A Disabled Charity And A PPC

taffy056

grmc wrote: »

taffy056; your points are based on preconceptions on the way PPCs have dealt with matters in the past. As I have said, the industry is awash with legally unqualified individuals who, from the way they have approached their respective "victims" (and routinely shirked the idea of having the matter put before a judge) clearly know little about contract law. How dare you assert that I am "not qualified to refute his outcome" (whatever that means) - you don't know me! I can, however, assert that I do know more about the law than you do, as evidenced by the naivety in the way you list your points as being irrebuttable and closed. I think you will find the law is fluid, and the scope is much wider than the spectrum you see (and don't take my word for this - run it by a lawyer you trust).

But, nobody has yet offered an alternative to the incorporation of Blue Badge Scheme terms in the use of a private parking facility. If you can't offer an alternative solution, you really oughtn't criticise current practice.

I base my post directly from the government, now they quite clearly show where the badge operates, also we are not here to discuss alternatives, all we can discuss is the today, and that is

Where the scheme does not apply

The Blue Badge Scheme does not apply to off-street car parks, private roads and at most airports.
The scheme does not fully apply in four central London boroughs:

• City of London
• City of Westminster
• Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea
• part of the London Borough of Camden

You can find Blue Badge bays in these central London areas on the Blue Badge London map.


http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/disabledpeople/motoringandtransport/dg_4001061

And look at Martin's advice in regards to this

Effectively, a ticket from a private firm is an invoice as, in their words, by overstaying your welcome on their land you have agreed to pay a particular sum. By stating you are appealing, it gives unnecessary legitimacy to the ticket. Note - we've only used the word 'appeal' in this guide when quoting correspondence from private parking firms and landowners.

From this point on we're in negotiation territory. There are no hard or fast rules, so effectively you need to make it realise you're going to be hard work and it's not going to get the money from you without the time and expense of court action. And just to put your mind at rest, as there's no credit involved, it can’t hit your credit rating either (unless in the extreme circumstance you ultimately refuse to pay a court order).

A parking company has NO POWER to force you to pay an invoice unless it first chooses to take you to court, which is a hassle, and then it needs to win the case which is by no means certain. Full info and template letters below.

http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/reclaim/private-parking-tickets

taffy056

I know this is the news of the world, but martin offers sound advice in it, shame he didn't stop at step 3 though, what say you grmc?

http://www.newsoftheworld.co.uk/columnists/martin_lewis/498681/How-to-shoot-down-unfair-parking-fines-amp-penalty-charges.html

anewman

grmc which position do you hold within mobilise, and how happy are you about the wages you get coming from disabled people with blue badges who, for example, forgot to display it and came to back within a few minutes when they realised. Forgot to display it unintentionally leaving it on the passenger seat (where any dimwit could see it). And many more cases. I think it is disgusting that you can begin to justify the charges to those people in those circumstances. You clearly have a vested interest in people paying, even though you would not admit this due to your self-denial and ignorance.

Fair enough you like to think you can do something about disabled bay abuse, but scamming disabled people (the very ones you claim to work for), and telling lies to everyone about the law and how things work is not the way to go about it. More needs to be done, and PPC's are *NOT* the answer. Tell it the way it is then you can move towards improving things in the future.

Hadeon

An eloquent troll for a change, but a troll all the same.

taxiphil

grmc wrote: »

To return to my original point re. blue badges on private land, I’d be interested to hear of a better alternative to the system of charging those who don’t display a blue badge, but I note that nobody has picked up the gauntlet. Is this because not one of you has anything constructive to offer to the debate, or do you simply prefer complaining about the status quo?

Admittedly this is an unresolved problem, but it's well established that PPCs are only interested in lining their own pockets.

It would be a good start if the BPA and the likes of Mobilise got their houses in order by waking up and expelling the cash-hungry rogues (although that would involve expelling approximately 100% of their members).

Just because there is no magic answer to the problem doesn't mean the current behaviour of PPCs is acceptable.

ripped_off_driver

taffy056 wrote: »

I know this is the news of the world, but martin offers sound advice in it, shame he didn't stop at step 3 though, what say you grmc?

http://www.newsoftheworld.co.uk/columnists/martin_lewis/498681/How-to-shoot-down-unfair-parking-fines-amp-penalty-charges.html

One of the comments caught my eye. Is Perky trying for a career in comedy now? He can't be any less successful than the other things he has tried.

bargepole

grmc wrote: »

... The enforceability of private parking charges has no governance of stare decisis and remains something of a quagmire for county court judges, but only a fool would put money on a PPC never being able to win a case or obtain a favourable precedent at High Court level. ...

If the Private Parking industry seriously believed they were creating enforceable contracts, then one of their biggest players, Excel, would surely have appealed the Hetherington-Jakeman case (Mansfield County Court) to the High Court (Civil Division) for a ruling to create a binding precedent.

In this widely reported case, the Judge ruled that Excel's charges were designed to "frighten and intimidate", and bore no relation to any possible losses suffered by the claimant. And this was a case where the identity of the driver was not in question, so privity of contract was not an issue.

As for stare decisis, the old but well-established case of Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co Ltd v New Garage and Motor Co Ltd (1915) AC 79 clearly establishes that penalty charges are unlawful in contracts between private individuals or companies, so why do we need another precedent?

ripped_off_driver

There is also this case lost by other biggie PPC Parking Eye:

http://www.lep.co.uk/news/trainee_solicitor_wins_parking_ticket_case_for_brother_1_777088

Note them vowing to appeal. Did they appeal? No, according to the claimant on another thread. Any PPC that would appeal given the circumstances of that case would be mad.

grmc quotes legal terms but has no idea of what they mean. All private parking invoice cases have different facts and circumstances. Therefore any decision of the High Court can only be a precedent for other cases of the same or very similar facts and circumstances. Yes it can lay down principles of contract law but as already been explained these are already in place anyway. Therefore any PPC that thinks that all of these invoices are suddenly going to be awarded legitimacy by the higher courts is holidaying with Perky. No doubts there would be lies and attempts to mislead, as we have seen with the totally discredited case of Combined Parking Solutions v Stephen Thomas, but that goes with the territory for PPCs.

grmc

I'm not sure why I've repeatedly been accused of working for a PPC when I have condemned their practices several times now.

It also seems bit childish that anyone who expresses a different view, or attempts to have a reasoned discussion, is shouted down as a "troll" and a "plonker".

I think some people are either deliberately or accidentally misreading what I've said. I have never suggested, as anewman has alleged, that disabled people should be subjected to extortionate charges where they accidentally forgot to display their badge. The behaviour of UKCPS in these scenarios is patently wrong.

It's those who don't have a blue badge AND and have no disability whatsoever who I think are taking liberties and should be deterred by way of a charge. Note the word "deterred" – I'd rather they didn't use the disabled bay in the first place, rather than see a PPC getting rich. But a deterrent can only be meaningful if the charge is enforced. Perhaps it's more palatable if all profits from such charges go to charity?

My initial post on this thread was from genuine concern. I have had enough experience in the legal world now to know that decisions differ case by case. So much so, one incident in one car park one week may be heard differently to another incident in the same car park the next. Like much case law, Dunlop is indeed still good law, but Dunedin LJ's three points are only considered where the circumstances fit the case before the court (i.e. in connection with whether or not pre-estimated sums applied AFTER a breach of contract occurs are penalties or not). His reasoning has been criticised as inflexible in so far as his comment: "The question whether a lump sum is stipulated is penalty or liquidated damages is a question of construction to be decided upon the terms and inherent circumstances of each particular contract, judged of as at the time of the contract not at the time of the breach" is concerned. The later case of Philips Hong Kong Ltd v AG Hong Kong (1993) 9 COnst LJ 202, suggests a court can examine what actually happened in the case to decide whether or not the clause is a penalty or liquidated damages (it allows an assessment of what the parties EXPECTED the losses to be at the time the contract was made).

So, where one argument can be presented at trial, there is a virtual certainty that an opposing one can also be presented. It's why there are so many well paid barristers. Therefore, to offer generic advice is foolhardy and I fear that many people could be faced with even higher costs as a result of following that advice blindly – like I've said, you should ALWAYS take legal advice if there is a real threat of court action being made.

Even Martin Lewis in the article cited is careful not to be so bold as some posters are here with his advice. You will note his careful use of words such as; "they're OFTEN unenforceable" (emphasis added). He does also point out; "Landowners have a right to charge for and to police proper parking. If you have broken those rules, and don't consider the ticket extortionate, I'd urge you to pay."

Again, I'm still wondering what people think is the best solution. anewman says "More needs to be done, and PPC's are *NOT* the answer" – so what IS the answer?

taffy056

The tickets are always extortionate though, and they have thrown out of court countless times as being a penalty, which is not legal for a company to issue unless acting for an authority.

Also no matter which way you look at it the blue badge scheme does not operate in private car parks, and it was reported recently that a full 50% of holders are not disabled and shouldn't hold a badge.

I happen to agree that more needs to be done, but allowing companies that basically operate a scam to be part of any future plans on parking is grossly negligent, they are not ethical, they pretend to have powers they don't in fact hold.

You say that we are not offering answers, its funny that, because you are not either, tell us what is your magic answer to all things parking ? I am geniunely intrigued !