Is there ever any need to buy a pay and display ticket?

Coupon-mad

Never seen that link before...makes you wonder WHY Perky never used it as an example case? Unless this was a stooge which was sussed at some point (seems odd the 'defendant' just argued that private tickets don't have to be paid...seems a typical lame stooge defence/set up to me).

And the amount claimed seems like the PPC just got a bit silly with this alleged set-up case and realised they had overstepped the line of credibility, so stuck to harking on about the (also questionable) Thomas case. Dare I say it, I wonder if the foreign name led to questions on forums as well, perhaps this patsy was just a name of someone who had visited the UK and the PPC sent someone along to Court claiming to be him, certain that the person would never know...stranger cases have happened and wouldn't have cost the PPC much in Court fees if trying to stage a 'landmark case'...as the paper was persuaded to call it!

The bit I liked was at the bottom of the article, shows the power of COMPLAINTS to retailers:

QUOTE
the Sunday Mail exposed English firm Central Ticketing, who have more than 100 Scottish sites. Drivers got £135 fines but their signs are often obscured. They had a contract in Stirling suspended after hundreds of complaints from shoppers.

QUOTE


:T

jennyjelly

yellowbenzene wrote: »

was just to illustrate to the OP that simply refusing to pay for things does not equate to "moneysaving".

Hang on a bit, I never suggested it was! I feel several people on this thread seem to be interpreting my original post as 'can I get away with it'.

Read it properly and I state clearly that I DO buy p&d tickets and I have only ever had ONE ppc invoice due to a genuine mistake - hardly smacks of criminal intent does it?

I honestly posted out of interest only, being new to the knowledge you clever people on this board are doing such a good job of imparting, and I really don't like the unspoken suggestions that I'm trying to avoid paying - I never have and I never will. I wish I hadn't bothered posting now.

monkey_alan

Don't worry jen I know where you're coming from on this one. Personally I would advocate parking there without buying a P&D ticket as I stated recently on a very similar thread, because I think you're then in a better legal position than if you hadn't bought one at all. Buying the ticket could be construed as acceptance of a contract and an admission that you've read the signage, after which it may be hard to pick apart the pre-advised charges on the tariff board and effectively say "well i think this part is fair but this part isn't fair". Far better to argue that no contract exists at all and that none of the charges are enforceable, IMO.

jennyjelly

Thanks monkey_alan, but I have to say I do feel it's right to pay for services you use.

I don't feel that taking a space in a car park is any different from, say, travelling on a train. For example, my son was recently 40p short on a train (unfamiliar route, didn't know the price and thought he had enough) but rather than a ridiculous fine he was given a ticket to send off with his full payment. Fair and sensible. Similarly if the ticket on my windscreen told me I needed to pay my £2 I wouldn't have had any problem as, like him, I wasn't trying to get away with anything.

peter_the_piper

monkey_alan wrote: »

Don't worry jen I know where you're coming from on this one. Personally I would advocate parking there without buying a P&D ticket as I stated recently on a very similar thread, because I think you're then in a better legal position than if you hadn't bought one at all. Buying the ticket could be construed as acceptance of a contract and an admission that you've read the signage, after which it may be hard to pick apart the pre-advised charges on the tariff board and effectively say "well i think this part is fair but this part isn't fair". Far better to argue that no contract exists at all and that none of the charges are enforceable, IMO.

This then is where we would always differ. Most here think its only right that a fee should be charged and paid if you use the space providing the fee is reasonable. If its not then don't park there, simples.:D

monkey_alan

peter_the_piper wrote: »

This then is where we would always differ. Most here think its only right that a fee should be charged and paid if you use the space providing the fee is reasonable. If its not then don't park there, simples.:D

Trouble is, phrases like "if you don't like it don't park there" are dangerously close to PPC ga-ga speak. If I buy a P&D ticket then get a PPC ticket on my windscreen for overstaying the time on the ticket by 5 mins, they've already cleared some of the major hurdles to win in court, namely that a contract WAS entered into and the driver DID read the sign. Given yesterday's link to the CPS "victories" (if they are genuine) I wouldn't fancy rolling the dice on whether the judge thought it was an agreed charge or a penalty depending on what side of bed he got out of that morning.

peter_the_piper

monkey_alan wrote: »

Trouble is, phrases like "if you don't like it don't park there" are dangerously close to PPC ga-ga speak.

Thanks very much!!!!!!!!!!!!!:mad:


If I buy a P&D ticket then get a PPC ticket on my windscreen for overstaying the time on the ticket by 5 mins, they've already cleared some of the major hurdles to win in court, namely that a contract WAS entered into and the driver DID read the sign.

If this were the case why are there so few cases and even less wins eg OPC 27 and counting and no wins?

monkey_alan

Sorry, I wasn't having a go at you, I just meant that by giving legitimacy to anything written on the sign, you may be regarded to have given thought to whether you found the whole set of terms "fair" and decided to park there accordingly.

Not sure why there are few cases/wins, there could be many reasons I guess, but what does seem clear from the ones that I've seen reported is that judges are inconsistent in whether they regard the PPC's exorbitant fees to be an unlawful penalty or an agreed contractual charge, and I know (from taking several cases through the county courts when I used to own a company) that justice, at least at county court level, can be a bit of a joke to say the least.

peter_the_piper

It helps that the ppc does not know who the driver is, only the Rk. There is no legal responsibility on the RK to say who is driving.
Exhorbitent charge is a penalty. not allowed under contract law.
Plenty more but thats a good start,
When you did your claim you knew who the other party was, had agreed a price, quantity and quality, you were not able to say that if you don't deliver you will pay me £XXX.XX