£70 Parking Fine in non P&D Car Park

Coupon-mad

bluelagoon wrote: »

No, we don't ticket anyone who simply gets confused by what building they are visiting. There is a business very close by that gets extremely busy, particularly at the weekends, and their customers use our car park as an overflow to their own. No one parks here because they are confused, they do it because they are lazy and have no respect for private property.

Hmmmm....busy at weekends.....is the neighbouring business one of those indoor kids' play area businesses by any chance? Or is it a DIY centre or something?

I know some industrial estates look just like that and it IS hard to tell where you can and can't park, even with notices displayed (i.e. the person parking genuinely thinks the notices relate to the business they are visiting and they are a legitimate customer).

How nice of you, if you are ticketing parents who can ill-afford to pay £75 for a weekend outing, or DIYers who are trying to save money on their home improvements. Maybe I'm wrong but even if it's another type of firm altogether I bet you aren't popular with the neighbouring business (unless they are doing the same to your customers:D )?

Come clean, bluelagoon, whoever it is you are ticketing are not people deliberately using your car park to go shopping though are they, as one or two other sympathetic posters were led to believe? They are people making a genuine mistake, thinking they have parked in the right car park for the place they are visiting, which happens to be unlucky enough to share your industrial estate, aren't they?

thepearce

Busy when there's a match on?

joe1965

Been doing a bit of research over the last few days into our “friends” CPS.
Their company info is:

Unincorporated Number: UC5497002
Registered Office: PO Box 4487, Wolverhampton, West Midlands, WV1 9BP
Company Status: Unincorporated

After a few phone calls found out that PO Box 4487 is Madame Clarke’s 4-5 King Street, Wolverhampton. West Midlands. WV1 1ST. A greasy spoon cafe!. What a nice place to do business from!

The court case’s put on here and other consumer sites as proof of their success are a joke. In some of them they have quoted the BPA Code of Practice as part of their case. The sad thing is the judge accepted it.
Since when is the British Parking Association's Code of Practice a legal authority to reference in regard of arguing a judgment? The BPA have set themselves up as the authority regarding the parking industry in some quasi-quango fashion yet as far as I am aware, they have no statutory mandate. The BPA is nothing more than a toothless ewe, another quasi quango that is there in a vain attempt at defending the indefensible.
I cannot wait till the quasi-quangos come under the freedom of information act, and then we'll play.
CCTV from which they obtained some of their stills are not registered with the information commissioner.
But most serious of all, as the litigant (CPS) is unincorporated and therefore not a legal entity,
it can’t sue except in the names of its principals. So they are perjuring themselves to the court claiming to have a right to bring the action.
One last thing. Has anybody who has visited their site noticed the big mistake with this picture?





Look behind to the left on the railing. Notice the disabled sign? The area where this CPS warden is ticketing is already enforced by the RTA! They must have taken the picture quickly, grabbed the sign and done a runner.

bluelagoon_3

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Hmmmm....busy at weekends.....is the neighbouring business one of those indoor kids' play area businesses by any chance? Or is it a DIY centre or something?

I know some industrial estates look just like that and it IS hard to tell where you can and can't park, even with notices displayed (i.e. the person parking genuinely thinks the notices relate to the business they are visiting and they are a legitimate customer).

How nice of you, if you are ticketing parents who can ill-afford to pay £75 for a weekend outing, or DIYers who are trying to save money on their home improvements. Maybe I'm wrong but even if it's another type of firm altogether I bet you aren't popular with the neighbouring business (unless they are doing the same to your customers:D )?

Come clean, bluelagoon, whoever it is you are ticketing are not people deliberately using your car park to go shopping though are they, as one or two other sympathetic posters were led to believe? They are people making a genuine mistake, thinking they have parked in the right car park for the place they are visiting, which happens to be unlucky enough to share your industrial estate, aren't they?

You make yourself look foolish by jumping to so many conclusions.

The purpose of their visit is irrelevant and if they can't afford to pay a £60 parking charge they should be more careful about where they choose to park.

And not that it matters, but the neighbouring business fully supports the ticketing and they are most apologetic about the parking problems their customers cause.

PaulA

No one has yet posted a justification of why they should be morally allowed to park on someone else’s land, assumptions about poor parents (by the way I am one) are irrelevant no matter how big a sob story it is.

Ignorance of the rules is not an excuse, anyone who is driving should be responsible enough to find out where they can park just as they should find out the speed limit (if they choose to break it that’s a risk they take).

If there was a great big red sign warning me I could be fined for parking right in front of it I’d make 1000% sure I was authorised to park there or I’d be prepared to face the consequences.

If you are convinced that you have a legal right to park on private land why don’t you post details of a court case that has found that such tickets are illegal?

sarahg1969

joe1965 wrote: »

Been doing a bit of research over the last few days into our “friends” CPS.
Their company info is:

Unincorporated Number: UC5497002
Registered Office: PO Box 4487, Wolverhampton, West Midlands, WV1 9BP
Company Status: Unincorporated

After a few phone calls found out that PO Box 4487 is Madame Clarke’s 4-5 King Street, Wolverhampton. West Midlands. WV1 1ST. A greasy spoon cafe!. What a nice place to do business from!

The court case’s put on here and other consumer sites as proof of their success are a joke. In some of them they have quoted the BPA Code of Practice as part of their case. The sad thing is the judge accepted it.
Since when is the British Parking Association's Code of Practice a legal authority to reference in regard of arguing a judgment? The BPA have set themselves up as the authority regarding the parking industry in some quasi-quango fashion yet as far as I am aware, they have no statutory mandate. The BPA is nothing more than a toothless ewe, another quasi quango that is there in a vain attempt at defending the indefensible.
I cannot wait till the quasi-quangos come under the freedom of information act, and then we'll play.
CCTV from which they obtained some of their stills are not registered with the information commissioner.
But most serious of all, as the litigant (CPS) is unincorporated and therefore not a legal entity,
it can’t sue except in the names of its principals. So they are perjuring themselves to the court claiming to have a right to bring the action.
One last thing. Has anybody who has visited their site noticed the big mistake with this picture?





Look behind to the left on the railing. Notice the disabled sign? The area where this CPS warden is ticketing is already enforced by the RTA! They must have taken the picture quickly, grabbed the sign and done a runner.

The BPA is NOT an authority. It is nothing more than trade association which its members pay to join.

One thing I noticed from their site is that CPS's tickets also give the impression that they are "the real thing" - FPNs issued by the police, or CPNs issued by councils. Why the need to imitate them? Other than to scare your victims witless?

joe1965

bluelagoon wrote: »

The purpose of their visit is irrelevant and if they can't afford to pay a £60 parking charge they should be more careful about where they choose to park.

Whether they park by mistake or deliberately ignore the signs (some do I must admit), I’d love to see you personally in court justifying a fee of £65. Especially if they could prove they had been parked there for just a few minutes. Quoting contract law wouldn’t get you far, especially when you are asked to produce a breakdown of the charge.

PaulA

joe1965 wrote: »

I’d love to see you personally in court justifying a fee of £65.

Surely there is an example of someone arguing that such a fine is illegal and winning for you to be so sure, I'm not having a go at you I am genuinely interested.

Personally I'd just like to see someone try and morally justify it.

bluelagoon_3

joe1965 wrote: »

Whether they park by mistake or deliberately ignore the signs (some do I must admit), I’d love to see you personally in court justifying a fee of £65. Especially if they could prove they had been parked there for just a few minutes. Quoting contract law wouldn’t get you far, especially when you are asked to produce a breakdown of the charge.

CPS has taken several hundred people to Court and won. The fee of £60 has been accepted as reasonable in every case.

The amount of time someone is parked on the private land is inconsequential.

joe1965

It is exactly the same principle as bank charges. Charging an amount
disproportionate to any loss actually made.