private company parking charges

[joe-90]

I've told you that all along. It's extortion and should be banned.

 

[Whitespirit66]

I've told you that all along. It's extortion and should be banned.

Yes, thanks Joe, but I think that's common knowledge.

As long as the 70% of people who get a PCN keep paying, these crooks aren't stopping any time soon.

 

[joe-90]

They should be arrested then.

 

[jeds]

Private parking companies can definitely pursue parking invoices through the courts. Anybody that tells you otherwise is talking out of their ar5e. The question is whether it is worth it. If you park for 6 or 8 hours in their car park and get an invoice for £125 you'd be a fool to let them take you to court. You are obviously taking the pi55 and my guess is a judge would have little sympathy. The parking companies know this and are likely to pursue it. On the other hand if you over stay for half or three quarters of hour or whatever then £125.00 is completely unreasonable. Parking companies know this also and are much less likely to pursue it.

 

[joe-90]

Why £125? Why not £2000? £10,000?

It all bolex. No-one can issue a 'fine'. Get over it.

 

[mattylad]

Care to list how many parking companies have been successful in court?

The answer to that is "not many".

Jeds - you are the one talking out of a rear end...

Because even thought the law changed to enable the parking company to seek information from the registered keeper (RK) the RK is not liable if they name the driver. Neither the driver nor the Rk are liable for a contract that they do not make.

Councils may be able to do it but private companies are not, they can "succesfully" be ignored.

If anybody considers caving in to these private parking demands then have a trip to http://forums.pepipoo.com and (after de personalising your data) show them the parking ticket where you will receive expert advice and probably help with any cases that go as far as court.

 

[jeds]

Why £125? Why not £2000? £10,000?

It all bolex. No-one can issue a 'fine'. Get over it.

You might want to google up the difference between a fine and an invoice. As long as x number of people pay up (which some will) there isn't much incentive for the parking companies to pursue people through the courts. But as people catch on, fewer will pay and they will start to pursue the extreme cases. So if it's half hour overstaying you are probably safe. But take the pi55 and eventually somebody will get stung.

 

[joe-90]

Give us an example then, of someone actually charged in court (he won't).


The whole notion of a parking charge is against contract law. You cannot enter into a contract you are unaware of entering. And who sets the parking charge? You still haven't told us.

 

[jeds]

Give us an example then, of someone actually charged in court (he won't).


The whole notion of a parking charge is against contract law. You cannot enter into a contract you are unaware of entering. And who sets the parking charge? You still haven't told us.

You might want to google up the word eventually. Who sets the parking charge is irrelevant. I'm not arguing with you about contract law - I tried to explain it to you once before but you don't understand it.

The fact is more and more people will cotton on to the tactics of parking companies and realise how difficult it is for them to pursue claims. As that happens they'll start to lose revenue and the time will come when they'll test out a few claims in court. Eventually somebody will get stung for it and it's likely to be somebody taking the pi55. My advice is don't let that be you.

 

[joe-90]

It's legally flawed mate. Only the police and council can set a fine - not a fooking car park copmpany.

If they can fine you £75 for parking in a free car park (they can't), then they could fine you £5000 - as the logic is still flawed. They can fine you a million pounds - or even a billion pounds. It's ludicrous to suggest that they can do that, but that is what YOU are saying. Don't try to educate me on contract law as you are obviously completely clueless.

Give me an example that went through the courts and the parking company won. Just one will do.




(he won't).

 

[mattylad]

There has been some Joe, however they are mainly only because they won by default because the victim was not present at court. ISTR thats because they were actually false names given to them.

With the PC being able to seek redress from the keeper, PATAS defines the keeper as the person that keeps the car at the time - NOT the registered keeper.

There are numerous threads on Pepipoo's forums and linking to other blogs etc where people have successfully stuck it to the parking companies and forced them to spend money when they are bound to lose.

The government has set up PATAS to adjudicate on parking cases which should be used before the courts.

 

[joe-90]

The only ones enforceable are like at the local hospital whereby you have to take a ticket to lift a boom arm and then pay on exit to lift a boom arm. Accepting the ticket on entry is proof that you accepted the terms of the contract. I believe that a real 'fine' is issued on behalf of the hospital trust and that is legally enforceable.
Parking in a shop car park is totally unenforceable.

 

[jeds]

It's legally flawed mate. Only the police and council can set a fine - not a fooking car park copmpany.

If they can fine you £75 for parking in a free car park (they can't), then they could fine you £5000 - as the logic is still flawed. They can fine you a million pounds - or even a billion pounds. It's ludicrous to suggest that they can do that, but that is what YOU are saying. Don't try to educate me on contract law as you are obviously completely clueless.

Give me an example that went through the courts and the parking company won. Just one will do.




(he won't).

COMBINED PARKING SOLUTIONS (CPS) V STEPHEN THOMAS IN THE OLDHAM COUNTY COURT. OCTOBER 2008.

In November 2007 car park managers CPS issued a parking charge notice of £85, reduced to £65 if paid promptly, against 26-year-old Stephen Thomas the registered keeper of a vehicle.

It was issued on behalf of its client St Andrew’s Church, Rochdale, after Mr Thomas’s vehicle was parked on the church’s private car park without a permit.
Mr Thomas was the registered keeper of the vehicle so the parking charge notice was served on him. Whilst Mr Thomas didn’t actually accept that he was the driver of the vehicle at the time the parking charge notice was issued he didn’t say that he wasn’t either. He said he could not remember if he was driving at the time although he did accept that he had parked at the church before. However on the same day as the ticket was issued he went on the internet and accessed a consumer website and asked for help. His posting was discovered by combined Parking solutions (CPS) who produced it in evidence! In the meantime however CPS discovered that Mr Thomas had modified the original posting when he heard that the matter was going to court. Mr Thomas admitted making a post on the website but could not remember what he wrote.

Mr Thomas also said that he had not seen the car park signs warning of enforcement although he did say that he had parked there before.
District Judge Ackroyd said on the balance of probabilities, Mr Thomas was driving the car.

He did not accept that Mr Thomas had not seen the warning signs so had, therefore, entered into a contract. And he said the charges were not disproportionately high so awarded the case to CPS.

Mr Thomas was ordered to pay the £135 parking charge with £1.86 interest.

The judge also ruled he must pay a £25 listing fee, £25 hearing fee, as well as £68 for Mr Perkins’ mileage and £3.50 for parking. Speaking after the hearing, Mr Perkins of the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) said: “This is a landmark hearing. Internet sites have always said these are unenforceable penalties but the judge clearly stated a conract was entered into, although the defendant never admitted to being the driver. I would warn people from going on these internet sites. If you have a legal question, see a solicitor.”

 

[securespark]

Now he's going to argue that the judge was wrong...

 

[ellal]

Now he's going to argue that the judge was wrong...

Its a funny thing about judges...

They seem to argue amongst themselves!

(some people bother to post a link... )

Right below where I believe jeds may have got his 'smoking gun', there is another case...

Scroll down the linked page and you'll find others too...

EXCEL PARKING SERVICES VS MS HETHERINGTON-JAKEMAN

In a ground-breaking decision, the judge quashed a series of £100 demands sent to Victoria Hetherington-Jakeman, who had allegedly left her car at the Portland Retail Park shopping centre for more than the permitted two hours on 3 separate occasions between September and November 2008.

Above the sign placed at the car park by Excel Parking services.

However no tickets were left on the windscreen of her Mercedes and she heard nothing from Excel until the following January when she was sent a bill for £300, followed by letters from bailiffs threatening to confiscate her property unless she paid up. The original demands were for £60 but Ms Hetherington-Jakeman said she did not receive them. She said that “Excel claimed the initial £60 parking tickets hadn't arrived because of a hold-up at the Royal Mail, though the Post Office said that wasn't true”. The demands increased to £100 each.

Excel had used a fixed camera to record her number plate as she entered and left the site. It then passed the details to the DVLA, which sent back an email with her name and address.

Ms Hetherington-Jakeman’s solicitor Mr Lee told Mansfield County Court that the levy of £100 per offence was an "unlawful penalty clause" intended to "frighten or intimidate" and therefore unenforceable.

This argument was accepted by District Judge Wall, who ruled that the fines did not have to be paid.

After the ruling Ms Hetherington-Jakeman said "Excel's behaviour has been absolutely disgraceful throughout. When I tried to contact them and the only way to do that was on a 50p-a-minute premium-rate phone line? I got no response. They said they couldn't discuss the matter.

Her solicitor Martin Lee, said: "In future, companies that charge these sorts of sums will have them struck out unless they can prove that they are a proper account of any financial loss.

"The courts have shown that unfairly high bank charges are a penalty charge and therefore unjustifiable. The same principle applies here."

Excel, lost its contract to run the Portland car park, said it was "disappointed" by the court ruling in Ms Hetherington-Jakeman's favour and was considering an appeal.

Comment - Ms Hetherington-Jakeman accepted that she was the driver and did not deny that she was aware of the terms and conditions of using the car park. She simply said that the fines amounted to an unlawful penalty clause which the judge accepted. There was no financial loss to the car park owner in terms of parking fees as none were applicable.