Honest John - Telegraph paper

taffy056

But before the PPCs turned up for the most part there was no problems at these car parks, the problems started when they arrived, they are a solution to a non existent problem.

You will always get inconsiderate parkers at times, but they are in the minority, really these supermarkets should emlploy people to look after customers and to ensure bays even though they are advisory only, are used correctly

murdomaguire

Well Martin posted this here today:
http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/reclaim/private-parking-tickets

Of course, landowners have a right to charge for and police proper parking. If you’ve broken those rules, and you think the ticket isn’t exorbitant, I’d urge you to pay up.


If you DO think it's exorbitant, one route is to simply pay what you think is right

So can anyone point out to me how that differs from Honest John's much insulted advice?

taffy056

He didn't post that today, that was posted about 2 years ago and it is out of date, it needs to be changed as numorous people have indicated, the updated version should include to ignore these people.

murdomaguire

It was in the email I received from Martin on 27th October 2010 under the Park Right, Beat Tickets heading:

http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/latesttip/#park

It says:
Of course, landowners have a right to charge for and police proper parking. If you’ve broken those rules, and you think the ticket isn’t exorbitant, I’d urge you to pay up. If you DO think it's exorbitant, one route is to simply pay what you think is right.

Game, set and match to Honest John seemingly.

Jeff_Bridges_hair

murdomaguire wrote: »

Well Martin posted this here today:
http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/reclaim/private-parking-tickets




So can anyone point out to me how that differs from Honest John's much insulted advice?

Wow a really nice and long thread.. What has one started..

Now i have just clicked that link and the very first paragraph says

If you get an unfair ticket in a private (different rules apply to public tickets) car park.... don't pay it. These supposed 'fines' are the new Wild West, and whether the cowboys do it at supermarkets, retail parks, hospitals or housing estates, they're often unenforceable. This is a step by step guide on how to fight them.

so MSE are saying do not pay them. In complete contrast to Honest John.

taffy056

murdomaguire wrote: »

It was in the email I received from Martin on 27th October 2010 under the Park Right, Beat Tickets heading:

http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/latesttip/#park

It says:
Of course, landowners have a right to charge for and police proper parking. If you’ve broken those rules, and you think the ticket isn’t exorbitant, I’d urge you to pay up. If you DO think it's exorbitant, one route is to simply pay what you think is right.

Game, set and match to Honest John seemingly.

Nope it just means an email has been sent out to highlight the issue again, but most of the info is about two years old, and he does say not to pay them as very often they are not enforceable, so in complete contrast to HJ

murdomaguire

Here is the link.
http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/reclaim/private-parking-tickets

See the heading under:

This is about unfair tickets

Which reads (as I said): "Of course, landowners have a right to charge for and police proper parking. If you’ve broken those rules, and you think the ticket isn’t exorbitant, I’d urge you to pay up.
If you DO think it's exorbitant, one route is to simply pay what you think is right, eg the equivalent to what you’d be charged on a public road"

Coupon-mad

We know, we've seen it before because Martin really did write this about 2 years ago. IIRC he also says strangely 'if you get an invoice you'll need to reply' (I think that's the wording). But of course no-one 'needs to reply'.

We have asked for it to be changed because the standard forum line is to ignore all PPC tickets, and it's advice that we find works.

Good to have your informed input murdo, as you are someone who has defended people against PPCs. BTW what I don't get is why would people bother to 'defend themselves'?

Did they actually pay Solicitors fees to reply to the scam letters they could have just ignored?

murdomaguire

Can somebody challenge on the substantive point rather than the periphery.

1. A parking company can establish a contract by signage if the terms of the contract are clear and unambiguous and the signage is frequent and unmissable.

2. A contract can be enforced if the terms of the contract are not in any way punitive.

At danger of repeating myself:

On the veracity of the judgment I don't have a clue whether it was the original or not but I think it somewhat surprising given the fervour surrounding this case that no one on our side of the argument seems to be able to produce an original when several people on this thread alone claim to have seen it.

Whether or not the judgement was edited by a third party it is clear that if it is substantially complete the judge found that there was a contract and that on the balance of probabilities Mr Thomas had been the person who parked there and found against him.

I am not saying this is a common occurrence - it is not - but it shows that a contract can be established - and hence breached by parking and that a court can rule that a charge is payable.

I was told at the time by a colleague who discussed the case with the reporter Mr Thomas was a young man and the key point in the judge's decision was that no-one else was insured to drive his vehicle. That seems a reasonable contention to me.

In my experience judges don't go to big on evidence copied off the internet because it is so easy to fake. I would be very surprised if the judge gave any weight whatsoever on some person posting under the name Stephen Thomas in the CAG forums. Perhaps some one can disabuse me and post the original and undulterated judgment - put up or shut up as I have been known to say.

If the driver can be identified on the balance of probability by being the only driver insured for the car (and the court will accept this is likely unless some other driver is produced) then the next key issue in these cases comes down to signage.

If the signage is legally bang-on and unmissable then there can be a contract. Very little signage put up by parking companies is legally correct but they are getting better at it.

Whether the charge made under the contract is then "reasonable" would be up to the court.

In this case the judge clearly thought it was - if we believe the judgment and the newspaper report.

Mostly they decide it is not and the judge may have been particularly harsh on Mr Thomas because of the honesty and credibility issues.

To go to the Honest John advice on paying a small sum, the letter from the parking company is not an "invoice" as some people frequently claim in forums but in legal terms is an "invitation to settle a breach of contract out of court".

As has been pointed out here you are perfectly free to ignore that invitation and it (probably) won't go anywhere - save for "debt" collectors who will probably give up eventually. I would strongly advise you should do so if you did not overstay and were not the driver.

However if you did overstay and were the driver (and you believe the signage to be correct) you are also at liberty to make a "counter offer to settle out of court" for a relatively trivial sum - the Honest John line - and providing you get the offer-letter right and they bank the cheque then they are effectively stuffed on the court route and you can invoke protection against harassment legislation against them if they continue chasing.

As I have said it is not the way I would do it but it is perfectly reasonable advice from a legal standpoint if somebody is of a more nervous disposition or cannot be bothered with the hassle.

Lastly I don't think forums work particularly well when the consensus is such and the attack-dogs so aggressive as to abate others from raising a point, challenging anything or even entering the discussion.

I have a thick skin and I know my stuff so I can rebuff the insults, taunts and challenge the twaddle but I do think many other people would be repelled by it and go elsewhere.

More politeness and a more welcoming attitude might get you further in terms of getting people willing to contribute.

taffy056

But Murdo the case you are pointing out is one of a handful of successes for these companies, there are hundreds that they have lost, and tens of thousands that have been simply ignored, on the balance of probabilities they will not go anywhere near a court as their terms are unfair, how can they claim a loss for having a disabled badge upside down on a dashboard? How can there be a loss for a wheel touching a line? How can there be a loss for someone when a customer overstays in say a retails park with 20-30 shops and overstays by 20mins or so, when they are spending £100s or £1000s in shops there?

Its fine you putting the law out there, but lets face it unless it goes to court its not needed, so in layman's terms and not to confuse the issue, people are advised to IGNORE unless a court papers are issued!