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).
We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum. This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are - or become - political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.

Parking "tickets" when parked on private land

135

Comments

  • Neillgb
    Neillgb Posts: 574 Forumite
    Forget what the recorder stated - it went higher and therefore the recorders comments are irrelevant.

    The vine case if you read it all was 'unusual circumstances' .. (her state of mind/sickness etc...) the justices do state 'absent unusual circumstances'

    The comment
    Normally the presence of notices which are posted where they are bound to be seen, for example at the entrance to a private car park, which are of a type which the car driver would be bound to have read, will lead to a finding that the car driver had knowledge of and appreciated the warning.

    So ... as I stated first of all .. Its an Objecetive decision ..

    All irrelevant if parking company can't prove who was driving though?
  • Wig
    Wig Posts: 14,139 Forumite
    Forget what the recorder stated - it went higher and therefore the recorders comments are irrelevant.

    The vine case if you read it all was 'unusual circumstances' .. (her state of mind/sickness etc...) the justices do state 'absent unusual circumstances'

    You are wrong, I had explained it perfectly well in my last post to you, but I will help you further one last time. I have changed the colour of the recorder's words to mauve in the post above. As you correctly say the recorder was from the first court. The words in blue in the above post are now ONLY those of the appeal court, the higher court, and the most relevant court. The words in blue very clearly say........

    it has to be established that the car owner was aware of the consequences of his parking his car so that it trespassed on the land of another. That will be done by establishing that the car owner saw and understood the significance of a warning notice or notices

    The recorder's words, are not irrelevant, for it was he, who agreed she did not see the signs. The appeal court, given a finding of the lower court, that she did not see the signs, had no choice but to overturn the the recorder's subsequent decision.

    The quote from the news article which I quoted earlier says:
    "
    Mr Thomas did not have to have seen the warning signs, only that they were present."
    This is not in line with the appeal (higher court) judgement of Vine v Waltham.


    The comment
    Normally the presence of notices which are posted where they are bound to be seen, for example at the entrance to a private car park, which are of a type which the car driver would be bound to have read, will lead to a finding that the car driver had knowledge of and appreciated the warning.

    So ... as I stated first of all .. Its an Objecetive decision ..
    The court would still have to establish that the driver saw & understood the significance of the signs. The court normally, -with evidence of good clear signs- would usually come to such a decision. But the alledged quote from the judge saying that the driver need not see the signs, only that they are present is WRONG. If you disagree, then you too are wrong.
  • Wig
    Wig Posts: 14,139 Forumite
    Neillgb wrote: »
    All irrelevant if parking company can't prove who was driving though?

    Yes....................
  • oldone_2
    oldone_2 Posts: 974 Forumite
    A question to those who say we should just pay Private parking Company charges.
    What if you overstayed in a free Tesco car park and you were charged £1,000. Would you still say you should pay it. At what stage does the amount become unacceptable.
    Who decides an 'acceptable' amount, the PPC or a court of law. If it is a court of law, why does not EVERY SINGLE unpaid PPC charge not end up in court.Could it be that the £100 or so would be found to be extortionate and a reduced amount awarded making it unprofitable for PPC's to take people to court.
  • To be fair its quite likely that a PPC is a contributor here so its in his/her interest to muddy the waters and convince a few waverers that it's better to pay up to avoid the hassle.
    I'd rather be an Optimist and be proved wrong than a Pessimist and be proved right.
  • bargepole
    bargepole Posts: 3,236 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 1,000 Posts Name Dropper Combo Breaker
    oldone wrote: »
    Could it be that the £100 or so would be found to be extortionate and a reduced amount awarded making it unprofitable for PPC's to take people to court.
    Interestingly, Euro Car Parks in one Morrisons store have reduced their charge to £10 for overstaying the 3 hours. This doesn't make it any more enforceable than when it was £40, but the thinking probably is that most people will pay up a tenner rather than have any hassle.

    If they took anyone to court for non-payment, they'd be on a sticky wicket as it costs them £30 court fee to issue a claim, which they wouldn't get back if they lost.

    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.
  • Wig
    Wig Posts: 14,139 Forumite
    I understand that Stephen Thomas was also defending himself without professional representation. Which could have had a lot to do with the result. Depending on the wording of the judgement he recieved (Re: the judge saying he need not have seen the signs) it could have been a good case for appeal, much the same as the appeal in Vine v Waltham was.
  • Wig wrote: »
    I understand that Stephen Thomas was also defending himself without professional representation. Which could have had a lot to do with the result. Depending on the wording of the judgement he recieved (Re: the judge saying he need not have seen the signs) it could have been a good case for appeal, much the same as the appeal in Vine v Waltham was.

    From reading posts on another website it appears that Mr Thomas was not defending himself but had someone from one of the forums speaking on his behalf, but I take your point about professional representation but there again the other sites always seem to be stating they have professional experience.

    How many people would have professional representation for a small claim as the legal costs are fixed and the cost for professional representation would far outweigh the claim ?
  • This article suggest judge found as a fact that Thomas had seen the signs:http://www.oldham-chronicle.co.uk/news-features/8/news/15246/parking-penalty-just-judge-rules That a CC judge would presume to know better than the Court of Appeal is exxtremely unlikely. Sounds like simple misreporting in the other article.The case is weird anyway, and the judge seems to have taken against the defendant because of his lack of memory re a forum posting. Certainly not a good case as a precedent but in the CC obviously the precedent value is nil anyway. Regards forum representation, I understand this has been denied by the forums in question and the only person alleging this is Mr Perkins of Combined Parking Solutions. But as therealdeal has no connection with Mr Perkins or Combined Parking Solutions we will be none the wiser.
  • Wig
    Wig Posts: 14,139 Forumite
    How many people would have professional representation for a small claim as the legal costs are fixed and the cost for professional representation would far outweigh the claim ?

    I disagree, professional representation would only cost about £100, as we see, that is less than the total value of the claim, and the cost would have been recoverable up to a limit of £250 IIRC if the defendant had won the case.
This discussion has been closed.
Meet your Ambassadors

Categories

  • All Categories
  • 346.5K Banking & Borrowing
  • 251.3K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
  • 451.3K Spending & Discounts
  • 238.7K Work, Benefits & Business
  • 614K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
  • 174.7K Life & Family
  • 251.9K Travel & Transport
  • 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
  • 16K Discuss & Feedback
  • 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards

Is this how you want to be seen?

We see you are using a default avatar. It takes only a few seconds to pick a picture.