tinyurl.com/5sdfz6z
This could change things.
Pat
|
|
An incorrect emotive headline, it is not a fine but a penalty, as stated in the text. No civil court would enforce it and I would not pay one anyway. I don't think it will change anything. The service area operator has waffled out of any flack by saying it is their policy to rescind any penalties issued to tired drivers, (and pigs fly).
|
Unenforceable scam invoice, as ON says.
The tone of the article shows many people think these things have to be paid.
The parking company stopped writing to me about my Moto 'ticket' after about nine months.
Although I understand - possibly from one of Pat's posts - that transport companies do have formal contractual arrangements with Moto for overnight parking,
|
I like what one of the comments says:
"...the "Parking Charge Notice" is NOT a fine, sorry AA you have been fooled, it is a speculative invoice that the motorist had every right to ignore..."
"Speculative invoice" - neat! I do love it when language is used so aptly.
|
I wouldn't normally link to the BR on here, but while googling for MSA operators' legal obligations I found a thorough, in-depth discussion on this subject on t'other side in 2008:
www.honestjohn.co.uk/forum/post/index.htm?t=60883
|
>>
>> "Speculative invoice" - neat! I do love it when language is used so aptly.
>>
Brilliant. It sums up all similar scams, such as those trying to charge for listings in probably imaginary trade directories, or for vital H&S literature.
|
Our local shysters are still at it all the time. There is a service road at the back of our shopping mall which delivery vans use and is also used by some residents of flats above the shops.
To access it you go past the camera and you get a pcn 'cos they can't tie the picture up with a ticket from the machine.
The local rag reported one woman's distress at being invoiced £80 odd recently. She was, of course, ex-directory, as they all seem to be, so I couldn't help her.
I've written to the paper a few times but they never publish my letters. Why, I'm quoting them the rules, not making things up. Or are they in league with the parking company ?
I just wish this whole sorry scam could get some national publicity !
Ted
|
One of my customers is dealing with the same, he has a history of depression and was driving to the North of Scotland but he was ill on the way so stopped at a service station in Cumbria. He fell asleep for several hours and is now getting all sorts of threats.
If I see him again a soon I may ask if I could give him your details? This entire issue has really affected him badly, he knows legally they can't touch him but the constant threats is affecting him.
Ted there is confusion with regard to that road, e.g originally part of Manchester Road, the signs in the car park say no public right of way, but I would have thought the route still exists as a road?
|
It's been a right of way for the last 45 yrs, at least.
The part I'm talking about is the service road behind the shops on Wilbraham Road.
You don't even need to go into the offending car park to access it...but you do go within range of the camera.
I'll speak to your pal if needed but why not send him the Pepipoo information off the web as well.
Ted
|
...I've written to the paper a few times but they never publish my letters. Why, I'm quoting them the rules, not making things up. Or are they in league with the parking company ?...
Ted,
The paper won't be in league with the parking company, but as you are finding, many local papers are surprisingly cautious about what they publish.
If you've written several letters - of a suitably temperate nature - I'm disappointed the letters editor hasn't contacted you to explain why they are not being used.
All I can suggest is you ring the paper, ask to speak to the editor or news editor, and take it from there.
Their approach might be to do your story - local man takes on parking company and wins - complete with a pic of you and one of your vehicles at the offending location.
|
|
As with banks and their crap letters (and fines) we just write back thanking them for their time and also enclosing an invoice equaling or slightly raising the amount. Horlicks to the lot of them, bunch of fools.
|
|
Interesting - Look forward to Iffy's response
|
...Look forward to Iffy's response...
"They would say that, wouldn't they?", is the short answer.
There's nothing checkable on the website, which is about as authoritative on this topic as the sites linked to on another thread by Suppose concerning the police caution.
Having said that, it is accepted literally one or two of these tickets may have been enforced by the courts.
One often quoted relates to a man who, it turned out, was parking every day, all day, and was blocking the entrance to a church.
He was an arrogant fool taking the mick, and no doubt the judge thought he deserved taking down a peg or two.
Thousands of private tickets are issued every year to what we might call once-only offenders.
None of these are ever taken to court, which they surely would be if the companies thought they had any chance of winning.
They know these tickets are nothing other than scam invoices, and any court action can easily be defended on any number of levels.
This next bit can't be checked, but I've seen forum posts from a couple of people claiming to be former employees in the back office of a parking company.
They both said about two-thirds of issued tickets are paid.
They also both said they'd never seen the companies they worked for attempt court action.
|
|
That's a worthy post Iffy. Note it everyone.
|
>> They also both said they'd never seen the companies they worked for attempt court action.
>>
Cats have four legs. Fido has four legs. But Fido is a dog.
case law:
www.ukparkingcontrol.com/legal/case-law.aspx
This month's CCJs:
www.ukparkingcontrol.com/legal/ccj.aspx
|
...This month's CCJs:..
I thought you might have learned a lesson about dodgy info on websites from the police caution discussion.
But for the benefit of others:
One site is known to publish a list of CCJs which relate to genuine civil debt judgments, which are nothing to do with parking.
The linked list is undated, and could be made up.
If those judgments are genuine, big if, they will relate to people who've not paid their council tax, or credit card bill, or rent, etc etc.
County Court judgments are not a secret, but as far as I know, they are not published online by the courts themselves.
Googling one of these judgments - Connell £314.59 9MA07347 - produces several hits, but only from debt recovery company websites.
The google also produces a forum discussion - from 2008 - which gives you an idea what the parking company means by 'this month'.
|
>> Cats have four legs. Fido has four legs. But Fido is a dog.
>>
>> case law:
>> www.ukparkingcontrol.com/legal/case-law.aspx
Read between the lines in that one. The Judge's summary said he found the guy to be "disingenuous" That's a nice way of saying a lying stroppy git who needs a slap.
>>
>> This month's CCJs:
>> www.ukparkingcontrol.com/legal/ccj.aspx
10? TEN? out of how many "parking charge notices" issued? heard the phrase " a pee in the ocean"?
The common advice stands. Ignore them. do nothing and nothing will happen.
|
This is a link to a genuine court judgment earlier this year against a private parking company:
www.hms-worcester.me.uk/Judgement/Page3.jpg
The highlighted point 12 is the interesting one.
The judge found the demand for £50, and then £100, was effectively an attempt to impose a penalty.
Since no private company has the power to fine a citizen, the demand has no standing.
All the ins and outs are here:
forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=62757
Scroll down to the last post for current links to the full judgment and the correspondence.
No two cases are the same, and the judgment of a county court judge, even one who is Queen's Counsel, doesn't bind another court.
But should my much-promised court dates ever materialise, the general principle and the judgment will form part of my case.
|
...and the judgment of a county court judge, even one who is Queen's Counsel, doesn't bind another court...
The not deliberate mistake:
This was an appeal hearing against an earlier ruling by a district judge at Hereford County Court.
For convenience, the appeal was heard in the Worcester County Court building.
But it must have been heard by a more senior judge, this explains why he signs himself 'His Honour Judge Daniel Pearce-Higgins', and not 'District Judge Pearce-Higgins'.
It's of more than pedantic interest because the judgment of the more senior judge/court carries more legal weight.
So it's an even bloodier nose for the parking company.
|
>> The not deliberate mistake:
>>
>> This was an appeal hearing against an earlier ruling by a district judge at Hereford
>> County Court.
>>
I'd noticed it was a Circuit Judge but hadn't twigged that as being out of the ordinary. Last time I was in a County Court the lower tier judiciary were still called Registrars and did very little contested civil stuff other than small claims.
|
Methinks someone is being a little disingenuous.
The full judgement is worth reading.
www.hms-worcester.me.uk/Judgement/Page1.jpg
www.hms-worcester.me.uk/Judgement/Page2.jpg
The case was about a "penalty" for trespassing. The land in question did not allow parking for a single second. Motorway service station notices are different in that the contract you enter in to is to park up to 2 hours for free, and beyond that you are permitted to park if you pay as per their advertised tariff.
The judge found that the notice in this case DID form a contract, even though the driver said he had not seen the notices.
The judge found against the company because he considered the sum demanded to be a penalty, and not a claim for liquidated damages, for the trespass.
|
...Motorway service station notices are different in that the contract you enter in to is to park up to 2 hours for free, and beyond that you are permitted to park if you pay as per their advertised tariff...
No material difference in the majority of cases.
Motorway service stations charge about £8 an hour for extra parking, but the 'ticket' is always for £70 or more.
I think my highest demand was for £280 - for a 42 minute overstay.
It's an unenforceable attempt at a fine.
They might stand a chance if they sent you an invoice for the correct charge, but they don't, presumably because there's no money in it.
They can't say the extra money is damages, because they've suffered none - other than what you - arguably - should have paid.
If you read the judgment carefully, the judge said the notices could only be seen as an attempt to set the damages at £50.
Nothing wrong with that, but it's no more than opening offer.
The parker then has the right to make a counter offer, which brings us back to the published parking tariff - if there is one.
|
"our policy of not charging drivers who have taken a nap for reasons of safety.”
Yeah right.
|
Free parking for safety reasons! - Old Navy
