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 QR codes, number plates and reference numbers.
parking in London
worn_out
Posts: 161 Forumite
Has anyone come across LCP Parking services Ltd ? They have 5 car parks in London and are chasing me for £100 after I lost at POPLA.
I made a mistake venturing into a shopping area car park thinking it had a free period - it didn't, my mistake.
Since then I've read both the Beavis case(free parking period) and the Cargius case (paid for parking)..The latter case basically said Cargius had paid £4 for 4 hours and thus the parking charge wasn't the sole source of income for parking Eye, and the charge was a penalty.
In my case LCP charge £8 for 4hours, have the 5 car parks (which are unmanned) and a central admin office.My thinking is the bulk of LCP income is from parking fees or contract parking and therefor the 'estimate of loss' cannot be £35 perhour for dealing with my contavention (a total cost to them of over £100). I say this because their staff costs and overheads are covered by their main income revenues from the 5 car parks, and they make a healthy profit - last year the directors paid themselves £55,000 in dividends on top of their salary and pension costs.
The Cargius case seems to support my argument it is a penalty and not a true estimate of cost. (It says on the car park signs £100 for contravention of the T&Cs).
is this worth defending on this basis do you think ?
A second argument I have is there doesn't seem to be any planning approval for the signs or ANPR cameras , an FOI to the local council failed to come up with any application. I'm still following this line with the council to double check there aren't exemptions or if having been there for 20 years it's somehow implied approval ? Anyone familiar with planning regs ?
Thank you for reading.
I made a mistake venturing into a shopping area car park thinking it had a free period - it didn't, my mistake.
Since then I've read both the Beavis case(free parking period) and the Cargius case (paid for parking)..The latter case basically said Cargius had paid £4 for 4 hours and thus the parking charge wasn't the sole source of income for parking Eye, and the charge was a penalty.
In my case LCP charge £8 for 4hours, have the 5 car parks (which are unmanned) and a central admin office.My thinking is the bulk of LCP income is from parking fees or contract parking and therefor the 'estimate of loss' cannot be £35 perhour for dealing with my contavention (a total cost to them of over £100). I say this because their staff costs and overheads are covered by their main income revenues from the 5 car parks, and they make a healthy profit - last year the directors paid themselves £55,000 in dividends on top of their salary and pension costs.
The Cargius case seems to support my argument it is a penalty and not a true estimate of cost. (It says on the car park signs £100 for contravention of the T&Cs).
is this worth defending on this basis do you think ?
A second argument I have is there doesn't seem to be any planning approval for the signs or ANPR cameras , an FOI to the local council failed to come up with any application. I'm still following this line with the council to double check there aren't exemptions or if having been there for 20 years it's somehow implied approval ? Anyone familiar with planning regs ?
Thank you for reading.
0
Comments
-
Please start by reading the Newbies Sticky at the top of this forum. That lays-out your remaining options and points you at the best ways on preparing defences.
LCP are known here, yes. Recent threads about them should be read when putting a potential defence together but its important you understand the basics and how they relate to your situation first.0 -
If you’ve read the Beavis case you would know that ‘loss’ is a lost cause. A cul de sac you’re backing yourself into.
Cargius is not case law, so not something to wholly rely on.
Do you have a court claim? They’re not really litigious - just the odd foray.is this worth defending on this basis do you think ?
http://www.bmpa.eu/companydata/LCP_Parking_Services.html
In all the court cases I’ve read where this has been raised, Judges are saying, ‘If the LA are not interested in criminal prosecution, my civil court is not the place for this’ (or words to that effect). You could rock the boat, learn about the difference between Planning Permission (for cameras on poles) and Advertising Consent for signs above a certain size and then raise a stink with the LA. The latter is a criminal issue and retrospective consent cannot be given (but that’s not stopped councils previously once the car is out of the bag!).A second argument I have is there doesn't seem to be any planning approval for the signs or ANPR cameras , an FOI to the local council failed to come up with any application.
Your next stage in this story is likely to be a series of (harmless/powerless) debt collector letters, so prepare yourself by reading the NEWBIES FAQ sticky, post #4 about how to deal with them.Please note, we are not a legal advice forum. I personally don't get involved in critiquing court case Defences/Witness Statements, so unable to help on that front. Please don't ask. .
I provide only my personal opinion, it is not a legal opinion, it is simply a personal one. I am not a lawyer.
Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day; show him how to catch fish, and you feed him for a lifetime.Private Parking Firms - Killing the High Street0 -
If you’ve read the Beavis case you would know that ‘loss’ is a lost cause. A cul de sac you’re backing yourself into.
Cargius is not case law, so not something to wholly rely on.
Do you have a court claim? They’re not really litigious - just the odd foray.
http://www.bmpa.eu/companydata/LCP_Parking_Services.html
In all the court cases I’ve read where this has been raised, Judges are saying, ‘If the LA are not interested in criminal prosecution, my civil court is not the place for this’ (or words to that effect). You could rock the boat, learn about the difference between Planning Permission (for cameras on poles) and Advertising Consent for signs above a certain size and then raise a stink with the LA. The latter is a criminal issue and retrospective consent cannot be given (but that’s not stopped councils previously once the car is out of the bag!).
Your next stage in this story is likely to be a series of (harmless/powerless) debt collector letters, so prepare yourself by reading the NEWBIES FAQ sticky, post #4 about how to deal with them.
true enough, ZZPS have written, and added £60 for good measure. I'll continue reading through the threads on here to get myself briefed. thanks0 -
If you’ve read the Beavis case you would know that ‘loss’ is a lost cause. A cul de sac you’re backing yourself into.
Cargius is not case law, so not something to wholly rely on.
Do you have a court claim? They’re not really litigious - just the odd foray.
http://www.bmpa.eu/companydata/LCP_Parking_Services.html
In all the court cases I’ve read where this has been raised, Judges are saying, ‘If the LA are not interested in criminal prosecution, my civil court is not the place for this’ (or words to that effect). You could rock the boat, learn about the difference between Planning Permission (for cameras on poles) and Advertising Consent for signs above a certain size and then raise a stink with the LA. The latter is a criminal issue and retrospective consent cannot be given (but that’s not stopped councils previously once the car is out of the bag!).
Your next stage in this story is likely to be a series of (harmless/powerless) debt collector letters, so prepare yourself by reading the NEWBIES FAQ sticky, post #4 about how to deal with them.
Thanks for that. Am I right in thinking that failure to apply for (or renew) advertising consent is illegal, regardless as to whether the LA decide to pursue the matter ? It's not compulsory for a LA to prosecute , they may in fact just request planning consent. This surely doesn't detract from the illegality of the signage..and as such can you assume then that as the signs are illegal then there can be no contract with the driver/owner ? It surely doesn't rely on the LA taking action, some LA's have bigger priorities and don't get round to dealing with these smaller matters, thatdoesn't make them legal.0 -
The LA have written to me stating that they are pursuing LCP for the illegal parking signs. This confirms the signs were in breach of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 S224 (3) .where it states "if any person displays an advertisement in contravention of the regulations he shall be guilty of an offence........".
This should be enough to establish that a 'contract' which relies on the illegal signs is invalid. ? Surely it is not open to interpretation by a District Judge.0 -
who's car park was it?From the Plain Language Commission:
"The BPA has surely become one of the most socially dangerous organisations in the UK"0 -
LCP Parking services, harlesden plaza0
-
The LA have written to me stating that they are pursuing LCP for the illegal parking signs. This confirms the signs were in breach of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 S224 (3) .where it states "if any person displays an advertisement in contravention of the regulations he shall be guilty of an offence........".
This should be enough to establish that a 'contract' which relies on the illegal signs is invalid. ? Surely it is not open to interpretation by a District Judge.
No permission for signs = no contract
If LCP are stupid enough to see you in court, let
the judge do the spanking.
For your pure pleasure, it would be worth telling
your story to the local press which will let others
know and if the signs are illegal, refunds are due
for those who paid0 -
No permission for signs = no contract
If LCP are stupid enough to see you in court, let
the judge do the spanking.
For your pure pleasure, it would be worth telling
your story to the local press which will let others
know and if the signs are illegal, refunds are due
for those who paid
This is the view i've been taking but i've got unnerved by comments about this being just a minor infringement and easily rectified, and judges are saying not enough to nullify the contract. I was looking at the Proceeds from Crimes legislation to see if it helped, but there's nothing specific I can rely on.0 -
This is the view i've been taking but i've got unnerved by comments about this being just a minor infringement and easily rectified, and judges are saying not enough to nullify the contract. I was looking at the Proceeds from Crimes legislation to see if it helped, but there's nothing specific I can rely on.
Don't know where you have been reading this but
if they did not have permission for the signs, for all
purposes they were not there and there is no contract
if the signs were illegal
Proceeds from Crimes is where the authorities can claim
monies from someone who has been convicted of a
crime, say fraud, and they have assets
EG: Benefit fraud of £50,000 and they owned a property
elsewhere so then the tax payer would retrieve monies
Nothing to do with parking cases0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 343.1K Banking & Borrowing
- 250.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 449.6K Spending & Discounts
- 235.1K Work, Benefits & Business
- 607.8K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 173K Life & Family
- 247.8K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 15.9K Discuss & Feedback
- 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards