We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum... Read More »
IMPORTANT: Please make sure your posts do not contain any personally identifiable information (both your own and that of others). When uploading images, please take care that you have redacted all personal information including number plates, reference numbers and QR codes (which may reveal vehicle information when scanned).
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Parking Fines Board Stickies - Comments and Feedback Thread
Crabman
Posts: 9,942 Forumite
Please use this thread for comments & feedback related to the instructional sticky threads on this board.
0
Comments
-
1) Start a separate new thread for your case - don't lump it all into one long thread or it becomes unworkable.Private Parking Companies (PPC)
(Martin's Article coming soon)
Make your suggestions below and when we've agreed on the content I'll stick it in a new thread.
2) Private Parking Company tickets are NOT fines or fixed penalties, they are invoices based on a presumed contract with the driver. When posting details, do NOT say who was driving, as PPC trolls do read these boards.
3) PPC charges have been shown to be generally unenforceable in Court, and they hardly ever issue proceedings, despite the threats in their intimidatory letters.
4) Do NOT write to the PPC to "appeal" the ticket - the appeals process is a complete sham, they just want your money.
5) If you don't take action on the ticket, the PPC will get the registered keeper's details from the DVLA, for a fee of £2.50. The registered keeper has no liability, since the presumed contract was formed with the driver. And if you don't tell the PPC who was driving, they don't have a case. Opinions vary on this, but generally the best advice is to ignore all correspondence they send you, and they will give up after 5 or 6 scary looking letters.
I have been providing assistance, including Lay Representation at Court hearings (current score: won 57, lost 14), to defendants in parking cases for over 5 years. I have an LLB (Hons) degree, and have a Graduate Diploma in Civil Litigation from CILEx. However, any advice given on these forums by me is NOT formal legal advice, and I accept no liability for its accuracy.0 -
To balance the discussion ... You should be aware that the courts do uphold charges when they have been issued correctly and the courts take a very dim view of any party being obstructive in proceedings.
The courts require ALL parties to follow the pre-action protocols to resolve matters, as many cases have shown sending unhelpful template letters such as the ones on certain sites can be shown that the keeper/driver has something to hide.
The courts DO realise that in reality people do not just let anyone borrow their cars and not remember, the courts also know that (on the balance of probabilities) if a letter comes for a small charge £40,£60 and it was someone else then most people would let other person responsible deal with it and not want the hastle.
If people ignore letters then again this could be seen by the court as not trying to resolve matters - Even if a claim fails costs can still be awarded if the court feels that a person did not try and resolve beforehand, as required under the pre action protocols .. This is defined in the CPR under rule 44.3 (the costs could be more than the original parking charge)
Below are articles taken from newspapers about cases where private parking companies did win, despite the keeper not confirming who was driving.
http://www.rochdaleonline.co.uk/news-features/2/community-news/15278/judge-enforces-parking-penalty-in-landmark-case
http://www.oldham-chronicle.co.uk/news-features/8/news/15246/parking-penalty-just-judge-rules
http://www.sundaymail.co.uk/news/scottish-news/2008/12/14/glasgow-driver-hit-with-5k-parking-fine-78057-20968709/0 -
The 2 cases you have quoted are the exceptions that prove the rule - and in both of those, there seems to be a body of evidence that the defendants were "set up" by the PPC through postings on forums.
There are many other cases where the PPC claims were dismissed, but whichever way it goes on the day, they cannot be described as "landmark" cases, as County Court decisions are not binding on other courts.
What needs to happen is that one of these rulings - whether in favour of a PPC or a defendant - needs to be appealed to the Court of Appeal (Civil Division), then there will be a definitive ruling on the legitimacy, or otherwise, of PPC charges.
You would think, since their business depends on it, that the PPCs would be keen to establish that their charges are enforceable through a binding precedent in a higher court, but they seem strangely reluctant to go down that route.
I have been providing assistance, including Lay Representation at Court hearings (current score: won 57, lost 14), to defendants in parking cases for over 5 years. I have an LLB (Hons) degree, and have a Graduate Diploma in Civil Litigation from CILEx. However, any advice given on these forums by me is NOT formal legal advice, and I accept no liability for its accuracy.0 -
The 2 cases you have quoted are the exceptions that prove the rule - and in both of those, there seems to be a body of evidence that the defendants were "set up" by the PPC through postings on forums.
There are many other cases where the PPC claims were dismissed, but whichever way it goes on the day, they cannot be described as "landmark" cases, as County Court decisions are not binding on other courts.
What needs to happen is that one of these rulings - whether in favour of a PPC or a defendant - needs to be appealed to the Court of Appeal (Civil Division), then there will be a definitive ruling on the legitimacy, or otherwise, of PPC charges.
You would think, since their business depends on it, that the PPCs would be keen to establish that their charges are enforceable through a binding precedent in a higher court, but they seem strangely reluctant to go down that route.
I would ask you to give your factual evidence to the statement "there seems to be a body of evidence that the defendants were "set up" by the PPC through postings on forums" - When a ticket is issued the person is unknown .. I am interested to know the FACTUAL evidence you have to support your claim ..
I would also ask for evidence that a claim against a parking company has been dismissed, we have the 1 excel case with Herheringon Jake, to which we have not seen a transcript of the judgement/case so FACTUALLY are unsure of the real reasons it was disallowed (except newspaper reports which we always take with pinch of salt) - as the poster agrees with when they comment on landmark rulings.
It has long been established that there is enough case law for private parking and/or clamping, each case is on its own merits following the precendants.
It is wrong, 100% to call ALL private paking invoices as un-enforceable as any 'poo' expert or other will state - even our dis credited ex-police civy employee will tell you as he has stated on the 'poo' website.0 -
I'm assuming from the above that you are Mike Perkins of Combined Parking Solutions, or one of his associates.
I can't give you the factual information you asked for, as I wasn't present at any of those hearings, but it does appear, certainly in the case of Stephen Thomas at Oldham, that he posted on the CAG forum admitting to being the driver, and that was used against him in court.
We could go on forever arguing the merits of individual cases, but as we both know, County Court hearings can be a lottery, depending on the mood of the Judge on the day, and the judgement is given on the "balance of probabilities" rather than "proof beyond reasonable doubt". And yes, you are quite right, we shouldn't say PPC invoices are 100% unenforceable, your two court wins reduce that figure to 99.9998%.
But as previously stated, the real issue is that a case needs to be appealed to a higher court to get a definitive ruling that sets a precedent. Will we see one of those from CPS in 2009?
I have been providing assistance, including Lay Representation at Court hearings (current score: won 57, lost 14), to defendants in parking cases for over 5 years. I have an LLB (Hons) degree, and have a Graduate Diploma in Civil Litigation from CILEx. However, any advice given on these forums by me is NOT formal legal advice, and I accept no liability for its accuracy.0 -
therealdeal wrote: »I would ask you to give your factual evidence to the statement "there seems to be a body of evidence that the defendants were "set up" by the PPC through postings on forums" - When a ticket is issued the person is unknown .. I am interested to know the FACTUAL evidence you have to support your claim ..
I would also ask for evidence that a claim against a parking company has been dismissed, we have the 1 excel case with Herheringon Jake, to which we have not seen a transcript of the judgement/case so FACTUALLY are unsure of the real reasons it was disallowed (except newspaper reports which we always take with pinch of salt) - as the poster agrees with when they comment on landmark rulings.
It has long been established that there is enough case law for private parking and/or clamping, each case is on its own merits following the precendants.
It is wrong, 100% to call ALL private paking invoices as un-enforceable as any 'poo' expert or other will state - even our dis credited ex-police civy employee will tell you as he has stated on the 'poo' website.
Could you advise as to whether you have any connection with one of these parking companies?0 -
-
therealdeal wrote: »I do not have a connection with any parking company.
I thought it was New Years Day not April Fools Day. You post constantly about cases allegedly won by Combined Parking Solutions, carry on a long running vendetta against a member of pepipoo and even point to the Combined Parking Solutions website fo further that vendetta, indicate that you have been in contact with Excel parking re a recent chickening out (sorry getting time wrong) and refer to members of a site which a certain PPC boss is campaigning against as "poo people". Add to that the same misleading information about the Vine case which is familiar to anyone who has seen the ignorant pronouncements of a certain PPC boss. Any you have no axe to grind? And are not connected? Are you ashamed of who you are or what you do?0 -
therealdeal wrote: »..
I would also ask for evidence that a claim against a parking company has been dismissed, we have the 1 excel case with Herheringon Jake, to which we have not seen a transcript of the judgement/case so FACTUALLY are unsure of the real reasons it was disallowed (except newspaper reports which we always take with pinch of salt) - as the poster agrees with when they comment on landmark rulings.
even our dis credited ex-police civy employee will tell you as he has stated on the 'poo' website.
Who's the "we" you keep referring to and the "our"?
I know you said you don't have a connection with any Parking Company but do you work for a Private Parking Company or perhaps not work for it but rather own or leech off it?
Having read MSE own advice on PPC invoices, it seems even Martin Lewis himself seems to agree that there are many "cowboys" in the business. He's a clever chap and I trust his advice.0 -
The harassment link goes to info that is out of date.
A better link is to the National Debtline factsheet
Factsheet | Harassment
This was updated last year and refers to the new laws.0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 350.4K Banking & Borrowing
- 252.9K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 453.3K Spending & Discounts
- 243.4K Work, Benefits & Business
- 598K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 176.6K Life & Family
- 256.5K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards