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
    • 84Posts
    • 10Thanks
    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
    • 8,126 Posts
    • 8,368 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
    • 16,652 Posts
    • 26,040 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    • #3
    • 27th Oct 17, 10:11 AM
    • #3
    • 27th Oct 17, 10:11 AM
    If you!!!8217;ve read the Beavis case you would know that !!!8216;loss!!!8217; is a lost cause. A cul de sac you!!!8217;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!!!8217;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!!!8217;ve read where this has been raised, Judges are saying, !!!8216;If the LA are not interested in criminal prosecution, my civil court is not the place for this!!!8217; (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!!!8217;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
    • 84 Posts
    • 10 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
    • 84 Posts
    • 10 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
    • 84 Posts
    • 10 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
    • 3,993 Posts
    • 5,647 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"
    • worn out
    • By worn out 28th Dec 17, 3:49 PM
    • 84 Posts
    • 10 Thanks
    worn out
    • #8
    • 28th Dec 17, 3:49 PM
    • #8
    • 28th Dec 17, 3:49 PM
    LCP Parking services, harlesden plaza
    • beamerguy
    • By beamerguy 28th Dec 17, 4:05 PM
    • 6,942 Posts
    • 9,038 Thanks
    beamerguy
    • #9
    • 28th Dec 17, 4:05 PM
    • #9
    • 28th Dec 17, 4:05 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.
    Originally posted by worn out
    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
    RBS - MNBA - CAPITAL ONE - LLOYDS

    DISGUSTING BEHAVIOUR
    • worn out
    • By worn out 28th Dec 17, 4:12 PM
    • 84 Posts
    • 10 Thanks
    worn out
    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
    Originally posted by beamerguy

    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.
    • beamerguy
    • By beamerguy 28th Dec 17, 4:27 PM
    • 6,942 Posts
    • 9,038 Thanks
    beamerguy
    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.
    Originally posted by worn out
    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 cases
    RBS - MNBA - CAPITAL ONE - LLOYDS

    DISGUSTING BEHAVIOUR
    • pappa golf
    • By pappa golf 28th Dec 17, 4:28 PM
    • 8,706 Posts
    • 9,279 Thanks
    pappa golf
    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.
    Originally posted by worn out
    if it did , then the DVLA would have been shut down ,,,,,,,,,
    • beamerguy
    • By beamerguy 28th Dec 17, 4:40 PM
    • 6,942 Posts
    • 9,038 Thanks
    beamerguy
    if it did , then the DVLA would have been shut down ,,,,,,,,,
    Originally posted by pappa golf
    hahahahaha ... so good, what you on pappa, i want some
    RBS - MNBA - CAPITAL ONE - LLOYDS

    DISGUSTING BEHAVIOUR
    • worn out
    • By worn out 28th Dec 17, 4:50 PM
    • 84 Posts
    • 10 Thanks
    worn out
    if it did , then the DVLA would have been shut down ,,,,,,,,,
    Originally posted by pappa golf
    I'm with you on that one !

    I was thinking along the lines about profiting from an illegal act, which I think is in the proceeds legislation. There are several cases where 'contracts' were formed , but because an illegal act was implicit the contracts were declared unenforceable...on the basis that you cannot contract based on an illegal action.
    • worn out
    • By worn out 28th Dec 17, 4:53 PM
    • 84 Posts
    • 10 Thanks
    worn out
    this was one link -

    https://www.morton-fraser.com/knowledge-hub/illegal-contracts-supreme-court-clarifies-law
    • beamerguy
    • By beamerguy 28th Dec 17, 5:02 PM
    • 6,942 Posts
    • 9,038 Thanks
    beamerguy
    I'm with you on that one !

    I was thinking along the lines about profiting from an illegal act, which I think is in the proceeds legislation. There are several cases where 'contracts' were formed , but because an illegal act was implicit the contracts were declared unenforceable...on the basis that you cannot contract based on an illegal action.
    Originally posted by worn out
    NO NO, parking scammers are just low key stuff as is
    a county court. Just concentrate on winning and if it
    goes to court (doubtful), you can claim your costs for a win
    RBS - MNBA - CAPITAL ONE - LLOYDS

    DISGUSTING BEHAVIOUR
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 28th Dec 17, 10:40 PM
    • 54,012 Posts
    • 67,683 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    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.
    Originally posted by worn out
    Nope.

    Neither of the points you made in your opening post would win at a hearing, as a defence. However, when people do get claims on here, we do help them with a decent defence and 99% of fully-assisted people win.
    PRIVATE PCN? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT TWO Clicks needed for advice:
    Top of the page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    Advice to ignore is WRONG, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • nosferatu1001
    • By nosferatu1001 29th Dec 17, 12:04 AM
    • 1,704 Posts
    • 1,915 Thanks
    nosferatu1001
    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
    Originally posted by beamerguy
    If you’re assuming ex Turpi is a magic bullet, you can be in for a shock.
    It’s not a strong defence.
    • worn out
    • By worn out 2nd Jan 18, 2:08 PM
    • 84 Posts
    • 10 Thanks
    worn out
    Would you say that once you pass the ANPR cameras you have 'agreed' to be bound by the contract terms and thus that is the time the contract started ? I ask this, even though I know the BPA CoP states 'grace periods' should be allowed. For instance, the BPA state 10 mins minimum should be allowed for leaving the car park at the end of the parking period, PLUS time allowed at the start to read the signs. This suggests to me entry through the ANPR is 'conditional acceptance subject to reading the T&Cs'. The contract starts after the initial grace period allowance has passed and ends 10 minutes before exiting through the ANPR cameras. In my case, I was allowed the 10 minutes at the end, but only one minute at the beginning (a total of 11 minutes). While this is not made known to the driver anywhere in the car park it is the BPA CoP..however it took me (the other day) 7 minutes to actually read the copies I have of the T&Cs, the parking conditions and pricing rules. I was in and out in 16 minutes so this might suggest any overstay was not of any significance which the BPA state 'the odd few minutes should not be pursued'.

    This is the extract from the BPA CoP

    13.2 You should allow the driver a reasonable !!!8216;grace period!!!8217;in which to decide if they are going to stay or go. If thedriver is on your land without permission you should stillallow them a grace period to read your signs and leavebefore you take enforcement action.
    13.3 You should be prepared to tell us the specific grace periodat a site if our compliance team or our agents ask what it is.
    13.4 You should allow the driver a reasonable period to leave theprivate car park after the parking contract has ended, beforeyou take enforcement action. If the location is one whereparking is normally permitted, the Grace Period at the endof the parking period should be a minimum of 10 minutes
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 3rd Jan 18, 12:59 AM
    • 54,012 Posts
    • 67,683 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Would you say that once you pass the ANPR cameras you have 'agreed' to be bound by the contract terms and thus that is the time the contract started ?
    Nope. We would not say that. A daft, embarrassingly anti-consumer, unreasonable & unfair argument, spouted by desperate PPCs and their Trade Bodies. It's defendable.


    In my case, I was allowed the 10 minutes at the end, but only one minute at the beginning (a total of 11 minutes).
    Same as this case then, only this person has a PE PCN:

    http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5761491

    I would not be concerned about defending either case, clearly you need some minutes on arrival and have not agreed to any contract on the threshold of the car park site! And if you are allowed AT LEAST ten minutes to leave, then clearly 11 minutes all told is more than reasonable and indicates the driver cannot have outstayed actual parking time when the 10 minutes 'leaving' grace time is taken off. And never mind the other argument, that the exist camera may not be synched with the entrance timer and/or synched with any separate PDT machine...which would only need to be ONE minute out!
    Last edited by Coupon-mad; 03-01-2018 at 1:03 AM.
    PRIVATE PCN? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT TWO Clicks needed for advice:
    Top of the page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    Advice to ignore is WRONG, unless in Scotland/NI.

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

5,312Posts Today

5,916Users online

Martin's Twitter