A Disabled Charity And A PPC

trisontana

peggy2 wrote: »

I have a ticket from UKCPS coz i never had a disabeled badge for 325 do i have to pay it, please tell me there is a way :(:(out.

I presume this was a private car-park and you forgot to display your blue badge. If this is so then you do not have to pay a penny as the blue-badge scheme does not apply in private car parks.

That £325 seems a bit high, even for UKCPS. Was that the first sum of money they demanded or have they increased this amount subsequently?

trisontana

It's a pity that peggy2 has not come back on here to give us some more details of these charges.

sarahg1969

£25, presumably. Ignore it, Peggy.

grmc

trisontana wrote: »

I presume this was a private car-park and you forgot to display your blue badge. If this is so then you do not have to pay a penny as the blue-badge scheme does not apply in private car parks.

This is dangerous advice, trisontana, as you clearly do not know the law.

Anyone can impose ANY terms they wish into a contract - if the other party does not agree to those terms then they have the choice not to proceed. Having already used the car park, the driver has accepted the terms (assuming they were clearly displayed). Whether or not they can be deemed to be Unfair (as per UCTA 1977 and the various Regulations which follow) are entirely up to a judge to decide. As a blue badge holder has already agreed to certain terms in the use of their badge as part of the scheme, then it would be unrealistic to assume any incorporation of them into any other similar contract would be unfair.

Advising someone to "ignore" these issues because (in your opinion) they "do not apply" may cause that individual a great deal of distress in the future (in the event a PPC actually decides to pursue the matter to court as they have done and won on many occasions) as in all likelihood they are already in breach of an enforceable contract and I'm quite sure you would not be so keen to help with court costs as you are at dishing out advice. When giving legal advice it is essential to back that advice up with hard evidence, which you have not provided. Therefore your advice should always be for the individual to seek the advice of a lawyer experienced in such matters (i.e. not a youtube clip of someone throwing a paper aeroplane).

It is agreed that, as in ALL areas of business, there are rogue traders and charlatans operating who are after a "quick buck" rather than the provision of a service, but wherever an industry is lacking in quality, there is always the opportunity for new companies to emerge with better expertise and the tenacity to pursue the matter with confidence to the courts.

Just out of interest, if you think that mirroring the carefully drafted statutory blue badge scheme for private car parks is somehow unreasonable, what would you suggest as an alternative? I have read this thread and I really can't see what it is you are arguing FOR - you want reserved parking facilities, but you don't want anyone to be challenged who appears to be abusing them. So you want no enforcement at all? A free-for-all? Forget disabled bays altogether? Each user of a bay vetted by a medical expert on each visit? Can you not see that any of these alternative schemes give rise to arbitrary decision making, potential injustice or increased parking fees for everyone?

trisontana

So, grmc What PPC do you work for?

Regarding going to court. A judge recently dismissed a case where a PPC claimed £50 for "abuse" of a disabled parking slot. He ruled that the sum demanded did not bear any relation to the actual loss suffered by the landowner. That's very important because civil law in this country says that one private citizen(the PPC) cannot punish another private citizen(the motorist) with punitive damages.

And could you list those "many occasions" where PPCs have won in properly defended cases, and not just by default?

anewman

Hi Helen, you clearly did not read the entire thread and missed many points. The law has already been clearly established here, on pepipoo, and through numerous court cases where the decision went against the private parking company. I would say decisions made by a judge in a court are near enough "law" even if in most of these cases they cannot set binding precedents.

trisontana

grmc wrote: »

Therefore your advice should always be for the individual to seek the advice of a lawyer experienced in such matters (i.e. not a youtube clip of someone throwing a paper aeroplane).

And who happens to be a very experienced lawyer who specialises in parking law.

lucylucky

grmc wrote: »

This is dangerous advice, trisontana, as you clearly do not know the law.

Anyone can impose ANY terms they wish into a contract - if the other party does not agree to those terms then they have the choice not to proceed. Having already used the car park, the driver has accepted the terms (assuming they were clearly displayed). Whether or not they can be deemed to be Unfair (as per UCTA 1977 and the various Regulations which follow) are entirely up to a judge to decide. As a blue badge holder has already agreed to certain terms in the use of their badge as part of the scheme, then it would be unrealistic to assume any incorporation of them into any other similar contract would be unfair.

Advising someone to "ignore" these issues because (in your opinion) they "do not apply" may cause that individual a great deal of distress in the future (in the event a PPC actually decides to pursue the matter to court as they have done and won on many occasions) as in all likelihood they are already in breach of an enforceable contract and I'm quite sure you would not be so keen to help with court costs as you are at dishing out advice. When giving legal advice it is essential to back that advice up with hard evidence, which you have not provided. Therefore your advice should always be for the individual to seek the advice of a lawyer experienced in such matters (i.e. not a youtube clip of someone throwing a paper aeroplane).

It is agreed that, as in ALL areas of business, there are rogue traders and charlatans operating who are after a "quick buck" rather than the provision of a service, but wherever an industry is lacking in quality, there is always the opportunity for new companies to emerge with better expertise and the tenacity to pursue the matter with confidence to the courts.

Just out of interest, if you think that mirroring the carefully drafted statutory blue badge scheme for private car parks is somehow unreasonable, what would you suggest as an alternative? I have read this thread and I really can't see what it is you are arguing FOR - you want reserved parking facilities, but you don't want anyone to be challenged who appears to be abusing them. So you want no enforcement at all? A free-for-all? Forget disabled bays altogether? Each user of a bay vetted by a medical expert on each visit? Can you not see that any of these alternative schemes give rise to arbitrary decision making, potential injustice or increased parking fees for everyone?

Nice to see the PPC trolls back. Haven't been any around for a wee while.

ripped_off_driver

grmc wrote: »

This is dangerous advice, trisontana, as you clearly do not know the law.

YOU certainly do not know the law from the rubbish that you then go on to spout. Straight from Planet Perky.

grmc wrote: »

Anyone can impose ANY terms they wish into a contract - if the other party does not agree to those terms then they have the choice not to proceed. Having already used the car park, the driver has accepted the terms (assuming they were clearly displayed). Whether or not they can be deemed to be Unfair (as per UCTA 1977 and the various Regulations which follow) are entirely up to a judge to decide. As a blue badge holder has already agreed to certain terms in the use of their badge as part of the scheme, then it would be unrealistic to assume any incorporation of them into any other similar contract would be unfair.

Again total rubbish. There are all sorts of obstacles that a PPC has to overcome to prove a contract exists. Even if they do manage it, they will in all likelihood fall foul of the unlawful contractual penalty rule. UCTA is rarely the losing ground in these cases, but does illustrate how little you know.

grmc wrote: »

Advising someone to "ignore" these issues because (in your opinion) they "do not apply" may cause that individual a great deal of distress in the future (in the event a PPC actually decides to pursue the matter to court as they have done and won on many occasions) as in all likelihood they are already in breach of an enforceable contract and I'm quite sure you would not be so keen to help with court costs as you are at dishing out advice. When giving legal advice it is essential to back that advice up with hard evidence, which you have not provided. Therefore your advice should always be for the individual to seek the advice of a lawyer experienced in such matters (i.e. not a youtube clip of someone throwing a paper aeroplane).

What a plonker you are. Apart from a few "Perky Specials" (set ups) there are NO cases in which PPCs have won. there are a growing number of cases where the scammers have lost. In fact hardly a week goes by without another glorious PPC loss.

The lawyer on Youtube was a respected traffic lawyer, whose credentials are impeccable. Unlike a sad PPC troll who just makes it up as you go along.

grmc wrote: »

It is agreed that, as in ALL areas of business, there are rogue traders and charlatans operating who are after a "quick buck" rather than the provision of a service, but wherever an industry is lacking in quality, there is always the opportunity for new companies to emerge with better expertise and the tenacity to pursue the matter with confidence to the courts.

Yeah right, these companies will change 200 years of contract law. No doubt led by arch loser Perky, if he is not too busy sorting out a piece of action on the side that is. Even the hopeless BPA know that PPC invoices are worthless tat.

grmc wrote: »

Just out of interest, if you think that mirroring the carefully drafted statutory blue badge scheme for private car parks is somehow unreasonable, what would you suggest as an alternative? I have read this thread and I really can't see what it is you are arguing FOR - you want reserved parking facilities, but you don't want anyone to be challenged who appears to be abusing them. So you want no enforcement at all? A free-for-all? Forget disabled bays altogether? Each user of a bay vetted by a medical expert on each visit? Can you not see that any of these alternative schemes give rise to arbitrary decision making, potential injustice or increased parking fees for everyone?

I was waiting for the old parking on your drive chestnut but it never came. Nobody here agrees with irresponsible parking. What they do disagree with is scamming companies pretending that their begging letters are enforcable, sending out threatening chain letters knowing that they do not have the courage to take people to court, pretending that registered keepers and not drivers are liable, trying to charge people for being a minute late in a free car park, parking an inch over a line, trying to charge huge amounts of money for parking when no loss has been suffered, etc. etc. It is a money racket only and little or nothing to do with parking management. As clamping is and look what is happening to that.

oldone_2

trisontana wrote: »

And who happens to be a very experienced lawyer who specialises in parking law.

And because it was shown on Watchdog, was carefully researched by the BBC in house lawyers.