Private Parking Court Win.

[kopite71]

A private parking company has won a case in the county courts regarding parking charges.

 

Bayliffs Called In After Car Park Court Victory (from Burnley and Pendle Citizen)

[green_and_mean]

That will cheer Perky88 up, lol!

[nutegunray]

They cant even spell properly, did these people actually turn up with any form of defence? I doubt it.

[patdavies]

1) They cannot instruct bailiffs to pursue anyone but the three they took to court. Bailiffs can only be instructed as a result of a CCJ

 

2) Nobody parked illegally, despite the quote in the paper.

 

3) No civil court would rule that 'fines' are enforceable; although 'charges' might be.

 

4) No county court judgement at this level sets precedent - thus they are not 'test' cases.

 

5) using CCTV alone and not placing a ticket on the vehicle breaches the DVLA guidelines for releasing the RK information - therefore the DVLA has breached the DPA, and its own guidelines.

 

 

This story and quotes are so way out, that I wonder exactly what did happen and if there was any defence filed at all.

[Guest perky88]

Maybe there is a god after all .. may I thank the prophet kopite71 for being to my attention !!!! :wink: (me happy green_and_mean ... I dont know whart you mean )

 

If you dont park illegally and look at the signs .. then you wont get a ticket .. SIMPLE .. not difficult to understand.

 

Dont park on a double RED line .. its not allowed ... Dont park in a pub carpark if you are shopping at the local shop .. its not allowed .... Park in the Pub if you're using it ... if not pay 30p to pay & display at the local carpark !!!

 

Oh... does common sense exist ... maybe so in Burnley !!!

 

But I agree... a parking ticket for parking outside your own house (as per other thread) is MADNESS !!!

[Guest perky88]

I agree they are not test cases, as in the small claims court .. but for a claimant .. very good to use until such a test case happens !!!!

 

I also disagree with CCTV issued tickets ... call me old fashioned but I beleive a ticket should be attached to a car !!!!

[TaxedAndConfused]

This story has so few details I wonder if actually the reporter was acting from a press release from the company and has no other information to back it up.

[TaxedAndConfused]

I support I will never know, I asked for more info using the reporter's link and got :

 

 

This message was created automatically by mail delivery software (Exim).

 

A message that you sent could not be delivered to one or more of its

recipients. This is a permanent error. The following address(es) failed:

 

[email protected]

unknown local-part "shussain" in domain "lancashire.newsquest.co.uk"

[gwc1000]

I think this needs investigating more. If S&B started enforcing in this car park in June, to go through the process of contacting the RK, sending their usual threats and getting the case into Court and winning by the beginning of September seems a little bit suspect to me.

[bennyowen]

The fine at burnley, S&B Parking, is excessive and unenforceable. If I were the defendant, I would pursue an appeal.

 

£90 for a parking fine paid within 28 days but £150 after. The case fall foul of UTCCR 1999.

[Guest perky88]

Obviously not bennyowen ... If the story is valid then it is far from unenforceable.

 

As for an appeal .. the defendant would have to fill in a skeleton argument, then pay for a tape transacript for the judge to see if an appeal is allowed - an appeal would only be allowed if the judge made a serious procedural error - not just because in the defendants case they got it wrong.

 

The costs for appeal would NOT be recoverable even if the defendant won .. so they could win the appeal and get the ticket cost back .. but they wouldnt get the appeal fee (£100) + tape cost back .. So not worth it

[Guest perky88]

gwc1000 .. Maybe S&B Parking use the same method as our company ... after 14-days the one and only reminder letter, if nothing received within 7-days of that a claim is commenced.

Not all companies send threatning letters, just the 1 reminder as I presume it states on their tickets.

Some courts hear small claims within 6-weeks .. so if they did everything on time .. it is entirely possible.

[gwc1000]

gwc1000 .. Maybe S&B Parking use the same method as our company ... after 14-days the one and only reminder letter, if nothing received within 7-days of that a claim is commenced.

Not all companies send threatning letters, just the 1 reminder as I presume it states on their tickets.

Some courts hear small claims within 6-weeks .. so if they did everything on time .. it is entirely possible.

But read the article perky. S&B issue a ticket (by post) and wait a further 28 days to increase the charge so now we are into a minimum of five weeks, they would have to send a reminder giving seven days (six weeks) then apply to the Court for a hearing. (another week) The defendant has fourteen days after service of the papers to acknowledge (nine weeks) and then a further twenty eight days to issue a defence. It doesn't add up.

Perky I have read your posts on your successes but I challenge you to reply to me with the case number of any one of them which was actually defended and which Court you have used so I can check it myself

[Big Man]

Interesting to note that perky 88 is so happy about the Burnley decision and the so called victory for the car park gestapo !

 

I think it should be taken with a pinch of salt, as there does not seem to be much substance with the story, and as for the rottweiler bailiffs being set upon another 2 hundred non payers, wot a load of tosh, even perky 88 knows that an unsatisfied CCJ is required before opening the bailiffs cage.

 

[Big Man]

Good point gwc1000, I would be most interested in that information too, cant beat a bit of research into the dark side.

 

Incedintally perky, I have'nt seen your reply to Pat Davies yet, re: how you identify vehicle drivers ?

 

I would also be interested into how you can raise a parking charge against O/K without involving the use of contract law?

[Guest perky88]

not quite gwc1000, your timings are not correct .. you can issue a claim online and the defendant has 14+4 days to reply, they could just file a defence in that case once an allocation questionaire has been filed it will be listed.

 

As for 28-days later following an acknowledgement .. incorrect, they have upto 14+4days to reply - if the file an acknowledgement the defence has to be submitted within 28+4days of the original service date - not 28days after the acknowledgement. ..

 

But even with your errors .... I take your point about the timings being tight .. DVLA take approx 1-week to reply, they did not say in the article if its 28-days from the letter or the charge date - but work from the charge date - a ticket issued on 1st June, 28th June the fine increases and reminder letter sent out giving 1week+2 stat days for service = 7th July ... Isue MCOL claim dated 9th July - 14+4 days for defence = 27th July .. Passed to local court for allocation - if all parties returned quickly then if the court has a short listing for small claims it is possible.

 

Easiest way would be to call Burnley County Court and ask them avg time to hear case from allocation questionaire .. if its something like 13, weeks .. then a date somewhere is wrong.

 

I still agree tight timings .. but possible.

[Guest perky88]

BigMan ... see my thread on "standard letter received" .. this will answer all your questions and keep you happy !!

[gwc1000]

Perky I can tell that you really do work for a private parking company!

You have totally ignored my request for information on any of your successes and ignored Bigman's question.

So I challenge you again: Give us the information

[Guest perky88]

What information could you obtain from a case number/court name ??

 

They will only tell you:

 

Claimant, Defendant and the order made "ie. Claim Dismissed", "JUdgement awarded for claimant for £xx.xx payable within 21days"

 

What will this tell you .. It could be a company suing an individual for anything (electrician for faulty work etc...)

 

And in any event, this information would ONLY be on public record after 28days have elapsed if the judgement has NOT been paid in full ..

 

Unless you (in your infinite wisdom) know of any other information you can obtain from the case number/court name !!!!

[gwc1000]

I assume then, perky you won't be giving me one case, because in your opinion it would be of no use to me.

[Zamzara]

I wouldn't be totally surprised that a judge ruled unfairly against motorists... it happens sometimes, and the justice system has always seemed to single out car drivers in many ways.

 

Nevertheless, I would still bet the 3 claims were undefended, given the timescales, and that the article writer seems very uninformed of even the basic issues, e.g. "used CCTV to identify motorists breaking the law".

[Big Man]

Ducked the issue again perky, most definitley a car park money grabber, what happened to the other half of your double act ?

 

I really do think that unless, perky, you have some constructive input to this forum, then dont waste genuine concerned people's time, this is supposed to be a help website, for friends with a common problem, as per the bank charges site, but I personally feel this behaviour is undermining the good genuine helpers on here.

[Howard0181]

I dont believe the story for one second. Poor newspaper reporting.

 

Perhaps a summons was issued and judgement obtained by default as no defence was filed.

 

No court in UK will support a fine or penalty by a private parking company.

 

People. Perky is an advocate for these companies who try and take money from drivers.

[Guest perky88]

gwc1000 .. I fail to see what it would acheive .. and actually I am not sure we have ANY cases where judgement has been won and the defendant hasnt paid within the 28days so the judgement can be removed.

 

Im not being evasive ... I have started a thread to which we will be explaning in detail a case that has been defended .. hardly the action of someone who hides behind things !!!!

[gwc1000]

I do admire perky. Rather than acting like a bull in a china shop he is cleverly slowly sowing seeds of doubt into people's minds.