Your parking ticket may be unlawful

[MondeoST24]

It comes under contract law.

 

i.e. to enter the car park is to agree to contract to either display the correct permit or to pay the penalty charge.

 

To get away with this the signage stating this must be clearly visable before you actually enter the car park.

[dre]

there are small signs dotted round the place, certainly no huge signs as you drive in. But this is in Luton, I live in London, have'nt got the time/money to go up there specially to take pics in the hope that I could get this waivered.

 

*sigh*

[Movingon]

So in other words the penalty charges have to correspond to an actual loss incurred by the site?

[thunderpuss2k]

there are small signs dotted round the place, certainly no huge signs as you drive in. But this is in Luton, I live in London, have'nt got the time/money to go up there specially to take pics in the hope that I could get this waivered.

 

*sigh*

 

I'm not a million miles away (prob 20 mins drive) so if need arises I can pop over there and get some photos for you.. think we need to figure out the legalities first. Look on the bright side, you're in a better position as you weren't clamped, so weren't forced into paying something you didn't agree with (or didn't know about).

[BotB]

Dre,

 

The ticket you got is nothing to do with the Road Traffic Acts, its a private car park and as Mondeo says, its the private contract between you and the car park that applies, not any Council parking regulations.

 

They want to make it look official though, that's why they copy the Road Traffic Act parking tickets so closely, easier to grab your money that way.

 

Nothing will happen if you don't pay except in a few months time you might get a letter from Bailiffs acting as debt collectors referring to an "offence" and "penalty charge" etc. to try to keep up the pretence of it being an official charge. If you do, tell them you'll complain to the OFT for breach of their debt collection guidelines:

 

http://www.csa-uk.com/Documents/OFT%20debt%20collection%20-%20guidance%20only%20_July%202003.pdf

 

False representation of authority and/or legal position

2.3 Those contacting debtors must not be deceitful by misrepresenting their authority

and/or the correct legal position.

 

2.4 Examples of unfair practices are as follows:

 

c. misrepresenting status or backing, such as

 

· using a logo which falsely implies government backing

 

 

 

· using a business name which implies public body status,

 

 

 

 

I think you could get them on both grounds as far as I can see from your ticket.

 

 

 

 

[Movingon]

Hmmm... and they may have taken a note of your number so that they can hit you with an illegal clamp next time...

[Movingon]

Almost forgot, I was gonna upload mine..

 

[edit: just click this link, damn hotlink protection! http://www.tp2k.com/pcnwatfordpublic.html ]

 

No "Date of contravention"?

[seylectric]

dre, not worth the paper it is written on. They have no legal juristiction whatsoever. Not even worth a reply. Throw it in the bin, or save it for when you run out of Andrex. TRUST ME ON THIS ONE. They could even be reported for trying to impersonate a legal document or something like that, might even be worth taking it to trading standards or even the police. This is fraud, attempting to obtain money by deception or whatever.

[MondeoST24]

I am close to issuing a claim against Blackpool Council regarding thier unlawfully worded PCN's

 

Has anyone any thoughts on the following, have I missed anything.

 

• The Defendant operates the Decriminalised Parking Enforcement (“DPE”) scheme as per s66 of the Road Traffic Act 1991
  
• The process of involves issuing Penalty Charge Notices (“PCN(s)”)
  
• s66 of the Road Traffic Act sets out prescribed format which the PCN’s must conform to. One of the requirements is the PCN must contain the words “Date Of Issue”
  
• On 16/04/04 and 13/06/04 the Defendant issued to the Claimant PCN numbers BP12511958 and BP10016572 in relation to alleged parking contraventions with the Defendants area of operation.
  
• The Claimant paid to the Defendant £190 (2 x £95) believing the Defendant in its status of a local authority was acting lawfully in levying these charges.
  
• The Claimant now understands that the PCN’s in question were not worded in accordance with the Road Traffic Act 1991 s66 in that they did not contain the words “Date Of Issue”, additionally the PCN’s contain the words “Date Of Offence” however there are no criminal offences in relation to DPE. The term is contravention.
  
• It is the view of the Claimant that these incorrectly worded PCN’s are unlawful and unenforceable.
  
• The Claimant claims the return of the £190 paid in respect of these PCN’s

[Movingon]

Sounds good to me... I can't think of anything else.

[seylectric]

seems ok, have been unwell but will try to get that stuff to you this week.

[chrismc]

Sounds good to me, let us know what response you get from them, I may have one or two I could pursue also

[Movingon]

Just a thought...

 

If you used the "Bill of Rights" defence in court, and all details of the contravention were before the court during the hearing, is it possible that the Judge could turn around and award the payment of your PCN's back to you, and then find you guilty of an offence and impose a fine of the same amount?! If he were to develop the opinion that you were simply squirming instead of pointing out the unlawful oeprations of a local authority, he might just get unpleasant

[StudentInDebt]

Forgive me if I am being slow but having read through the Road Traffic Act 1991 Section 66 and Schedule 6 I can't find any reference to a PCN having to contain the words "date of issue". Another question I have is that Section 66 of the act is contained in Part II which is titled "Traffic in London" and Section 66 itself is titled "Parking Penalties in London", how does this get extended to cover Blackpool (or indeed Brighton)?

[seylectric]

From the official National Parking Adjudication Service website:

 

 

 

"The Road Traffic Act 1991 brought about a number of key changes in the above arrangements. Parking “offences” enforced by councils were “decriminalised” and brought within the civil enforcement system. At the same time a number of additional enforcement responsibilities, such as restricted (yellow line) parking, were removed from the police and also given to councils.

 

The provisions of the Road Traffic Act 1991 were first implemented by the 33 London Boroughs during 1993/94. Since the late 1990s an increasing number of councils outside London have also taken up decriminalised enforcement powers. It is these councils in England and Wales, (not including London), for whom the National Parking Adjudication Service (NPAS) provides the independent appeals service required by the Road Traffic Act 1991."

 

Basically what it means is that London having been the prototype, the rules employed by London are generally accepted to be the same across the country.

 

 

Also from the NPAS site:

 

"Motorists parking their cars are not the only ones who must obey the law and regulations. Councils can only make parking regulations (known as “Traffic Regulation Orders” or “Traffic Management Orders”) and enforce parking contraventions in accordance with the law. For example, councils must comply with regulations that say how parking controls are signed.

 

Under the decriminalised scheme brought in by the Road Traffic Act 1991, when a vehicle is, for example, parked on a yellow line during controlled hours, it is said to be parked ‘in contravention of the regulations’. Thus there are no offences, merely contraventions."

 

This doesn't directly answer your "Date of issue" query (there are many links in this thread that do, though) but it does confirm that according to NPAS, Blackpool Council's tickets are incorrectly worded - and hence illegal - because they give a "Date of Offence". According to NPAS "there are no offences".

 

Blackpool council have to date failed to address this issue in the four appeals I have sent to them. They can't give me an answer to the question, "your parking tickets are illegal because I have not committed an offence" because they haven't got one.

[StudentInDebt]

Thanks

[rogerebaker]

Re post 70:

I got a reply from Elmbridge council today as a result of my informal appeal. They completely ignored my observations about the date of issue and the colour of the car not being on the ticket. basically go away and stop being a nuisance.

 

I have therefor written to the Chief Exec of the council pointing out that should he continue to ignore me and perhaps more seriously continue to issue wrongly worded tickets he could render the council liable to paying back huge sums of money and as Im a rate payer this is of great concern to me.

 

I also suggested that he makes a phone call to the Chief exec at Blackpool, Bury or Sunderland if he didnt believe me.

 

I enclosed a copy of the NPAS circular and a copy of the judgement in Wandsworth V Als Bar for his light reading.

 

Hopefully that will do the trick.

[rogerebaker]

Another ticket received by errant offspring. this poses a slightly different argument.

 

I cant scan it but I will explain it as best possible.

 

It has no Date of Issue on the top but other than that appears to comply but at the bottom of the ticket and still on the ticket itself it explains the procedure for paying ie. " You are therefor required......." and finishes " within 14 days of the date of issue" it then has a computerised date 21.6.2006.

 

What do you think about this. I have read alot about the date of issue argument. The prejudice to the motorist appears to occur if there is no date of issue on the ticket as it is not clear when the time limit for paying starts. In this case allthough they have not clearly stated the date of issue at the top of the ticket as the model suggests they have put it in the details of how to pay part which is clearly still part of the ticket. This may mean they have removed the ambiguity about when the 14 days and 28 days start.

 

I would value anyone thoughts.

[seylectric]

I am close to issuing a claim against Blackpool Council regarding thier unlawfully worded PCN's

 

Has anyone any thoughts on the following, have I missed anything.

 

• The Defendant operates the Decriminalised Parking Enforcement (“DPE”) scheme as per s66 of the Road Traffic Act 1991
  
• The process of involves issuing Penalty Charge Notices (“PCN(s)”)
  
• s66 of the Road Traffic Act sets out prescribed format which the PCN’s must conform to. One of the requirements is the PCN must contain the words “Date Of Issue”
  
• On 16/04/04 and 13/06/04 the Defendant issued to the Claimant PCN numbers BP12511958 and BP10016572 in relation to alleged parking contraventions with the Defendants area of operation.
  
• The Claimant paid to the Defendant £190 (2 x £95) believing the Defendant in its status of a local authority was acting lawfully in levying these charges.
  
• The Claimant now understands that the PCN’s in question were not worded in accordance with the Road Traffic Act 1991 s66 in that they did not contain the words “Date Of Issue”, additionally the PCN’s contain the words “Date Of Offence” however there are no criminal offences in relation to DPE. The term is contravention.
  
• It is the view of the Claimant that these incorrectly worded PCN’s are unlawful and unenforceable.
  
• The Claimant claims the return of the £190 paid in respect of these PCN’s

 

Good stuff, but hang on if you can, it goes a lot deeper than this. I'll be onto this next week. this, as far as i am concerned, isn't just about unfair and illegal parking tickets:

 

1. By stating a "Date of Offence" on the ticket, they are potentially implying you have committed a criminal offence. That's libel.

 

2. The photos the wardens take could mean they are attempting to pervert the course of justice. They submit these to you "as proof" but I have yet to see a photo of my car in the location they claim it to have been. there are photos of the ticket on the windscreen, the car on double yellows or whatever, a pic of the signage, but not one pic out of seven that proves the car was where they said it was.

 

3. Moving on from that, they are fining you without a trial for an "offence", as they call it - we know it isn't, so that's point 4 - that they cannot prove you committed. it's basically their word against yours! They have no proof!

 

4. See point 3.

 

5. If you don't pay and it goes as far as the bailiffs, they are acting illegally too.

 

(a) They are supposed to provide itemised statements of the charges but they don't.

 

(b) They are supposed to put letters in sealed envelopes but they don't.

 

© They wrongly insisted they could take my car even after I informed them in writing, sent by recorded delivery, that they legally couldn't because it was for business use.

 

(d) They stuff three notices in one envelope for three seperate parking tickets but charge you for three seperate visits - you don't realise this initially because they don't give you an itemised statement.

 

(e) They illegally harrass you with the wording of their letters: We will be visiting on (date) with a locksmith and the police to legally enter your premises. they imply that they can break into your house - they can't, unless you have previously let them in and have signed a "walking possesssion agreement". Furthermore it is a civil matter - the police will NOT attend unless you threaten to blow their head off with a shotgun or something.

 

(f) ..... I could go on, but I'm taking my time with this because I want a stop brought to the whole process - and compensation for illegal claims by the bailiffs, illegal harrassment, and btw the council employed them so they are ultimately liable.

 

So what do we have here? Well illegal harrassment from bailiffs for an offence you never legally committed and has not been proven for a start. Add to that the fact that the paperwork from either the council or the bailiffs is a waste of trees, and we have a very serious issue here. this isn't just about getting parking tickits annulled or your money back as far as I am concerned, it's much bigger than that. If the council think that changing the wording on the PCNs will put everything right then they are in for a major shock!

 

Other issues: Are the council acting illegally by putting d/y lines in places where they are totally unneccesary just to raise money? Does a cul-de-sac with a fenced off park on one side and the side of a hotel on the other really warrant parking restrictions? Are people living in council-imposed residents parking zones being forced to pay to park outside their own houses on a public road being discriminated against under the Human Rights Act? I pay the same council tax as those in the next block and they don't have a resident's parking zone, it's free to park (and so it should be, why do we pay road tax? ). haven't we already paid for these roads with our taxes? (Income, Council, VAT, Fuel, Insurance, Road Fund Licence, New Car Tax, etc. etc.). How DARE they charge us to park on the road we paid for and pay to drive on in so many ways. I even believe that parking meters should be made illegal. We have already paid for these roads. Who is REALLY breaking the law, us or them?

[chrismc]

GO SEYLECTRIC !!!! :D:D I agree 100% time to fight back!!!! come the revolution brothers :)

[martonman]

I agree with almost everything there seyelectric, as you know.

 

Parking meters though? I reckon they are needed otherwise parkers in town would just take the pi55 and leave their motors there all day.

 

Then I wouldn't be able to nip into town and park for 30minutes to see my solicitor or nag the council about council tax.

 

Businesses would suffer if there were no parking meters and no enforcement.

 

The council trying to charge £30 for spending 10 minutes too long in a space though? That makes my blood boil and should be banned right now.

 

Proportionate fines is what I say. Spend too long and maybe pay the day rate or whatever, but £30? Thats extortion. Then sticking the charge up to £60, then £90 then having the cheek to send the bailiffs in is criminal.

 

At the next council elections we need to make this a big issue, if it hasn't already been sorted out.

 

My solicitor is defending a guy in Blackpool at magistrates court who is being charged £600 now for one parking ticket. Council charges + bailiff costs + court fees. I've given him all the info from this site and from www.thepeoplesnocampaign.co.uk

 

The £30 fines should just be for parking on double yellows where you are holding up traffic etc, or using a disabled space.

[Movingon]

If one needs to be in town all day, why would it be taking the pee to park in town all day? I'm sorry I just don't get that at all.

[martonman]

In long stay car parks for sure, no problem - my fault I wasn't clear enough.

 

In Blackpool all the short stay parking is on the streets round the town centre. Nice and convenient to park in, when you can find a space, for the odd half hour or so.

[Rich44]

Because people park in the bays like that and go to work in city centres, happened here all the time.

 

There was a massive outcry when they bought in parking meters in here but it now means you can get parked in the city in the short stay bays now whereas before you couldnt and the charge is 1p per minute which I dont think is unreasonable.

 

The fines now thats another matter altogether

[cassandrareynolds]

Hello, I'm very confused. I have recently received a Notice to Pay Excess Charge for overrunning my stay in a car park. I won't bore you with the reasons why I was late but I did bore the Council. They took no notice at all and the charge still stands. I intend to continue fighting my corner and my question is in relation to the legality of the ticket. Does anyone know what specific rules apply to Excess Charge Notices and what information has to be contained within it. I think I understand that they are different from PCNs as they are issued by Parking Attendants and not Traffic Wardens or Police and therefore come under different law. Like I say, I've got confused with the differences. The ticket makes reference to Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 - Section 32(1) & 35(1) and West Wiltshire (Off Street Parking Places) Order 2005 which is different to the statute mentioned by others in this post. Also, I was stupid enough to wait and allow the Parking Attendant 3/4 minutes to finish writing the ticket. I didn't think I was stupid at the time, merely courteous. The time on the ticket was the last thing she wrote, checking her watch before she finished it. Anyway, I digress, what I really need to know if anyone out there can help is the rules applying to what should be printed on the Excess Charge Notice.

 

Please forgive me if I should have started a new thread or if I have pushed in on this. This is the first time of posting although, possibly not the last.