Parking Ticket Appeals successes and failures

zehros

This may be of use to you who have received a civil parking enforcement notice. My legal representation informs me that a S172 does not apply. You are only legally obliged to inform Police, Council etc of the driver of the vehicle at the alleged time of alleged offence. Private parking enforcements must prove the identity of the driver. The registered vehicle keeper is not legally obliged to idenitfy the driver. That is quite ethical. They have no power to force you to identify the driver. Therefore the onus is on them to provide photographic evidence or witness statements (which can be challenged).
Watch this space!...we are fighting for some 500+ NHS workers, many of whom are front line trauma teams, who have been issued with a private enforcement of £80 for parking onsite at their Hospital.

Coupon-mad

zehros wrote: »

This may be of use to you who have received a civil parking enforcement notice. My legal representation informs me that a S172 does not apply. You are only legally obliged to inform Police, Council etc of the driver of the vehicle at the alleged time of alleged offence. Private parking enforcements must prove the identity of the driver. The registered vehicle keeper is not legally obliged to idenitfy the driver. That is quite ethical. They have no power to force you to identify the driver. Therefore the onus is on them to provide photographic evidence or witness statements (which can be challenged).
Watch this space!...we are fighting for some 500+ NHS workers, many of whom are front line trauma teams, who have been issued with a private enforcement of £80 for parking onsite at their Hospital.

Everything you say is correct and we could have told you that for free, you don't need legal representation for a mickey mouse bogus ticket. You don't need to 'fight', you can all just ignore the tickets. Don't communicate with the PPC, nothing will happen.

Instead concentrate on making complaints about harassment (a criminal offence) regarding a debt that does not exist and would not be enforced if taken to Court:

http://www.nationaldebtline.co.uk/england_wales/factsheet.php?page=03_harassment

Why not make some group complaints to the bodies suggested on that factsheet. Stop taking the tickets so seriously, and make sure no colleagues are daft enough to pay.

HTH

John_D_C_2

I took on a major supermarket, **** Car Parks and **** **** PLC (Their collection agency.)


I had gone into ****** car park and left the car for 10 minutes to go across the road and sign some papers with the intention of then doing my regular shopping. When I came back I found a ticket saying I had a parking charge of £50 as I had “LEFT SITE”. I corresponded with them after the second fail to pay notice. You will see from the letter how I dealt with it on the “Bring it on” principle.


I wrote to ****** MD and Branch Manager, **** Car Parks CEO and **** **** PLC and also sent them a data request under section 7(1) via recorded delivery including information under section 7(1)(d) of the Data protection Act 1998


They withdrew with as little dignity as they could muster, though I may still bring action against **** Car Parks CEO and **** **** PLC for failure to comply with the Data Protection Act as they failed to reply to my request.


The Letter to **** Car Parks (excluding photos):

---

Dear Sir/ Madam,
I am receipt of your letter dated 14/04/10. I am perplexed and am unable to understand why you are writing to me.

I did not breach any contractual relationship with ******, indeed, your accusation that I in any way owe any monies to ******, it’s agents, partners, colleagues and/or contractors is clearly not the case.

Whilst I have in the past parked in ****** ***** car park, nipped across the road to sign papers then come back to purchase my shopping I have never breached to posted signage restrictions.

You claim on the original ticket (Appendix 01) that I “Left site”, in your subsequent letter dated 14/04/10 (Appendix 02) you claimed “Failure to adhere to signage on site”.

I presume your attempts to extract money from me are based on some notion of an implicit contractual relationship that is enacted by my implicit acceptance of your parking conditions as posted on your signs in the ***** ****** car park.

No sign exists in the ***** ****** car park that says leaving the car park is a finable “offence”, indeed no reference whatsoever is made in relation to leaving the premises. The photos in Appendix 03 and

Appendix 04 clearly show that no such restriction is stipulated as do all the other photographs I have of all the other signs in ***** ****** car park.

It would therefore seem that this notion of “Left site” being a “Failure to adhere to signage on site” is either a one off aberration on your part or part of an ongoing attempt to unlawfully extract money from innocent people through a process of demanding money with menaces.

If this matter is not dropped by you and ****** I will be forced to take the matter further as I will have to presume that this is an ongoing conspiracy to intentionally defraud the public of money unlawfully rather than an aberration.

As part of this process of my County Court defence I shall contact the DVLA and inform them that I believe an inappropriate request was made for my home details from my car number plate where you knew that you had no legal grounds to do so and thus no reasonable cause but went ahead with a spurious allegation that you had a claim against me.

I shall contact the Information Commissioner and inform the Commissioner that I believe an inappropriate request was made for my details from the DVLA for information that you were not legally entitled to and that as a result you may have committed an offence or offences under data protection legislation.

As a former press officer I will not hesitate to contact the press and inform them that many customers of ****** may have had a persistent fraud perpetrated against them and will use the protection of judicial privilege to state this in the court. I will also suggest that they may want to investigate nationally how many people may have made payments to make this unlawful harassment stop.

I shall contact the Police and inform them that many customers of ****** may have had a persistent frauds perpetrated against them. I will insist they investigate this complaint that a criminal conspiracy between knowingly participating parties may be taking place.

I shall contact the DVLA and make a freedom of information request for a disclosure as to how often ****** and/or in their behalf ****** car parks have made requests for customer details.

I note further that no signs seem to appear in your car parks showing who is responsible for the administration of the CCTV data and it would seem this is contrary to the guidelines set out by
Information Commissioner and I shall make a complaint to the Information Commissioner.

I shall contact the OFT and file a formal complaint.

I shall contact Companies House as the letter I have had from **** Car Parks fails to observe the requirements set out by Companies house, namely that it fails to identify the companies place of registration, the companies registered number and the companies registered office address.

I shall also contact my Member of Parliament and ask him to look into this matter.


In conclusion I would therefore suggest that you write to me and confirm you are withdrawing this bogus claim or expedite the matter and contact my local county court where I will fight this matter wholeheartedly.

Yours Faithfully,

**** ****

trisontana

We don't mind if you name all the parties involved . We like to name and shame on this board.

ebee01

:jSUCCESS!!!!! LDK at Hartlepool Marina issued me with a parking charge notice of £60 rising progressively to £140 for parking in a bay opposite a row of restaurants and shops. The first 30 mins was FOC, followed by 50p for the hour and £3.00 for the day. I did not purchase a ticket as there was no indication that a ticket was required for parking there. I decided to reply to the PCN and followed the :money: template, including photographs. They ignored my first letter and so I did more research on the internet and my letter ended as follows:-
"I shall be forwarding a copy of ALL correspondence to the BPA as I believe you are contravening the Code of Practice on several counts. Also, your document for a Formal Demand for Payment appears to be in violation of the Administration of Justice Act 1970. According to Consumer Contract Regulation, parking fines must not exceed the cost to the landowner during the period the motorist is parked there, making your charges disproportionately high."
I also informed them that I had a passenger who could confirm my claim. Following my second letter they droped the fine. I have read somewhere that you need to keep a copy of that letter incase you are pursued at a later date for the same thing?
I contacted the local paper, but they weren't interested in following up my story. I just wanted all drivers parking at the Marina in Hartlepool to know that if they have been fined and paid those fines, LDK were operating illegally in that car park. They should claim their money back. There is NO notice at the entrance to the carpark to inform people they are entering private land or any kind of contract. According to LDK they have not had permission by the business owners or the Council to erect signs infront of the bays where my car was parked or at the entrance to the carpark and so they should not be charging drivers for parking there. :beer:

trisontana

Very good, but please don't call them FINES. To give those charges that name gives them a legitimacy they don't deserve.

taffy056

Also you would have got the same result by ignoring completely, they don't care about a code of practice as the bpa are not a regulator, and they don't have to abide by anything they put forward, basically by ignoring you are saving yourself time and the cost of a stamp etc

shelaghd_2

I've held a residents parking permit for the same car at the same address for 20 years. My car is a convertible. On occasion when parking in another area I have placed the purchased ticket in the permit holder for safety and forgotten to remove it on my return home, thereby giving the warden the opportunity to give me a ticket for not displaying my resident permit correctly.

Technically I'm in the wrong but the wardens must know the car by now, must know that it has a valid permit (and can certainly check as its all online).
Have I any grounds for appeal or for challenging this unreasonable application of rules?

taffy056

shelaghd wrote: »

I've held a residents parking permit for the same car at the same address for 20 years. My car is a convertible. On occasion when parking in another area I have placed the purchased ticket in the permit holder for safety and forgotten to remove it on my return home, thereby giving the warden the opportunity to give me a ticket for not displaying my resident permit correctly.

Technically I'm in the wrong but the wardens must know the car by now, must know that it has a valid permit (and can certainly check as its all online).
Have I any grounds for appeal or for challenging this unreasonable application of rules?

I suspect its a private parking company so there is no point appealing as it would be turned down, so just ignore them completely as the ticket is not enforceable and just an invoice.

If its a council ticket please come back as you need different advice.

m1ck3y_m0us3

Hi Everyone,
About a year ago I received a PCN in a Lidl Parking from a private company.
As I entered the parking lot the first bay was empty so I parked there. There were no signs at the entrance to say that that was a "pay and display" car park.
I parked there for 20 minutes and bought goods worth over £16. Signs stating it was a "pay and display" car park and that it is "free for customers who spend over £5 and park for less then one hour" were further down inside the car park. I honestly did not see them until I came back and found the PCN. So, I disputed the PCN once, twice, three times... I always received a standard/computer generated letter saying that they cannot cancel the penalty. In the forth letter I told them that I will ignore any correspondence from them as they chose to ignore my letters. Later I received 4 letters from two different debt collecting agencies the same day ) . I sent them a letter pointing out that they have sent me two letters each with different reference numbers for the same PCN and that the PCN is under dispute. Then one agency did not reply. The second sent me "photographic evidence" provided by their client . It's sad I cannot attach them. In their pictures there are no signs, although they refer to some "ample and clearly displayed signs". Behind my car is the back of the sign you see when you enter the car park... .After I sent them as well a few pictures I took when I found the PCN stuck to my car and showed them what that sign reads, I did not receive any correspondence from either of them. This is the last letter.


Date: 1st of April 2010


[FONT=&quot]Dear Sir/Madam,[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Thank you for your letter dated 30th of March 2010 and the attached “photographic evidence” provided by your client. At last someone else except me is taking this matter seriously.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]First of all please note that I sent four letters to your client disputing this PCN, but all I received back every time was a standard computer generated letter saying that I have to pay and that they cannot cancel the PCN, without any reference to my letters or answers to my questions. They ignored me completely; however they acknowledged the receipt of my letters.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]The first “photographic evidence” you sent me is showing my car and the back of a sign. You state that “the site in question has clear ample and adequate signage on site which state the terms and conditions” referring to that sign. Please find attached a picture of the front of that sign. I dispute that the sign “states the terms and conditions”. It merely stated who is in charge of the car park, but there is no warning whatsoever about the car park acting under Pay and Display rules.The sign is “ample”,[/FONT] however.
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]You sent me another “photographic evidence” of a sign further down inside the car park. That sign possibly states the terms and conditions. It might as well be any sign, as it is very far and definitely is not “clear ample and adequate signage”. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]As you can see in the other photographs I parked in the nearest parking bay to the shop, right at the entrance into the car park and did not wander around the parking lot to search for signs. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]The second reason I believe this PCN has to be cancelled is that parking in that car park is free for Lidl customers that stay there for less than one hour and spend over £5 in Lidl (that was explained to me by the officer on site then and there were signs confirming that). I have a receipt [/FONT][FONT=&quot]confirming that I checked out of Lidl at 13:19 (PCN applied at 12:50, see copy) and I spent £16.53 which entitled me for free parking. I sent a copy of that receipt along with my first letter to your client.[/FONT] [FONT=&quot]I attach a copy for you as well.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]The last paragraph on its own should be enough to nullify any other possible arguments that I should pay this PCN.[/FONT]




Now I am not very busy, and I am bored, so I consider typing another letter to the in charge of that parking to ans if the PCN has been cancelled and to ask for a refund for:
1) 9 DL envelopes
2) 3 1st class stamps
3) 6 "recorded delivery" letters I sent
4) Time wasted to sort this out. I am a student and self employed. Business never sleeps. I had to waste time to write them 6 letters. Time is money.(although I have to admit it's been fun)

Anyway, does anyone have any experiences requesting for a refund in such cases?
I have to say that I have no law studies and I wrote all the letters myself based on common sense.