PPC Letter Chains & Court Papers (discussion & comments)

note_2

quick (possibly silly) question...... how do you tell a council run car park to a private one run by a PPC?

reason being i often play tennis at what is basically a university with facilities rented out to public (swimming pool etc) which has pay and display.. as its a university i assume its council run but just want to check how to know

pogofish

The signs will tell you who runs it - Council car parks have to have appropriate TROs (checkable on the website) and comply with the guidelines laid down in the TSRGD - which is worth a read in itself, although your brains may boil by the end of it.

However, it would IME be very unusual for a Uni car park to be council run. Some local authority FE colleges maybe but not a full-on Uni, although I suppose there is the possibility of shared facilities but if its the Uni themselves, a private/PPC operation is far more likely and despite having all the legal experts they need on staff, many Unis are as conned by the PPCs as anyone else.

dazzapot

On the 4th letter now.... impending legal action.

So far not found any cases of actual legal action from CP Plus. The VCS info floating around is interesting, but wondering if their problems stem largely from the contracts they had developed not giving them specific rights etc...

Are there general points that invalidate all such schemes?

Coupon-mad

dazzapot wrote: »

Anyone actually been taken to court by CP Plus?

Nope, they don't do Court so you are quite safe!

dazzapot wrote: »

On the 4th letter now.... impending legal action.

So far not found any cases of actual legal action from CP Plus.

Stop looking, you are wasting your time 'cos there are none.

dazzapot wrote: »

The VCS info floating around is interesting, but wondering if their problems stem largely from the contracts they had developed not giving them specific rights etc...

Are there general points that invalidate all such schemes?

No, it's much more than that. It is a general issue with all PPCs who don't own the land. Almost none of them own any car parks (NCP own some but even then you can still ignore them as NCP don't generally do Court either).

So your CP plus fake PCN scheme is indeed invalidated, unenforceable drivel. See also the latest posts on this thread which explain it well:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4137389

HTH

note_2

just saw this on UK parking controls website.

Legal precedents

By parking at one of the sites we manage a driver enters into a contract with us.
A key legal precedent for England and Wales was set in 1996, in the case of Arthur v Anker. The judge ruled that when Mr Arthur parked in breach of the terms and conditions prominently displayed at the site, he had entered into a contract with Mr Anker’s company and broken the terms. Therefore he was liable to pay the charges levied.
A newer precedent was set in 2008, in the case of Combined Parking Solutions (CPS) v Stephen James Thomas. Mr Thomas tried to deny that he was the person responsible for parking his car without a permit in a church car park managed by CPS. However, the judge ruled that “on the balance of probabilities” the driver was Mr Thomas, and that he had therefore knowingly entered into a contract with CPS. He was held liable to pay CPS’s charges plus interest, court fees and expenses.
In the Scottish courts the Arthur v Anker and CPS v Stephen James Thomas cases are considered ‘persuasive but not binding’. However the 2005 case of University of Edinburgh v Daniel Onifade set a relevant legal precedent for Scotland. In this case the court decided that Mr Onifade had knowingly parked in a private car park at the university on 29 occasions, without displaying a valid permit. The signage on display clearly explained that this would incur a charge of £30 per day. The judge held that Mr Onifade was liable to pay the total charges of £870 plus interest and costs.
We clearly display the appropriate terms and conditions on the signage at all our sites. As a result the parking charges we issue are enforceable in the civil courts.

http://www.ukparkingcontrol.com/legal/

is it !!!!!!!!?

Stephen_Leak

Yes. And old !!!!!!!! too.

The first case involved clamping.

The second one is a well known case. In court, the defendant denied that he was the driver. However, he had boasted on internet forums that he was the driver. CPS advised the court of this. The judge, understandably, found against the defendant. However, we suspect that this case was a set up and that the defendant was a relative of the owner of CPS.

I have no knowledge of the third case, but I note that it was brought by the car park owner, not a private ticketing company. And 29 times is "taking the !!!!".

Parking charge cases are heard in the County Courts, which don't set legal precedents.

esmerobbo

If they won 1,000 cases in a county court it still would not set a precedent!

The first one did but its to do with Clamping!

UKPC do not do court, hence why they quote other companies cases!

ManxRed

They've forgotten to mention all the cases where PPC's were roundly spanked, and they are more recent than 2008 as well.

Plus the binding case of VCS v HMRC which means they can't even form a contract (to breach) in the first place.

How conveeeeeeeeeeenient!

longtimelurkersam

next installment from Parking Eye

Crabman

Thanks Sam, the letter-chains thread has been updated :beer: