Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@.

Search
  • FIRST POST
    • worn out
    • By worn out 27th Oct 17, 9:58 AM
    • 74Posts
    • 9Thanks
    worn out
    parking in London
    • #1
    • 27th Oct 17, 9:58 AM
    parking in London 27th Oct 17 at 9:58 AM
    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.
Page 1
    • pogofish
    • By pogofish 27th Oct 17, 10:08 AM
    • 7,897 Posts
    • 8,009 Thanks
    pogofish
    • #2
    • 27th Oct 17, 10:08 AM
    • #2
    • 27th Oct 17, 10:08 AM
    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.
    Last edited by pogofish; 27-10-2017 at 10:11 AM.
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 27th Oct 17, 10:11 AM
    • 15,841 Posts
    • 24,567 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    • #3
    • 27th Oct 17, 10:11 AM
    • #3
    • 27th Oct 17, 10:11 AM
    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.

    is this worth defending on this basis do you think ?
    Do you have a court claim? They’re not really litigious - just the odd foray.

    http://www.bmpa.eu/companydata/LCP_Parking_Services.html

    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.
    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.
    We cannot provide you with a silver bullet to get you out of this. You have to be in for the long run, and need to involve yourself in research and work for you to get rid of this. It is not simple. We will help, but can't do it for you.

    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.
    • worn out
    • By worn out 17th Nov 17, 11:48 PM
    • 74 Posts
    • 9 Thanks
    worn out
    • #4
    • 17th Nov 17, 11:48 PM
    • #4
    • 17th Nov 17, 11:48 PM
    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.
    Originally posted by Umkomaas
    true enough, ZZPS have written, and added £60 for good measure. I'll continue reading through the threads on here to get myself briefed. thanks
    • worn out
    • By worn out 24th Nov 17, 3:37 PM
    • 74 Posts
    • 9 Thanks
    worn out
    • #5
    • 24th Nov 17, 3:37 PM
    • #5
    • 24th Nov 17, 3:37 PM
    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.
    Originally posted by Umkomaas
    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.
    • worn out
    • By worn out 6th Dec 17, 1:17 PM
    • 74 Posts
    • 9 Thanks
    worn out
    • #6
    • 6th Dec 17, 1:17 PM
    • #6
    • 6th Dec 17, 1:17 PM
    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.
    • Half_way
    • By Half_way 6th Dec 17, 2:59 PM
    • 3,870 Posts
    • 5,443 Thanks
    Half_way
    • #7
    • 6th Dec 17, 2:59 PM
    • #7
    • 6th Dec 17, 2:59 PM
    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"
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

232Posts Today

1,457Users online

Martin's Twitter