OPC Private Parking Tickets

[Howard0181]

zamzara

 

you have picked up on one reason why Perky would not win in court if you were the defendent. Its not you going around in circles.

 

Also, its clear that Perky is not the landowner and therefore there is no loss.

 

Also, its not illegal.

 

Its games set and match agabist Perky. I would say 6-0 6-0 6-0

[Guest perky88]

Its games set and match agabist Perky. I would say 6-0 6-0 6-0

 

Thought the children went back to school today .. Must still be some off !!

 

Anyway, thanks for that Howard, looks like defeat for me .. always willing to accept defeat by a person who puts a strong, educated, adult argument across !!

[Howard0181]

Perky

 

Its clear that there is no basis to any of your claims.

 

Seems your loss is zero but you want £135 from a driver!

 

Good thing is that people can read my comments and other peoples comments and read your latest response and then judge for themselves.

 

People are not stupid.

[GuidoT]

No more hijacking please.

 

If you still feel you must, then play nicely and no more than one further post from each of you - you know who you are.

[Bernie_the_Bolt]

Perky,

 

We are still waiting for you to tell us how you identify the driver.

 

If you are relying on an implied contract from signage, then unless the RK was there ans read the signs, he/she cannot have entered into such a contract. And therefore cannot be pursued for any payment due under the contract.

 

So how do you identify the driver?

 

I would suspect that Perky (and others in the same position) rely on 1) the law of numbers being that many will sooner pay (for a variety of reasons), 2) the fact that many keepers are owners, 3) many will incriminate themselves and others by admitting who the driver was.

 

Basically it relies on ignorance, much the same as a confidence trickster. And/or the the same principle as the person who (allegedly) placed a small add in Private Eye saying "Last chance to send £1. Send £1 to PO Box 123" and got £thousands.

[GuidoT]

Another month passes and a few more tickets and Windsor - Smyth & Partners wrote to me saying (incorrectly) that I never responded to their last letters.

 

That letter gives me yet another 14 days before they say they will commence proceedings.

 

Anyway I responded with this:

'We are in receipt of your two letters dated x 2007.

Your letter erroneously states that we have failed to respond to your letters dated x 2007, this is incorrect, we responded on the 2007 and enclose a further copy of the same.

We have sent this letter by ordinary post in the pre-paid envelope provided and again in our own envelope and obtained a certificate of posting.'

 

They kindly sent me 2 pre-paid envelopes for my cheque, so I used one for the letter and the other I filled up with rubbish from my bin.

[Bernie_the_Bolt]

the other I filled up with rubbish from my bin.

 

And posted it back to them?

[GuidoT]

Yes, I posted it back to them.

[GuidoT]

Just an update, despite that they said they would commence legal proceedings on the 30 August 2007 and the threat of bailiffs (without even commencing proceedings!) coming to collect by the 04 October 2007, they have not done anything relating to that specific ticket.

 

They are either slow or are not going to carry out their threats.

 

Received another dozen or so letters in the last few weeks relating to other tickets.

 

I am moving to my second lever arch file. I am now going to schedule out all the documentation for each individual ticket and go to the police and report the matter as harassment pursuant to Administration of Justice Act 1970.

 

I am not feeling particularly positive about the police taking it seriously though, but I am going to have a go.

[Ollie10]

Hi can someone please give me some advice. i received a parking ticket in April by parking at the back of my house behind my other car at Ingress Park in Kent which I have contested 3 times and enclosed photos each time of the area which shows no parking restrictions. The letters were not acknowledged by OPC and I have now received a letter from Windsor Smythe and Partners saying I now owe £164.49 and threatening me with a CCJ. I have written to WSP enclosing all previous letters and photos that were sent to OPC that was 3 weeks ago and I have had no response from them either. They never asnwer the phone and I have left 3 messages. I have tried OPC who say it's now out of their hands. The OFT has told me they were completely wrong to issue the ticket in the first place as there were no visable restrictions in place and the only notice was on the left hand side of the entrance to Ingress Park which in the dark and even during the day would be impossible to read from your car. What should I do now?

[Barnsley Boy]

Ollie10

You've done everything a reasonable person would. Trouble is you are not dealing with reasonable people.

Rumour has it that PPCs routinely ignore all correspondance that:

a) does not have a cheque in it

b) is not sent recorded delivery

 

If it were me [and it has been] I'd ignore everything until you get get something purporting to be from a debt collector - then send the cease and desist letter - its one of Bernie the Bolt's template letters on the sticky at the top of the forum.

[legalhawk]

If you are relying on an implied contract from signage, then unless the RK was there ans read the signs, he/she cannot have entered into such a contract.

 

What is the legal authority that allows an "implied contract"? Doesn't a contract allows require a clear and communicated acceptance of an offer (Felthouse v. Brindley).

[legalhawk]

By parking on this land you are also agreeing that if you are not the registered keeper, the registered keeper has authorised all acts that you perform as the driver of the vehicle and that the registered keeper has agreed to accept liability and responsibility for the above parking charge.

 

This statement is clearly legally void due to the legal doctrine of privity of contract. A contract can only assign obligations to the parties of a contract, but never any third parties (Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre v. Selfridge and Co. Ltd).

 

Disclaimers: This posting has the only purpose of furthering the academic discussion of law, but does not represent legal advise in any way.

[legalhawk]

That section (re: agency law) has only recently been added to signage over the last 3 months as a result of a case we are going through an appeal for - this was worded by our counsel who we are working with for the appeal, but at the moment we have not gone to court to enforce a new case.

 

Agency requires that the agent acts in fact under the authority and in the interest of the principle, which in this case it not unless it can be shown that the driver acted in the keepers interests and was authorised to do so.

 

If this would work, why don't you just replace keeper with government and make the driver an agent of the government. The you can claim form the Crown.

 

Disclaimer: The message is posted solely for the purpose of academic discussion. It does not represent legal advice in any manner.

[Zamzara]

This statement is clearly legally void due to the legal doctrine of privity of contract. A contract can only assign obligations to the parties of a contract, but never any third parties (Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre v. Selfridge and Co. Ltd).

 

 

And in addition to that, it's the type of thing that the OFT considers an unfair term under the category 'requiring the consumer to make declarations that are not necessarily true'.

[GuidoT]

I received another half dozen or so letters of threat and a few more tickets.

 

Given that they said in August 2007 they would commence proceedings and they have yet to do so, I think their threats are empty.

 

I have now taken to only responding to the ticket initially now, as they seem to ignore all my other letters.

 

Given they are now attempting to charge me around £200 per ticket, this now equates to around £10,000 of tickets.

 

By the way please do not hijack my thread.

[Irfon17]

Perky, what would be your position if a person had a permit (which they were later able to prove) but forgot to display it?

[GuidoT]

Please can we leave the debates with Perky off my thread, i.e. no further hijacking.

[Irfon17]

Sorry

[dberg369]

I just got a £60 'parking charge' from a private firm.

Please let me know what you think my chances are of a successful appeal.

Here are the facts:

• I parked in a disabled bay in a retail park outside a restaurant to run in and get a telephone order
  
• 'm not disabled.
  
• There were no other available spaces outside.
  
• There were at least 2 or 3 other available disabled spaces next to the one i took.
  
• I was in the restaurant for 5 minutes.
  
• The warden who I found afterwards said he would make a note that I was only there for 5 minutes.
  
• The space itself was clearly marked.
  
• I'm not sure whether the car park itself has a clear sign upon entering that explains the 'contract' - I will check this tomorrow.
  
• The warden said he had taken photos.
  
• The front of the ticket says 'Parking Charge' in black writing on a yellow background which resembles the Government issued tickets.
  
• The ticket is for £60 increasing by £3 per day after 10 days.
  
• With any appeal they have stated I should include payment which will be repaid if the appeal is successful.

I know I took a gamble but really didn't think I was doing any harm given the other spare disabled spaces and my short stay.

What do you guys think?

[dberg369]

sorry cant work out how 2 delete and this was a duplicate.

[GuidoT]

Under no circumstances should you ever park in a disabled bay, unless you are of course disabled.

 

Pay the fine.

 

No more hijacking of this thread.

[patdavies]

Under no circumstances should you ever park in a disabled bay, unless you are of course disabled.

 

 

A bay marked as disabled in a private car park is no more than graffiti - it is not backed by law.

[Barnsley Boy]

I just got a £60 'parking charge' from a private firm.

Please let me know what you think my chances are of a successful appeal.

Here are the facts:

• I parked in a disabled bay in a retail park outside a restaurant to run in and get a telephone order
  
• 'm not disabled.
  
• There were no other available spaces outside.
  
• There were at least 2 or 3 other available disabled spaces next to the one i took.
  
• I was in the restaurant for 5 minutes.
  
• The warden who I found afterwards said he would make a note that I was only there for 5 minutes.
  
• The space itself was clearly marked.
  
• I'm not sure whether the car park itself has a clear sign upon entering that explains the 'contract' - I will check this tomorrow.
  
• The warden said he had taken photos.
  
• The front of the ticket says 'Parking Charge' in black writing on a yellow background which resembles the Government issued tickets.
  
• The ticket is for £60 increasing by £3 per day after 10 days.
  
• With any appeal they have stated I should include payment which will be repaid if the appeal is successful.

I know I took a gamble but really didn't think I was doing any harm given the other spare disabled spaces and my short stay.

What do you guys think?

 

First things first - Guido - apologies for "hijacking" but I wish to draw previous poster's attention to another thread

 

DBERG

 

The £3 / day "liquidated damages" sounds very familiar - is the PPC an outfit called UKPAO? There is a current thread on UK PAO which is well worth reading.

 

The charge is an invoice from a Private Company - despite the moral position regarding disabled spaces, on which we all have our views, the charge has no more legal status than any other privately issued "fine" - none.

[dberg369]

Thanks for your help guys. I will look up that thread you suggested Barnsley Boy as on closer inspection my ticket is issued by UK PAO.

 

ive created my own thread now. didnt realise i had hijacked, sorry.