Warning - apcoa - must see

HO87

Messrs_Arthur_and_Terry wrote: »

Instead of attacking me, why don't you guys galvanise and march on the local councils to regulate (license private carparks) by an Order in Council per section 44 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984?

Methinks someone is tilting at windmills here.
What s.44(1) RTR Act 1984 actually says:

With a view to providing further means of regulating traffic in urban areas, Her Majesty may by Order in Council provide for enabling the operation of public off-street parking places to be regulated.

The important word would seem to be public (as opposed to private) and besides the whole import of Part IV of the Act, of which s.44 forms part relates to the council operation of car parks and makes no reference to the operation of private ones.

Rather than fondly imagining that all PPC operated car parks might overnight receive legal authority courtesy of this section I would suggest that you concern yourself rather more with the contents of s.40 of the same Act.

This section allows for the acquiring of land for use as car parks by compulsory purchase if necessary. However, ss.2 has a particularly interesting twist in that it allows for a council to acquire "any interest or right in, over or under land". This may sound innocuous but by permitting a private parking company to operate on land an additional interest at law is created.

A council acquiring that "interest" would have to make payment for it and given that the likely value, based on the sort of payments made by PPC's to landowners (which are usually quite small in overall terms) would be similarly small any compulsory purchase would seem to offer extremely good value for money.

The acquisition of private car parks in this way would, perforce, see the end of the PPC's operation on that land and would open up a new revenue stream for the council by allowing them to operate a parking enforcement regime governed by statute not the debatable and, often, questionable application of contract law.

Messrs_Arthur_and_Terry wrote: »

If the councils did their job on behalf of their whining constituents, this thread would be a non issue.

Were they to use their powers under s.40 I'd entirely agree and I suspect the vast majority of the followers of this thread would also. Perhaps you would prefer that we approached our councils for them to use their s.40 powers rather than relying on them to pass any lobbying pressure they receive for an Order under s.44 on the off chance that it would make it to the Privy Council?

geordieracer

timbo58 wrote: »

I might be wrong but I didn't think APCOA were, in the instances I was referring to, acting as a PPC (private parking contractor?)?
I thought they were acting as an agent of the local TOC that controls the parking under the Railway regulations.

The Railway regulations and byelaws allow parking ticketing and court action and always have.

No the railway bylaws covering the act of parking infringement must be done by a letter which states a notice of prosecution. Not a ticket. and definatly not a ticket that you can appeal to. Because under the bylaw you can only appeal the offence by going to the magistrates and defending your case. A ticket means nothing as a fine cannot be upheld if issued by a TOC nor a PPC on behalf of the bylaw.

Messrs_Arthur_and_Terry

HO87 wrote: »

.

Were they to use their powers under s.40 I'd entirely agree and I suspect the vast majority of the followers of this thread would also. Perhaps you would prefer that we approached our councils for them to use their s.40 powers rather than relying on them to pass any lobbying pressure they receive for an Order under s.44 on the off chance that it would make it to the Privy Council?

I don't think you can base it soley on your argument, but yes even a peppercon payment if required.

These matters have been debated in parliament and while it is legislating for clamp laws, it didn't see the need to introduce provisons for regulating private carparks, because it considered the local authorities had that power already.

If the posters on the net are to believed and there hasn't been one successful CCJ, it ponders the question why those posters feel aggrieved, other than the discomfort, inconvenience and suffering the impudence of the PPCs. Surely taking the advice of the experts on this forum and ignoring demands, is far less onerous than trying to reverse a fine inposed by a local authority? If the private carparks were to be taken over by the council and they applied the same penalties (although probably a lesser amount) that is still far more than people have been paying.

taffy056

Messrs_Arthur_and_Terry wrote: »

I don't think you can base it soley on your argument, but yes even a peppercon payment if required.

These matters have been debated in parliament and while it is legislating for clamp laws, it didn't see the need to introduce provisons for regulating private carparks, because it considered the local authorities had that power already.

If the posters on the net are to believed and there hasn't been one successful CCJ, it ponders the question why those posters feel aggrieved, other than the discomfort, inconvenience and suffering the impudence of the PPCs. Surely taking the advice of the experts on this forum and ignoring demands, is far less onerous than trying to reverse a fine inposed by a local authority? If the private carparks were to be taken over by the council and they applied the same penalties (although probably a lesser amount) that is still far more than people have been paying.

Again provide us with proof that ccjs have been made, I can't see any that have been issued on the net, on a few ppc websites they say there are loads every month, its funny that they cannot give proof, just like you can't!

And to reverse a fine by the council as you put it, is not easy, but there is an appeals process that is idependent, and if car parks were taken over by the council I just can't see them issuing tickets for disabled drivers if they have their badge facing the wrong way, or for a car a wheel touching a line or for numorous other petty things!

And as there was over 550k unpaid ppc tickets last year, where are all the court cases for them? If 10% went to court there would 55 k cases if 10% of that had a ccj there would be 5500 of them , I await your non answer!

trisontana

I can't see why he has this obsession with CCJs. My understanding is that if somebody loses one of these very rare private parking cases and pays up immediately, then no CCJ is issued. That only comes into force if that person fails to pay what the judge has ordered. Messrs Arthur and Terry has got it into his head that a CCJ is issued immediately the case is lost. Am I mistaken?

peter_the_piper

You mean like a clamping company which fails to pay the money it owes? Seems like a ccj is worthless.

sarahg1969

trisontana wrote: »

I can't see why he has this obsession with CCJs. My understanding is that if somebody loses one of these very rare private parking cases and pays up immediately, then no CCJ is issued. That only comes into force if that person fails to pay what the judge has ordered. Messrs Arthur and Terry has got it into his head that a CCJ is issued immediately the case is lost. Am I mistaken?

Yes, you are (on this occasion). A CCJ would be issued by the Court if a PPC won a case. However, provided that were paid within 28 days, then it would be removed from the register of CCJs.

http://www.trustonline.org.uk/understand-judgments-fines/ccjs-what-are-they/

Messrs_Arthur_and_Terry

taffy056 wrote: »

Again provide us with proof that ccjs have been made, !

You just don't get it do you =because you haven't seen one, they don't exist, yet you and others are prepared to give opinions on how evil the PPCs are for garnering them.

We have trisontana insuating I don't know about CCJs, yet I already posted the actual information about "The General Form of Judgement or Order" .

You want more detail form the CCJs I mentioned earlier:

Thomas 28/10/2008 Claim No 8QT03984 Judge Ackroyd
Gladwell 01/07/09 Claim No 9QT15658 Judge Ellery

Messrs_Arthur_and_Terry

sarahg1969 wrote: »

Yes, you are (on this occasion). A CCJ would be issued by the Court if a PPC won a case. However, provided that were paid within 28 days, then it would be removed from the register of CCJs.

http://www.trustonline.org.uk/understand-judgments-fines/ccjs-what-are-they/

and because most thinking adults don't want their credit rating affected, they pay pronto or are allowed a payment plan. This gives rise to the myths, because they are predicated on the lack of CCJs recorded on the register.

peter_the_piper

Messrs_Terry_and_June wrote: »

You want more detail form the CCJs I mentioned earlier:

Thomas 28/10/2008 Claim No 8QT03984 Judge Ackroyd
Gladwell 01/07/09 Claim No 9QT15658 Judge Ellery

I think they mean the ones other than the standard ones trotted out at every opportunity.
There must be more with all the court cases there seem to have been (according to ppc's that is)