - appeal rejected

[dx100uk]

Beavis does not apply for many reasons

[ericsbrother]

You must understand the rationale of the parking companies.

They dont make any money from parking so they have to invent methods of getting money and these are usually based around the contract offered by them to allow you to park.

 

Now the land isnt theirs and they are not responsible for anything material there such as the lines marking bays etc and claim when challenged to ony be managing the car park on behalf of the owner and if that was true they wouldnt be in a position to demand any money for breach of the conditions either.

 

So, they create situations to earn themselves money and when you point out that you havent breached these conditions they arent going to agree with you because that is their only income and so ignore any appeal and then use threats to get you to pay up.

 

you are an undoubtedly reasonable and fair person.

That make you their favourite target because they think that having gone through the crooked process of appealing you will be thinking that you must owe them the money because someone has told you that you do.

 

The IAS is by its own admission in secret filming for a TV programme a kangaroo court and therefore it is not worth appealing to them as you wont win.

 

I can guarantee you that they wont consider what you say and send a stock response that doesnt consider any of the legal arguments you may have put forward.

 

they are there to protect their paymasters and to provide a fig leaf to cover the IPC and its members about any complaint regarding their unfair and often unlawful behaviour by showing some sort of system is in place to deal with appeals because the goverment told them to.

 

Now, back to your particular case.

dont appal to the IAS,

it will only speed up the rate they will get thei lawyers involved, who will be Gladstones, the owners of the IPC

 

so some might think that there is a bit of self interest at play but they like to assure people that is not so, they are as honest as the day is long. this may well be true north of the arctic circle in winter but we can drag up loads of their witness statements for court claims that are anything but honest.

 

As for additional charges

- as you identified yourself as the driver they can now apply additional charges but they have to win a court case first and that wont be easy.

 

It is all down to what you what to do,

there is no quick fix iof you want to fight this but they have got several things wrong with their slapping of 2 tickets on your car so that is actually a good thing for you as it means they lose the first ticket claim for not allowing a grace period and the second one because your ticket was valid and also because it was not a separate event.. there are decisions that you can quote that support that should they wish to continue to a claim with this.

 

 

Now the next thing you have to do is change your mindset, this is no longer about parking or fairness, it is about contracts and the law surrounding them.

 

Also you need to toughen your stance if you do write to them again, no respectfully requesting things, they see that as you being a mugh so whn the time comes to communicate you are a blunt as possible, even rude. they will then take you seriously.

 

However, we dont want you to write to anyone yet, let them waste their money writing to you.

they may well get a debt collecting agency to write scary letters but they can be ignored.

why?

read up on them in the parking or debt forums.

 

Knowledge is power in this game and they rely on your ignorance to get away with charging you and even to win court claims.

It is rare for a parking co to win a defended claim and even more rare to win one with well researched defence points.

 

All of the famous losses by the motorist have been heard by the same 3 judges, one of whom publicly stated it has his intetion to change the law so public consumer contracts are on the same footing as commercial ones.

 

HHJ Hegarty got most of his wish with the Beavis case but the telling part of that is in the detail of the thoughts of the Supreme Court judges, particularly the 2 who were against the decision.

 

So, as long as you are happy to fight this and accept that it is a long haul rather than a short hop you will defeat them.

 

In the meanwhile you get some more pictures of the car park entrance from the public highway even if there are no signs there, pictures of any other sign in the car park and some idea as to where they are placed. Note if they have cameras to collect ANPR images.

 

The wording on the sign means that there is no breach of contract by you because what they say you have done doesnt match any of the breaches listed so there is no cause for them to issue a ticket.

 

You displayed a ticket, it doesnt state that it has to be visible or in a particular position, the main thing is you paid and that is enough.

Edited September 17, 2018 by dx100uk
spacing

[brassnecked]

Beavis is a favourite one PPC's quote but it is narrow in it;s application. The other two favourites are also of no use to a PPC

 

 

CPS v AJH Films is only applicable in an employee/employer situation. so cannot transfer liability on a normal situation.

 

 

Elliott v Loake is a criminal case where there was a legal duty to name the driver, say like a speeding ticket, so has no precedence or relevance in a civil case.

 

 

Wfere those two appear in a PPC WS there is fertile ground to undermine their claim.

[curlo9597]

Thanks for the replies. I am willing to fight them definitely and will do what it takes to win my case. I would rather lose £300 after a court case than pay them money they are not entitled to. I think £12 for 24 hours parking should be enough!!

 

I can confirm that there was definitely no visible ANPR camera on the car park, as I remember looking around for cameras at the time of being issued both PCN’s. I also made enquiries with the hotel next to the car park and spoke with the owners who were very sympathetic but couldn’t give me any further information in terms of who owns the land or if they had an office nearby (as I wanted to have a discussion with them!). They did say though that they are fed up with this company in dishing out PCN’s unfairly to their customers.

 

I am happy to go back to the car park when I am next in the area with work but can I just clarify what pictures I need to take and why? Am assuming it’s part of gathering enough evidence to sink them in court further down the line?

[ericsbrother]

you take pictures of everthing you can, the entrance to the land fro the public highway, boundaires between the land and that of the adjoining property etc, all of the signs there that are different and make a note of where they are in relation to where you were parked. Also is there a sign at the entrnace as that is more important than piddly littel signs on a back wall whe it comes to offers of a contract.

lastly you can ask the council who owns the land if you can identify its boundaries and approximate address. That will allow you to amke further enquiries later regarding planning permissions and contract with landowner by parking co if they decide to try it on The itcket they gave you should identify the land and if it doesnt then they are in trouble to start off with