Bay Park Management - Can I win in court?

dodger1

trisontana wrote: »

Sorry, my reply was meant for dodger1 who seems to be on the side of the scammers.

I'm not on anyones side. Some of the parking companies are run by crooks, some of the people who get caught are stupid. Why park somewhere that clearly states don't park here or else. If people didn't park there we wouldn't be conversing on this site and the scammers would soon be out of business.

We have recently had parking enforcement signs put up at our flats. Problem parking has almost stopped overnight. The problem was we couldn't park in our own numbered bays, now we almost always can. I would have no problem with someone parking in my reserved space being fined £500 for doing so. I pay for that space, nobody else. Is there anybody here who was visiting a friend living at flat 15 park in the bay clearly marked 20?

sarahg1969

dodger1 wrote: »

If people didn't park there we wouldn't be conversing on this site and the scammers would soon be out of business.

You reckon? So, they wouldn't ticket or clamp people who genuinely had a right to be parked there? You think?

dodger1

sarahg1969 wrote: »

You reckon? So, they wouldn't ticket or clamp people who genuinely had a right to be parked there? You think?

First of all my post clearly said don't park there then you can't be fined, clamped whatever. My post was nothing to do with people having a genuine right to park there. Suggest you read my post again. I'm happy to have a discussion about anything I've written but not about something you imagined.

Here is something for discussion, why do the vast majority of parkers not get clamped. I'll let someone else start the discussion.

Coblcris

I would suggest some detailed study of Vine and Anker would be beneficial. Pay particular attention to what is addressed and what is not addressed in those judgments, in particular with regards to the amounts. In my experiece clamping companies do not understand these judgements and so 'mis-apply' them.

tbutler12345

Coblcris wrote: »

I would suggest some detailed study of Vine and Anker would be beneficial. Pay particular attention to what is addressed and what is not addressed in those judgments, in particular with regards to the amounts. In my experiece clamping companies do not understand these judgements and so 'mis-apply' them.

I'd love to see this case - where can we readup? Can you give us a link?

dodger1

Put very simply in Arthur v Anker the court of appeal 1996 found in favour of the clampers as Mr Arthur had seen the signs and therefore agreed to the conditions, but the fee has to be "reasonable" and as usual no court will tell us what is reasonable.

In Vine v London Borough of Waltham Forest the appeal court 2000 (I think) found in favour of Ms Vine because the signs were hidden and therefore Ms Vine hadn't agreed to the parking restrictions so no contract was entered into.

So there you go, if you take it to court you may or may not win. It would appear that each case will have it's own merits.

Random_User_Name

trisontana wrote: »

Except it's not a "fine", just an unenforceable invoice. And why do you think £75 is "reasonable" .I might as well charge you that amount for reading this.

No evidence of an implied contract, and it is not your property (the website).

tbutler12345

dodger1 wrote: »

Put very simply in Arthur v Anker the court of appeal 1996 found in favour of the clampers as Mr Arthur had seen the signs and therefore agreed to the conditions, but the fee has to be "reasonable" and as usual no court will tell us what is reasonable.

In Vine v London Borough of Waltham Forest the appeal court 2000 (I think) found in favour of Ms Vine because the signs were hidden and therefore Ms Vine hadn't agreed to the parking restrictions so no contract was entered into.

So there you go, if you take it to court you may or may not win. It would appear that each case will have it's own merits.

Thanks very much for this useful summary, I've just read Vine (my first ever case reading!) seems she "proved" she did not see the sign

Ill have a look at Arthur now - its a shame they dont just give a ceiling charge! But that would be too easy. Are we waiting for a test case on this - is that likely in the near future? I cant be the only person in this position.

In my case there were plenty of signs dotted about the place but it didnt even occur to me that there would be a problem so didnt look for signs - their defence will no doubt be my car sat right next to a big sign however

Would I have just as much success in suing the Landowners as I would the Clamping Firm? The clamping firm are hiding their address and as far as addresses are concerned the land owners are sitting ducks.

What are the rules on counter-claim of legeal costs in small claims if I did lose? Any guestemates here?

Coblcris

http://oxcheps.new.ox.ac.uk/new/casebook/cases/Cases%20Chapter%2023/Arthur%20and%20Another%20v%20Anker.doc

http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2000/106.html&query=arthur+and+anker&method=boolean

BlueBoy-23

Been doing some further research through a mate who works for a management company looking after commercial property. He says that the cost to release is so high as they base it on the value of the parking space to whoever has paid to lease it.

Apparently the landlord has a responsibilty to ensure the space is available at all times to the person/company renting it (rents can be as much as £5000 per year) and if the occupier can proove that an illegal vehicle is in his space then he can claim part of the rent back off the landlord. You can therefore understand why fees are so high.

Using this argument don't think you will have much luck in court if the land owner prooves that he has had to reimburse part of a tenants rent.