Jump to content


yet another UKCPS - Gateway House Picadilly Manchester


Recommended Posts

1 Date of the infringement 14 Oct 2020
2 Date on the NTK [this must have been received within 14 days from the 'offence' date] 19 Oct 2020

3 Date received 20 Oct 2020
4 Does the NTK mention schedule 4 of The Protections of Freedoms Act 2012? [Y/N?] 
Mentions "Made under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012", but doesn't mention schedule 4
5 Is there any photographic evidence of the event? Photo of back of vehicle, showing number plate
6 Have you appealed? [Y/N?] post up your appeal] No
Have you had a response? [Y/N?] post it up N/A
7 Who is the parking company? UKCPS

8. Where exactly [carpark name and town] Gateway House Piccadilly
9. For either option, does it say which appeals body they operate under.IAS (IPC)

 

I appreciate this has been asked several times already, but commentators in previous threads seem to suggest that a No Stopping Parking Charge is de facto illegal, due to a 10 minute allowable period, but the recent case of VCS v Ward (attached) shows that this is not the case, and that de minimis non curat lex is not a valid defence.

 

Any suggestions or advice?

ukcps redact.pdf VCS v Ward - ridiculous and wrong Appeal Judgment (1).pdf

Link to post
Share on other sites

byelaws over ride.

 

dx

 

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

Thanks for posting the judgment.  Interesting reading.  It's annoying that VCS won an appeal, which of course means precedent.  However ...

 

The two motorists didn't turn up.  Do that and you're bound to lose.

 

The judge ruled against allowing "de minimis" as a defence for that particular location which was a long road with repeated signs.  I bet where you parked was completely different.

 

Most importantly, as dx says, bye-laws trump VCS's silly signs.

 

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

There were a number of matters that concern me in Judge Saffman's verdict.

 

The first is  that you cannot form a contract with a forbidding rule. This was not the case in PE v Beavis as it was within the bounds of a carpark where motorists were allowed to park their cars. 

 

Also if a motorist who does stop when apparently they shouldn't is therefore a trespasser and as such VCS cannot sue for trespass only the landowner can do that.

 

Secondly and the Judges in the Beavis case alluded to the fact that while the amount charged -£85- was not a penalty, that had he offence been one of secondary importance then the charge would have been a penalty.

 

To pull off the road for 30 seconds would in most people's view be of secondary importance and therefore a penalty. It is interesting to note that the new Appeals charter for motorists will include mitigating reasons and a tiered system to differentiate between major and minor offences. 

 

On top of that what does a driver do if a pedestrian walks out on to the road. At the moment it looks as if the driver has to run them over since to stop would bring on a fine. That would be ridiculous. And what about a tyre burst or a collision between two vehicles?

 

The Law for the latter  is that you have to stop and exchange details. And there are several other reasons why a motorist may have to stop and none of them would be mitigating.

And for every case where a "no stopping" rule has been upheld by a Judge, there have been about  five where the decision has gone the other way.

 

The Judge paid too much attention to the Beavis case and took its arguments into consideration to justify his reasons when the Beavis case had little similarity to the no stopping case which was confirmed by the District Judge who stated that the two cases "were substantially different on the facts".

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Agree completely.  What is disturbing is that VCS actually went for an appeal, the motorists were too lazy to turn up so Simon now has an appeal level verdict in his favour.

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for your comments. In my case, it was behind Manchester Piccadilly Station; do bylaws apply there, or only in airports?

 

I've now just seen that the IPC is quoting the Ward case (https://theipc.info/brandings/2/resources/documents/Marking the lines v1 14102019.pdf page 16)  and presumably based on that, UKCPS has issued my No Stopping invoice.

 

In any event, appeal or ignore?

Link to post
Share on other sites

any lines on private land are purely tarmac graffiti.

 

type in

 

Manchester Piccadilly gateway house

 

in our search top right.

 

pop up a googlemaps link to where you parked exactly 

 

nearly all no stopping speculative invoices are on byelaw covered land.

 

it's a traffic offence which they can't enforce not a parking offence.

 

 

 

 

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

yes we already have that its here in this thread 

 

follow my search advice as earlier read other threads here on CAG

 

 

 

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

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...