£70 Parking Fine in non P&D Car Park

peter_the_piper

If you've seen my car it might be an improvement!

bluelagoon_3

mpython wrote: »

Thanks for the offer bluelagoon. I wonder if you could ask CPS for the following:-
How many Parking charges it issued in a year (say the calender year 2006),
of these how many were paid within 14 days (lower charge),
of these how many were paid outside of 14 days (higher charge),
How many were non-enforceable and for what reasons (FAQ on CPS website says this does happen),
How many people were court proceedings issued against,
How many court proceedings were followed through and judgement won by CPS.
The above data should demonstrate whether CPS are 100% successful in enforcing all charges, or 100% successful in enforcing charges where they decide to.
& finally, could CPS give us, say, 10 postcodes across the country where they have issued a high number of parking charges. That way, if any MSE (or Pepidoo) user wants to demonstrate their belief that these charges are not enforcable if properly defended they could actually park on these sites in order to get a ticket and then report back what happens (e.g. taken to court or dropped, & if so why).

I'm not sure they will divulge all this information as quite alot of what you have asked is commercially sensitive.

However, I am prepared to provide data relating to our own car park which I'd imagine would be representative of all CPS car parks. It will take me an hour or two to go through all the tickets and get exact percentages but I will be happy to do so.

The only thing I'm not prepared to reveal is our address - there are a few people on here with a screw loose and I don't want a brick through a window or worse!

Squiffy

bluelagoon wrote: »

OK, at the risk of going over old ground here, please explain - in simple terms - why a parking charge issued by a PPC is not enforceable?

I'm more than willing to hear a strong argument - but my experience (ie. real life, not theories in an internet forum) proves to me that they are enforceable.

It would be nice to see some reasoned logic rather than the pointless and bizarre insults aimed at me for expressing a view that some people here don't like.

For a private car park, there is an implied contract. Where you breach this, the PPC are entitled to charge you for breach of contract.

However, under the law, for breach of contract the remedies are generally only to settle the actual costs of that breach.

So if you parked and took up two spaces for instance, the actual loss would only be for the parking fees that would have accrued if that second space had been available to someone else to pay for.

If you parked and over-stayed your ticket, the actual loss would be the amount required to have paid for your extra time.

£70 penalty charge notices and the like are not enforceable under the implied contract, as they bear no relation to the actual losses from the breach of contract.

Where there is no fee as per some car parks, but fines are issued in any case, then it is very hard to argue there would be any loss from the breach of contract.

superscaper

Squiffy wrote: »

However, under the law, for breach of contract the remedies are generally only to settle the actual costs of that breach.

So if you parked and took up two spaces for instance, the actual loss would only be for the parking fees that would have accrued if that second space had been available to someone else to pay for.

But what would determine losses when it isn't a public car park, which I think is bluelagoon's case? It's private land that the public shouldn't be parking on at all in the first place so there is no original charge to equate it to. If you could only charge what would be the equivalent to a car park's charges then clearly that's ridiculous because there's no deterrent to stop people parking there if they can just treat it like a public car park.

Squiffy

superscaper wrote: »

But what would determine losses when it isn't a public car park, which I think is bluelagoon's case? It's private land that the public shouldn't be parking on at all in the first place so there is no original charge to equate it to. If you could only charge what would be the equivalent to a car park's charges then clearly that's ridiculous because there's no deterrent to stop people parking there if they can just treat it like a public car park.

You miss the point. If there is an implied contract to park, then the remedies would be the actual losses caused by that breach.

If there is no implied contract and it is plain out parking on ground without the landowners permission, then that would possibly be trespass - which again would be difficult to sue someone and claim losses for. In those cases, the land owner would be best advised to put up clear signs that no parking was allowed and vehicles may be clamped.

superscaper

Squiffy wrote: »

You miss the point. If there is an implied contract to park, then the remedies would be the actual losses caused by that breach.

If there is no implied contract and it is plain out parking on ground without the landowners permission, then that would possibly be trespass - which again would be difficult to sue someone and claim losses for. In those cases, the land owner would be best advised to put up clear signs that no parking was allowed and vehicles may be clamped.

I didn't miss the point, I understood what you were saying but it was only to specific case of a public car park (contract to park) I was just asking what the case would be where there wasn't (i.e. no "implied contract to park") which I believe is more relevant to bluelagoon's situation.

Clamping may simply exacerbate the problem if you legitimately need the space for business, not to mention it would negate any accusation of trespass.

bluelagoon_3

superscaper wrote: »

I didn't miss the point, I understood what you were saying but it was only to specific case of a public car park (contract to park) I was just asking what the case would be where there wasn't (i.e. no "implied contract to park") which I believe is more relevant to bluelagoon's situation.

Clamping may simply exacerbate the problem if you legitimately need the space for business, not to mention it would negate any accusation of trespass.

I think Squiffy has got the wrong end of the stick which is fair enough given the amount nonsense that has been posted in this thread.

I'd advise Squiffy to read it all from the start (if he/she can be bothered!) to fully understand what we're discussing.

Squiffy

bluelagoon wrote: »

I think Squiffy has got the wrong end of the stick which is fair enough given the amount nonsense that has been posted in this thread.

I'd advise Squiffy to read it all from the start (if he/she can be bothered!) to fully understand what we're discussing.

I have read it. Just because you managed to find three cases where people defended themselves very badly, volunteered to being the driver and did not challenge the courts on the correct basis for redress regarding breach of contract does not mean you are right.

neiljc_2

bluelagoon wrote: »

I think Squiffy has got the wrong end of the stick which is fair enough given the amount nonsense that has been posted in this thread.


I agree with you bluelagoon

YOU have talked a lot of nonsense in this thread:D


Strangely enough the first post I wrote about this has disappeared , is someone getting sensitive or can they not accept opinions that differ from their own and are based in fact.

superscaper

neiljc wrote: »

bluelagoon wrote: »

I think Squiffy has got the wrong end of the stick which is fair enough given the amount nonsense that has been posted in this thread.


I agree with you bluelagoon

YOU have talked a lot of nonsense in this thread:D


Strangely enough the first post I wrote about this has disappeared , is someone getting sensitive or can they not accept opinions that differ from their own and are based in fact.

Depends on the way you wrote it. I don't remember the post or if I even saw it but if you gave a differing opinion rationally without resorting to rudeness or personal remarks then there's no reason for it to be deleted. So long as we all stick to forum etiquette then we should all be fine and can all put our points across. Unfortunately I have seen a few posts on this thread that go well beyond the bounds of simply stating an opinion or giving facts.