£70 Parking Fine in non P&D Car Park

frank_potter

taxiphil wrote: »

Those PDFs weren't in the public domain until you uploaded them this evening, so how would I have known about them?

Nothing for you to feel smug about. There are dozens of cases on Pepipoo where it went the other way.

Perky might have had 3 judgements in his favour against inadequate/incomplete defences - but I wonder how many cases he's lost?

And how many where he hasn,t turned up at court at all?

digp

bluelagoon wrote: »

You're right, we could argue all day about it, however, in the real world in real courtrooms the contracts are accepted as valid, CCTV footage is accepted as proof and the Courts accept the fees charged are reasonable.

Remember we're talking about a £60 parking charge here not a murder case - it's all based on the balance of probabilities in the County Court.

Rather than writing about your theories on the internet perhaps you should set up a business defending all the 'unenforceable' parking charges you write about that have been successfully enforced hundreds of times in the Courts.

By the way, if you're in any doubt, have a look into the publicly available documents for these cases:

HARROGATE COUNTY COURT (No. 7QZ73627)
COVENTRY COUNTY COURT (No. 7QZ80996)
BIRMINGHAM COUNTY COURT (No. 6QZ93881)

All three ended up paying close to £200 in the end. I can find more examples for you but I doubt it would change your mind.

Happy reading.

Do you even know what a Norwich Pharmaceuticals order is and are you really going to go to the High Court to get one. Oh, and what tort has been committed against you for which the order might issue.

digp

taxiphil wrote: »

There aren't any publicly available documents for those cases.

Why not?

The Civil Procedure Rules

5.4C (1) The general rule is that a person who is not a party to proceedings may obtain from the court records a copy of –
(a) a statement of case, but not any documents filed with or attached to the statement of case, or intended by the party whose statement it is to be served with it;
(b) a judgment or order given or made in public (whether made at a hearing or without a hearing).

bluelagoon_3

taxiphil wrote: »

Those PDFs weren't in the public domain until you uploaded them this evening, so how would I have known about them?

You could have telephoned a company that manages car parks and asked them for proof? For someone who boasts such in-depth knowledge on this subject you seem to be remarkably ill-informed.

taxiphil wrote: »

Nothing for you to feel smug about. There are dozens of cases on Pepipoo where it went the other way.

I'd love to see the Court transcripts. Please link to them or post them here.

taxiphil wrote: »

Perky might have had 3 judgements in his favour against inadequate/incomplete defences - but I wonder how many cases he's lost?

Presumably you are referring to the Mr Perkins named in the transcripts who runs CPS. It is my understanding that he's won hundreds of cases - you could always call CPS yourself and ask them.

bluelagoon_3

digp wrote: »

Do you even know what a Norwich Pharmaceuticals order is and are you really going to go to the High Court to get one. Oh, and what tort has been committed against you for which the order might issue.

It's called a Norwich Pharmacal order and it costs £75 plus legal costs.

AlexisV

All three ended up paying close to £200 in the end. I can find more examples for you but I doubt it would change your mind.

Well, with 400, you should be inundated with examples.
Can you give us details of say, 50? It shouldn't be a problem for you should it? The old 'I could, but it wouldn't change your mind' quote sounds distinctly fishy.

Reasons posted previously seem to show the flaws in these three cases.

And as small claims cannot set precidents, I would not be surprised to see a certain small percentage of defendants being found against. As with the bank charge cases, a small number of rogue judges did indeed throw out cases that would have been found legitimate elsewhere.

And of course, there is the continuing question of why EVERY private charge is not taken to small claims. If it's so easy, it would be ticket, follow-up letter, court. Of course, the economics of paying fees up front from court for a negligable success rate versus a 50% pay up no questions asked are not contestable.

Just do a Google search for 'car park management' and make a few telephone calls posing as a potential customer.

I doubt you'll like what you hear though.

I have a car park, want it managed, and want to make a bit of money. A company touting for my business is hardly going to tell me that they just put invoices on cars and hope people pay up. They obviously want to seem professional and sound authorative.

Yes, there are some questionable companies out there who will no doubt say anything to get a new customer.

Just ask them for proof of successful Court cases if you doubt them.

And those court cases will be as watertight as the ones you've listed? A person owning a car park is not in it for fun. They either want to keep people not authorised to use it off the tarmac, or make money. Either way they're not interested in the legalities, they just want it done.

I disagree, contracts can be formed by persons acting in a particular manner, there is no need to even talk to the other party. Whether a contract is formed comes from Smith vs. Hughes (1871) the formation of contract doesn't actually rely on the intention of both parties.

Even if one or both parties never intended a contract to be formed, the test from Smith vs. Hughes is that would the hypothetical reasonable person assume that there was the intention to form an agreement based on the actions of both parties.

You can try to dispute it by stating unfair contract terms, ie was the sign was visible, clear, etc. But it doesn't mean that a contract wasn't formed if you could see the terms and conditions from where you were parked.

It sounds like you've never actually had to try and get some money out of anyone. Waving a llst of T&Cs under someone's nose is not forming a contract.

In your case from 1871: "The plaintiff offered to sell to the defendant oats, and exhibited a sample; the defendant took the sample, and on the following day wrote to say that he would take the oats at the price of 34 per quarter. The defendant afterwards refused to accept the oats on the ground that they were new, and he thought he was buying old oats; nothing, however, was said at the time the sample was shewn as to their being old; but the price was very high for new oats. The judge left to the jury the question whether the plaintiff had believed the defendant to believe, or to be under the impression, that he was contracting for old oats, and, if they were of opinion that the plaintiff had so believed, he directed them to find for the defendant. The jury having found for the defendant..."

Here there is written communication and it's actually more related to consumer law regarding descriptions of goods.

If you have managed to misunderstand my simple posting then I very much doubt that you have understood anything else you have read on the subject so forgive for not explaining why your clumsy example involving your paperboy is flawed.

Interesting semantics, but leave 'you disagree with what I've said so I'll just make you sound as if you're stupid' arguments in the playground.

My 'clumsy' (I suspect you wanted to say stupid but thought you'd better think of a big boy word) example is actually very pertinent and your failure to actually come up with a factual retort says it all really.

digp

bluelagoon wrote: »

It's called a Norwich Pharmacal order and it costs £75 plus legal costs.

1. Whatever. No doubt you have considered whether CPR Parts 31.16 and 17 can help you rather than rush to the court's NP jurisdiction.

2. Not if it's defended, it won't. Thus:

"In the normal course of events, an applicant for a Norwich Pharmacal order
will be obliged to pay the respondent’s costs, including the costs of making
the disclosure. The basis for this presumptive rule is the same as for
applications for pre-action disclosure; see Totalise plc [2001] 1 EWCA Civ.
1897."

3. I see that Ashworth v MGN has extended its applicability to breach of contract too.

bluelagoon_3

AlexisV wrote: »

Well, with 400, you should be inundated with examples. Can you give us details of say, 50? It shouldn't be a problem for you should it? The old 'I could, but it wouldn't change your mind' quote sounds distinctly fishy.

Ah OK, so 50 examples would change your mind?

AlexisV wrote: »

Reasons posted previously seem to show the flaws in these three cases.

Flaws? The defendents lost.

AlexisV wrote: »

And as small claims cannot set precidents, I would not be surprised to see a certain small percentage of defendants being found against. As with the bank charge cases, a small number of rogue judges did indeed throw out cases that would have been found legitimate elsewhere.

AlexisV wrote: »

And of course, there is the continuing question of why EVERY private charge is not taken to small claims. If it's so easy, it would be ticket, follow-up letter, court. Of course, the economics of paying fees up front from court for a negligable success rate versus a 50% pay up no questions asked are not contestable.

Speaking purely in relation to the land we issue tickets on, about 95% have paid up within 14 days. With regard to the rest, most paid upon receipt of a letter asking for £85. The rest (3 I think) are about to be issued with a Court summons. Again, purely in relation to our land, every case has been and will continue to be taken all the way if necessary.

AlexisV wrote: »

It sounds like you've never actually had to try and get some money out of anyone. Waving a llst of T&Cs under someone's nose is not forming a contract.

AlexisV wrote: »

In your case from 1871: "The plaintiff offered to sell to the defendant oats, and....."

Oops, you seem to have got yourself confused with someone elses post so I won't respond to this point.

AlexisV wrote: »

Interesting semantics, but leave 'you disagree with what I've said so I'll just make you sound as if you're stupid' arguments in the playground.

It appears I don't have to say anything to make you look 'stupid'.

AlexisV wrote: »

My 'clumsy' (I suspect you wanted to say stupid but thought you'd better think of a big boy word) example is actually very pertinent and your failure to actually come up with a factual retort says it all really.

You're quite right; you can't issue a charge to a person walking across your private land. I imagine that would be dealt with under the trespass laws. The car parking charges we issue are dealt with under contract law.

And no, if I wanted to use "big boy words" I'd have implied that you demonstrated a lack of intellectual acuity but I prefer 'clumsy' - it just seems more appropriate.

bluelagoon_3

digp wrote: »

1. Whatever. No doubt you have considered whether CPR Parts 31.16 and 17 can help you rather than rush to the court's NP jurisdiction.

2. Not if it's defended, it won't. Thus:

"In the normal course of events, an applicant for a Norwich Pharmacal order
will be obliged to pay the respondent’s costs, including the costs of making
the disclosure. The basis for this presumptive rule is the same as for
applications for pre-action disclosure; see Totalise plc [2001] 1 EWCA Civ.
1897."

3. I see that Ashworth v MGN has extended its applicability to breach of contract too.

Well done, you have managed to cut and paste from http://www.39essex.co.uk/documents/JB_RDU_Norwich_Pharmacal_paper_060207.pdf

For a moment there I actually thought you knew something about the subject.

Backbiter

For someone who has simply engaged the services of a car park management company, why are you arguing until so late into the evening as if you are actually part of such a company? Or have you misrepresented who you really are? I'm a bit mystified TBH. I could understand people with an actual involvement in extorting disproportionate sums of money for overstaying by a few minutes taking the time to dredge up details of obscure judgements that aren't in the public domain, but why would you want to do that if you are who you claim to be?