I went to court today.

[Guest perky88]

Demon, the problem with sites like this is people only tell limited information, they rarely disclose all the facts which are relevant.

 

I agree that companies should not threaten people or send out intimidating letters, and I also feel the use of debt collectors should be outlawed until a liability order is granted by a court.

 

The law is the law, where do you draw the line 20mins, 2hrs, 4hrs, 10hrs, 24hrs ... if you say 24hrs then what about 24hrs 1 min .. come on . only 1 minute over ..

 

If the rules are clearly stated and someone choses to ignore them, tough .. simple as that .. of course there are sometimes circumstances beyond their control.

 

eg. 3 weeks ago I paid 1hr parking as my daughter had to have her brace fitted (10 minute job) - however due to one thing and another we were gone for 1hr 29minutes and I got a parking ticket. (yes .. a person who runs a parking company getting ticket ... justice I hear you all shout .)

 

Now I had a choice .. I could moan and groan about it being out of my control, dentist problems, couldnt leave a child alone whiist in dentist to walk back to car park .. or I can do the RIGHT thing and accept I was over .. I could have paid the 70p extra for 2hrs to cover myself .. but I didnt ... and it backfired ... £40 down on the day but just way it goes

 

And finally demon you are incorrect .. the proprieter can proceed with court action based on the RK details .. it is then down to the court to decide if the RK is lying about being the driver or not ...

 

but from EXPERIENCE (yes, real experience not google or websites) - the judge takes a dim view of someone sitting there and saying "wansnt me .. prove it and im not telling you either" .. it can go either way depending on the judge/case presented/evidence ...

[demon_x_slash]

And finally demon you are incorrect .. the proprieter can proceed with court action based on the RK details .. it is then down to the court to decide if the RK is lying about being the driver or not ...

 

In the Small Claims court, the judge would throw out the case as being incorrectly issued. I repeat, in civil court cases there is no obligation to incriminate yourself - you claim that you're quite au fait with the court process, but seem to contradict yourself by insisting upon this incorrect assumption. The last time I looked, we still had the right to 'no comment'.

 

Your comment that the 'law is the law' is interesting, as this is civil law rather than criminal - I shall therefore reiterate that the penalty charge is unenforcable by right of it being a penalty in a civil contract, and therefore unlawful in its entirety. The law is the law - and the law is that you cannot charge a disproportionate amount for a breach of civil contract. If you charge £1 per hour for your private car park, then an overstay of ten minutes should incur a 10p charge; 20 mins, 20p; three hours, £3. I fail to see what is so difficult to grasp.

[Guest perky88]

If/When I or a colleague gets a case thrown out for being incorrectly issued then I will update the forum .. until then I can only go on experience.

 

I didnt think we were talking about penalty charges ... I thought we were parking about Parking charges ... Have I disagreed with anyone about penalty charges being un-enforceable under civil law .. no I dont think I have !

 

I also dont think I have spoken about remedy for breach of contract ... I have spoken ONLY about proceedings for non payment of a debt, this debt was the amount contractually agreed to by a vehicle parking in view of clear signage ....

 

Anyway .. the original question has been answered on this thread - yes he has a good case on the basis of inadequate signage, without the need to send stroppy letters or start quoting laws/regulations etc...

 

Unless the original poster has any further questions .. as we are now going off topic in a BIG way !!!

[demon_x_slash]

If/When I or a colleague gets a case thrown out for being incorrectly issued then I will update the forum .. until then I can only go on experience.

 

That's fine, it's your prerogative - we have had users on this site from all across the board not following the guidelines and issuing claims against the wrong person, institution and/or address - each time, the case has been thrown out and the poster has had to re-issue with the correct information.

 

I didnt think we were talking about penalty charges ... I thought we were parking about Parking charges ... Have I disagreed with anyone about penalty charges being un-enforceable under civil law .. no I dont think I have !

 

But they are one and the same - the 'parking charge' is a penalty for breach of contract. Calling it by another name is a well-known legerdemain in law; it is called 'cloaking the penalty', and judges invariably see straight through it.

 

I also dont think I have spoken about remedy for breach of contract ... I have spoken ONLY about proceedings for non payment of a debt, this debt was the amount contractually agreed to by a vehicle parking in view of clear signage ....

 

But a civil parking penalty is not a debt - the fact of the debt has not been proven, as the very issuing of the penalty is unlawful. If the penalty is unlawful, then no debt exists.

 

Anyway .. the original question has been answered on this thread - yes he has a good case on the basis of inadequate signage, without the need to send stroppy letters or start quoting laws/regulations etc...

Unless the original poster has any further questions .. as we are now going off topic in a BIG way !!!

 

I don't agree - you seem to need this cleared up, so it is helping one person at least. You also seem to be confusing 'wining', or whining, as it is usually spelled, with asserting your right under law.

[Guest perky88]

OK, Demon .. I am obviously incorrect.. I have only held my degree for 12yrs and been doing this business for 2yrs .. so I obviously have a lot to learn.

 

I have personally taken over 50 cases to court for parking related matters, lost 1 (going through appeal) .. but suppose I must just have been lucky !!!

 

Will leave it to you internet/google lawyers to advise ...

[demon_x_slash]

Will leave it to you internet/google lawyers to advise ...

 

And this I find is a product of sheer outdated snobbery. What is the Small Claims Court for, if not for the layman to attempt to reclaim their right? If something is published on the Internet, that immediately makes it worthless and incorrect? I note that you have not responded to my points about the law and what it states, and also that you arbitrarily state that you have 'a degree' (in what?) - well, good for you, many people do. Seeing its relevancy to this arguement however is a different matter.

[barracad]

eg. 3 weeks ago I paid 1hr parking as my daughter had to have her brace fitted (10 minute job) - however due to one thing and another we were gone for 1hr 29minutes and I got a parking ticket. (yes .. a person who runs a parking company getting ticket ... justice I hear you all shout .)

 

Now I had a choice .. I could moan and groan about it being out of my control, dentist problems, couldnt leave a child alone whiist in dentist to walk back to car park .. or I can do the RIGHT thing and accept I was over .. I could have paid the 70p extra for 2hrs to cover myself .. but I didnt ... and it backfired ... £40 down on the day but just way it goes

 

Or you could have come here for advice and saved £40...

[Rob S]

 

And finally demon you are incorrect .. the proprieter can proceed with court action based on the RK details .. it is then down to the court to decide if the RK is lying about being the driver or not ...

 

but from EXPERIENCE (yes, real experience not google or websites) - the judge takes a dim view of someone sitting there and saying "wansnt me .. prove it and im not telling you either" .. it can go either way depending on the judge/case presented/evidence ...

 

What nonsense! When a claimant takes a case to county court they have to be able to prove, on a balance of probabilities, who the driver was. It is not the role of the registered keeper to provide this information if the claimant is unable to provide it. Judges may well take a dim view of it but the RK is under no obligation to inform the court who was driving in respect of private parking matters.

[patdavies]

Do not feed the troll

[dw190]

OK, Demon .. I am obviously incorrect.. I have only held my degree for 12yrs and been doing this business for 2yrs .. so I obviously have a lot to learn.

 

I have personally taken over 50 cases to court for parking related matters, lost 1 (going through appeal) .. but suppose I must just have been lucky !!!

 

Will leave it to you internet/google lawyers to advise ...

 

Perky can you scan and post some of the judgements and the orders made by the Court in some of these cases.

[MondeoST24]

Agreed DW190. Proceedings against the RK on the basis of an alleged contract with the driver wouldn't last two minutes. And the judge wouldn't be best pleased that the wrong persons been sued.

[bribri]

Could someone explain in short words and referring to general principles, i.e. not the specifics of this case how parking in a private area leads to a supposed contract formed.

 

Contract law basics are: Offer (you can park here) + acceptance (yes I will) with consideration (here is my parking payment) = contract.

 

If it is a private parking area what is the consideration?

[Destinyofsouls]

I must point out as well ( sorry for not replying sooner the PC is at work) but the car is on contract hire to the company, and I (or the company) am not the RK or keeper. I will have to go back to see if there are any CCTV cameras about. As it is next to the County Court I would assume there is.

Now, whether they would have access to them to prosecute ( if they weren't the car park companys cameras) I'm not sure.

[dw190]

Agreed DW190. Proceedings against the RK on the basis of an alleged contract with the driver wouldn't last two minutes. And the judge wouldn't be best pleased that the wrong persons been sued.

 

Not reet Perky with a response to my last post ehh. Have I hit a tender spot

[nutegunray]

I believe Perky, he's taken people to court who've overstayed in his coffee shop carpark, and he's won, but i bet they never turned up to argue the case against them. If they'd visited this site first and got all the legal help, whoever they were could have defended and won and he wouldn't be so arrogant.

[dw190]

I believe Perky, he's taken people to court who've overstayed in his coffee shop carpark, and he's won, but i bet they never turned up to argue the case against them. If they'd visited this site first and got all the legal help, whoever they were could have defended and won and he wouldn't be so arrogant.

 

Even a Judgement by Default (Non Attendance) is given in writing by the Court. All I am asking is lets see just one of the Judgements then I along with others can hold our hands up.

[Destinyofsouls]

Let us say the signage is not adequate. What regulations are there for dispalying signs?

 

Is there some legislation somewhere that says they have to be x size or must have x number of signs per sq foot?

[dw190]

Let us say the signage is not adequate. What regulations are there for dispalying signs?

 

Is there some legislation somewhere that says they have to be x size or must have x number of signs per sq foot?

 

Is this what you are looking for. (the underline emphasis is mine)

 

 

 

Legal Authorities.

 

MacLeod v Hamilton 1965 S.L.T 305

If signs to indicate the effect of a "No Waiting" order have not been erected, or signs have been erected not conforming to s.64 of the RTRA 1984 and TSRGD 2002 (SI 2002/3113), no offence against the "No Waiting" order is committed.

 

Davies v Heatley [1971] R.T.R 145

Because by s.64(2) of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 traffic signs shall be of the size, colour and type prescribed by regulation, if a sign the contravention of which is an offence contrary to s.36 is not as prescribed by the regulation, no offence is committed if the sign is contravened, even if the sign is clearly recognisable to a reasonable man as a sign of that kind.

[Destinyofsouls]

This is the RT Act. The car park was private, does that not make a difference?

[dw190]

This is the RT Act. The car park was private, does that not make a difference?

 

Sorry about that I thought you wanted case law authorities for Traffic Signs.

 

I dont know of any regs for private signage.

[Destinyofsouls]

I wrote to HSBC who I contract hire my car from. My business hires the vehicle not me as a person, although I am a sole trader.

I wrote to HSBC and told them not to give out my details. The ticket was issued on private land.

 

This is their reply ( HSBC)

Where you say the contract is between the driver and the parking company and has no implications on us, can you please explain why this is the case?

As the RK, if we do not pay the fine it will keep on increasing until the bailiffs are instructed. In order to protect ourselves we pay all fines from private parking companies in order to mitigate our loss and we reserve the right to recharge you under section 7.4 of your contract.

 

If you have reasons to contest the fine then let us know by Aug 24th.

Now what do I do?

[Rob S]

Write back to them pointing out it is not a fine but an invoice and nothing more than that. Advise them to write to the parking company and state that as registered keeper they are not liable for the invoice. Advise them to ignore any future invoices. You could even advise them to refer any future letters to your company.

[Destinyofsouls]

Thanks rob and everyone else for your help