Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Thank-you dx, What you have written is certainly helpful to my understanding. The only thing I would say, what I found to be most worrying and led me to start this discussion is, I believe the judge did not merely admonish the defendant in the case in question, but used that point to dismiss the case in the claimants favour. To me, and I don't have your experience or knowledge, that is somewhat troubling. Again, the caveat being that we don't know exactly what went on but I think we can infer the reason for the judgement. Thank-you for your feedback. EDIT: I guess that the case I refer to is only one case and it may never happen again and the strategy not to appeal is still the best strategy even in this event, but I really did find the outcome of that case, not only extremely annoying but also worrying. Let's hope other judges are not quite so narrow minded and don't get fixated on one particular issue as FTMDave alluded to.
    • Indians, traditionally known as avid savers, are now stashing away less money and borrowing more.View the full article
    • the claimant in their WS can refer to whatever previous CC judgements they like, as we do in our WS's, but CC judgements do not set a legal precedence. however, they do often refer to judgements like Bevis, those cases do created a precedence as they were court of appeal rulings. as for if the defendant, prior to the raising of a claim, dobbed themselves in as the driver in writing during any appeal to the PPC, i don't think we've seen one case whereby the claimant referred to such in their WS.. ?? but they certainly typically include said appeal letters in their exhibits. i certainly dont think it's a good idea to 'remind' them of such at the defence stage, even if the defendant did admit such in a written appeal. i would further go as far to say, that could be even more damaging to the whole case than a judge admonishing a defendant for not appealing to the PPC in the 1st place. it sort of blows the defendant out the water before the judge reads anything else. dx  
    • Hi LFI, Your knowledge in this area is greater than I could possibly hope to have and as such I appreciate your feedback. I'm not sure that I agree the reason why a barrister would say that, only to get new customers, I'm sure he must have had professional experience in this area that qualifies him to make that point. 🙂 In your point 1 you mention: 1] there is a real danger that some part of the appeal will point out that the person appealing [the keeper ] is also the driver. I understand the point you are making but I was referring to when the keeper is also the driver and admits it later and only in this circumstance, but I understand what you are saying. I take on board the issues you raise in point 2. Is it possible that a PPC (claimant) could refer back to the case above as proof that the motorist should have appealed, like they refer back to other cases? Thanks once again for the feedback.
    • Well barristers would say that in the hope that motorists would go to them for advice -obviously paid advice.  The problem with appealing is at least twofold. 1] there is a real danger that some part of the appeal will point out that the person appealing [the keeper ] is also the driver.  And in a lot of cases the last thing the keeper wants when they are also the driver is that the parking company knows that. It makes it so much easier for them as the majority  of Judges do not accept that the keeper and the driver are the same person for obvious reasons. Often they are not the same person especially when it is a family car where the husband, wife and children are all insured to drive the same car. On top of that  just about every person who has a valid insurance policy is able to drive another person's vehicle. So there are many possibilities and it should be up to the parking company to prove it to some extent.  Most parking company's do not accept appeals under virtually any circumstances. But insist that you carry on and appeal to their so called impartial jury who are often anything but impartial. By turning down that second appeal, many motorists pay up because they don't know enough about PoFA to argue with those decisions which brings us to the second problem. 2] the major parking companies are mostly unscrupulous, lying cheating scrotes. So when you appeal and your reasons look as if they would have merit in Court, they then go about  concocting a Witness Statement to debunk that challenge. We feel that by leaving what we think are the strongest arguments to our Member's Witness Statements, it leaves insufficient time to be thwarted with their lies etc. And when the motorists defence is good enough to win, it should win regardless of when it is first produced.   
  • 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
      • 161 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

First parking PCN - causing an obstruction at hospital where i work


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 1898 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

I have just received a "PARKING CHARGE NOTICE" from this company asking for £50 to be paid for "Causing Obstruction" in the car park of the hospital where I work.

 

I have not seen a PCN stuck to my car, but there had been a hand written note affixed to my windscreen by someone who found it difficult to pull her/his car out.

 

I have had PCN's issued a few times by such private companies in the last ten years, and I've only ever paid the ones issued by the local council. The others have sent various forms of threats and then gone quiet.

 

How often do F1RST PARKING take people to court? And what's the current law on this?

Link to post
Share on other sites

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have never seen any other parking company include "causing obstruction" on their

Signage and if it doesn't appear on FP's signage either you have nothing to worry about

Nor anything to pay.

If you live closeby

Please photo all the signs there and post them here.

Link to post
Share on other sites

They can issues demands for money if there is an offer of a unilateral contract by way of clear signage. #That can say that you pay them as a condition of the contract of for breaching cetain terms.

 

If they want money then what they say you owe them for must match exactly one of the terms on the signage.

Causing ostyruction is an impossible term as it is subjective.

 

So, for examaple I could park correctly in the centre of a bay and a blind person then fails to negotiate their vehicle properly.

My vehicle could be said to be obstructing them in their maneouvres but the term would be rejected becasue a blind person wouldnt be considered to be " the man in the street" when it comes to what is normal.

 

Therefore the sign must state what an obstruction is or state that parking in such a place is not allowed or parking only allowed in other places.

Even that is a bit vague and open to successful challenge but at least understood.

The simplest signage to catch out naughty parking is "parking £100, if you park in the indicated manner the fee is waived"

 

so, yes, lets see the signage and any other sigans at the site that may apply to parking anywhere rather than just at the specific location.

Edited by dx100uk
spacing
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi

I think that this from another site explains things quite well

 

 

http://tinyurl.com/y7p3qwp5

If you are asked to deal with any matter via private message, PLEASE report it.

Everything I say is opinion only. If you are unsure on any comment made, you should see a qualified solicitor

Please help CAG. Order this ebook. Now available on Amazon. Please click HERE

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have never seen any other parking company include "causing obstruction" on their

Signage and if it doesn't appear on FP's signage either you have nothing to worry about

Nor anything to pay.

If you live closeby

Please photo all the signs there and post them here.

 

I will take some photos tomorrow.

IMG_20181016_182257.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

Have you thought of going to the admin department and finding out who monitors FP. There will be someone at the hospital who has the responsibility for parking matters. Find them and see if they will contact FP and get them to cancel the ticket on your behalf.

 

 

Sometimes works-sometimes not.

If you are asked to deal with any matter via private message, PLEASE report it.

Everything I say is opinion only. If you are unsure on any comment made, you should see a qualified solicitor

Please help CAG. Order this ebook. Now available on Amazon. Please click HERE

Link to post
Share on other sites

Have you thought of going to the admin department and finding out who monitors FP. There will be someone at the hospital who has the responsibility for parking matters. Find them and see if they will contact FP and get them to cancel the ticket on your behalf.

 

 

Sometimes works-sometimes not.

 

I will try this, but the parking staff at this hospital are not the brightest, usually replying to all queries with "I dont know, please email the parking".

Link to post
Share on other sites

They can issues demands for money if there is an offer of a unilateral contract by way of clear signage. #That can say that you pay them as a condition of the contract of for breaching cetain terms.

 

If they want money then what they say you owe them for must match exactly one of the terms on the signage.

Causing ostyruction is an impossible term as it is subjective.

 

So, for examaple I could park correctly in the centre of a bay and a blind person then fails to negotiate their vehicle properly.

My vehicle could be said to be obstructing them in their maneouvres but the term would be rejected becasue a blind person wouldnt be considered to be " the man in the street" when it comes to what is normal.

 

Therefore the sign must state what an obstruction is or state that parking in such a place is not allowed or parking only allowed in other places.

Even that is a bit vague and open to successful challenge but at least understood.

The simplest signage to catch out naughty parking is "parking £100, if you park in the indicated manner the fee is waived"

 

so, yes, lets see the signage and any other sigans at the site that may apply to parking anywhere rather than just at the specific location.

 

 

This is whats displayed around the car park

IMG_20181018_081751.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

post 2 link needs doing

 

the ntk is the letter you got with the anpr in out pix on it

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

well, their sign shows that parking in front of 3 bays is obstructive so that is what is meant. If you werent parked in front of 3 other bays it isnt a breach of conditions.

so now then , date you got the note attached to your vehicle, date you got the letter through the post and lastly can we see the letter in its entirety with your personal details redacted along with their reference numbers and barcodes.

If you spend some time reading a good few of the other private parking threads you will soon work out what we need to see and why so you can then preempt our requests and speed up things which will in turn hopefully give you the reassurance that you will knock this on the head.

Lastly, the sign says staff permit parking only, did you display a staff permit? If not the terms on the sign dont apply to you anyway. Let us know

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Sorry for the late reply.

 

I've received this in the post.

 

@ericsbrother: I did not display a staff permit, despite being a staff who pays monthly for the parking, because the parking company have not issued me with a permit although I have requested this on two occasions. They have not even acknowledged my requests.

IMG_20181213_012334.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

hidden that pcn no showing

you ignore powerless dca's

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

if you go read post 2

you still haven't filled in the link

so we can have all we need to help property..

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

if you read that link..atleast..you'll see you should of received a letter from them within 29-56 days called a notice to keeper as you had a windscreen ticket.

did you not get one?

 

if not , why not?

not moved since you got the ticket have you?

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

let us consider the situation with the permits first.

 

Your employer is responsible for that and they cant just pass the buck so get on to whatever dept is responsible ( estates? HR?) and give them some grief.

Make it clear you will be following the grievance procedure over this matter and then let them know as an aside that the parking bandits cant even follow the protocols of the POFA so are making fools of ther trust with their harassment of you over this improperly issued ticket and as such you expect them ( whichever dept) to sort the matter out

 

because if the matter does end up with a court claim it proves to be very expensive for the hospital trust (see the case a few years back involving East Kent Hospitals) and would be hugely embarrassing given the circumstances.

 

Make sure you have address this to the right person/office

 

As for threatograms- ignore them, the parking co appears to have shot themselves in both feet with this one.

Edited by dx100uk
spacing
Link to post
Share on other sites

thread title updated

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Received this a few weeks ago, and then another similar one threatening court action and attachment of earnings, etc. just two days ago (I cant find that one to scan, because I think my younger child threw it in the bin!)

 

As for the employer, I have written to the parking department TWICE regarding my issues, and there has not even been an acknowledgement.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If the charge was for parking without a permit and:

a) you’d paid for a permit while

b) it hadn’t been issued despite multiple requests, you’d be on very safe ground.

 

However, I bet that somewhere in the “staff parking permit” application (or on receiving the permit) there is a term about not causing an obstruction.

 

So, the private parking co. may have difficulty enforcing their “charge”, but watch out you don’t shoot yourself in the foot and the hospital find an excuse to withdraw their permit (that is providing you still need parking there!)

 

on reflection (& given the note from the driver who found it hard to manoeuvre their car), if push came to shove can you say “I wasn’t causing an obstruction”?

Edited by BazzaS
Link to post
Share on other sites

Received this a few weeks ago, and then another similar one threatening court action and attachment of earnings, etc. just two days ago (I cant find that one to scan, because I think my younger child threw it in the bin!)

 

As for the employer, I have written to the parking department TWICE regarding my issues, and there has not even been an acknowledgement.

 

Didnt attach the scan last time!

IMG_20190213_114117.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...