Legion Group PCN

Sirdan

Flyboy152 wrote: »

That doesn't really answer the question though, does it. :wall:

Yes it entirely answers the question. PPC's give tickets (oops sorry invoices ) to people because they can ..there is no other reason.

PPC's stupidly believe that by marking a space as disabled it can only be used by a blue badge holder ..this is not the case on private land.

The reality is this invoice is unenforceable and should be ignored , which I believe was the original question.

Whether it is morally right to park in a space marked disabled when you are not wasn't the question,although it appears to be the one you want answered.

The original question is about the validity of the PPC's invoice and whether or not they can issue penalties.

They can't issue penalties and if they want their invoice paid they need to prove their case at a small claims court ..which they won't do because they know the most likely outcome.

Flyboy152

Sirdan wrote: »

Yes it entirely answers the question. PPC's give tickets (oops sorry invoices ) to people because they can ..there is no other reason.

PPC's stupidly believe that by marking a space as disabled it can only be used by a blue badge holder ..this is not the case on private land.

The reality is this invoice is unenforceable and should be ignored , which I believe was the original question.

Whether it is morally right to park in a space marked disabled when you are not wasn't the question,although it appears to be the one you want answered.

The original question is about the validity of the PPC's invoice and whether or not they can issue penalties.

They can't issue penalties and if they want their invoice paid they need to prove their case at a small claims court ..which they won't do because they know the most likely outcome.

It is odd that there are so many people who will defend drivers taking up spaces that are specifically designed for the use of those who have difficulty with mobility. It is if they deliberately park in a disabled bay, because they know they can. They have very litle regard for the intended purpose and ignore any protests from those who are willing to challenge them. They hide behind hollow rhetoric, such as, "it's not a parking ticket, it's an invoice," or, "wrongfully parking in disabled parking bays are not legally enforceable on private land." As if that gives them the excuse to do whatever they like, or because they too damned lazy to walk a few more yards.

Add to that the morons who abuse others private property, just because there are no barriers, gates, chains or bollards. They are then inexplicably surprised to get a letter through the post telling them they are being charged a fee for trespassing on someone else's land.

Sirdan

Flyboy152 wrote: »

It is odd that there are so many people who will defend drivers taking up spaces that are specifically designed for the use of those who have difficulty with mobility. It is if they deliberately park in a disabled bay, because they know they can. They have very litle regard for the intended purpose and ignore any protests from those who are willing to challenge them. They hide behind hollow rhetoric, such as, "it's not a parking ticket, it's an invoice," or, "wrongfully parking in disabled parking bays are not legally enforceable on private land." As if that gives them the excuse to do whatever they like, or because they too damned lazy to walk a few more yards.

Add to that the morons who abuse others private property, just because there are no barriers, gates, chains or bollards. They are then inexplicably surprised to get a letter through the post telling them they are being charged a fee for trespassing on someone else's land.

I'm wasn't defending the morality of the action, I was answering the question asked by the OP.

HOWEVER if the space is nearest to the nursey i.e. it is for ease of access to the nursery for disabled visitors to said nursery and thenursery is closed ..what has this woman actually done wrong ??

Harry_Flashman

Flyboy152 wrote: »

It is odd that there are so many people who will defend drivers taking up spaces that are specifically designed for the use of those who have difficulty with mobility. It is if they deliberately park in a disabled bay, because they know they can. They have very litle regard for the intended purpose and ignore any protests from those who are willing to challenge them. They hide behind hollow rhetoric, such as, "it's not a parking ticket, it's an invoice," or, "wrongfully parking in disabled parking bays are not legally enforceable on private land." As if that gives them the excuse to do whatever they like, or because they too damned lazy to walk a few more yards.

Add to that the morons who abuse others private property, just because there are no barriers, gates, chains or bollards. They are then inexplicably surprised to get a letter through the post telling them they are being charged a fee for trespassing on someone else's land.

The nursery was closed - where's the harm in using the space?

It's a damned shame that the Legion has stooped to such measures to make their money

Sirdan

"Add to that the morons who abuse others private property, just because there are no barriers, gates, chains or bollards. They are then inexplicably surprised to get a letter through the post telling them they are being charged a fee for trespassing on someone else's land."

I don't believe anyone is surprised at all ..they just don't think you can charge whatever you like ..they expect you should sue them for ACTUAL loss and damages as the law stands.
PRIVATE individuals can not FINE other PRIVATE individuals no matter how much they may wish to and regardless of how strong their case is.
That's the law and with good reason ..if you can convince parliament otherwise I'm sure they will be happy to change the law for you . (Good luck)

Flyboy152

Sirdan wrote: »

I'm wasn't defending the morality of the action, I was answering the question asked by the OP.

HOWEVER if the space is nearest to the nursey i.e. it is for ease of access to the nursery for disabled visitors to said nursery and thenursery is closed ..what has this woman actually done wrong ??

The OP cannot have it both ways. either the spaces are for the whole of the park, or they are or the nursery only. If they are for the whole of the park, then any disabled visitor who wanted to use that space could not, because some lazy beggar deprived them of it. If they are there for the sole use of the nursery, the OP's wife should not have used them, because she was not entitled to.

Tilt

Sirdan wrote: »

Actually it could have some bearing if there is a clear notice stating that the marked disabled bay is for disabled drivers or passengers only.
Obviously the PPC would then have to prove on probability that the driver was not disabled. Simply not displaying a blue badge does not IMO prove this.

.

At the risk of entering into an time consuming 'debate' to which I cannot really afford, it dosn't matter if the sign was 20ft high with flashing lights, if it is on a private car park (i.e. retail park/supermarket ect), disabled, chilld & parent or loading bays have no legal status what-so-ever. We are talking contractual law here which is a civil matter. The land owner (or his agent) can indeed take legal action via a civil court against anyone who is in 'breach of contract'. His claim however, would be limited to his losses or damages caused as a result of an individual using the car park. He can issue an invoice for the services which that individual has used BUT to make that invoice enforceable, it has to be addressed to the person who has entered into the contract, i.e. the driver. What the land owner cannot do is issue a fine or penalty under English law as they have no authority to do so. Now i'm not saying it is not possible for a PPC to commence a civil action against anyone who 'rains on their parade' but to make it feasable, they need to prove that their losses/damages are sufficent enough to make such an action worth while. It is highly unlikely that a DJ will be convinced that this would amount to any where near what the PPC's Parking Charge Notice demands and so it makes it a gamble for them litigate which is why they don't even with all the threats that they will make.

Flyboy152

Sirdan wrote: »

"Add to that the morons who abuse others private property, just because there are no barriers, gates, chains or bollards. They are then inexplicably surprised to get a letter through the post telling them they are being charged a fee for trespassing on someone else's land."

I don't believe anyone is surprised at all ..they just don't think you can charge whatever you like ..they expect you should sue them for ACTUAL loss and damages as the law stands.
PRIVATE individuals can not FINE other PRIVATE individuals no matter how much they may wish to and regardless of how strong their case is.
That's the law and with good reason ..if you can convince parliament otherwise I'm sure they will be happy to change the law for you . (Good luck)

Personally, I don't give two hoots what you think. I am happy to instruct the parking control company to give as many tickets as is necessary to deter people from depriving me, my staff and my clients from being able to park on my land. If you want to give me your address, I'll come along and park on your driveway, see how you like it. If you ask me to move, I'll tell you to shove it. Take me to the small claims court and charge me for the privilege.

Sirdan

Flyboy152 wrote: »

The OP cannot have it both ways. either the spaces are for the whole of the park, or they are or the nursery only. If they are for the whole of the park, then any disabled visitor who wanted to use that space could not, because some lazy beggar deprived them of it. If they are there for the sole use of the nursery, the OP's wife should not have used them, because she was not entitled to.

And on this basis she owes the PPC whatever sum they choose ? Really ?

See you in court then ..lol

Sirdan

Tilt wrote: »

At the risk of entering into an time consuming 'debate' to which I cannot really afford, it dosn't matter if the sign was 20ft high with flashing lights, if it is on a private car park (i.e. retail park/supermarket ect), disabled, chilld & parent or loading bays have no legal status what-so-ever. We are talking contractual law here which is a civil matter. The land owner (or his agent) can indeed take legal action via a civil court against anyone who is in 'breach of contract'. His claim however, would be limited to his losses or damages caused as a result of an individual using the car park. He can issue an invoice for the services which that individual has used BUT to make that invoice enforceable, it has to be addressed to the person who has entered into the contract, i.e. the driver. What the land owner cannot do is issue a fine or penalty under English law as they have no authority to do so. Now i'm not saying it is not possible for a PPC to commence a civil action against anyone who 'rains on their parade' but to make it feasable, they need to prove that their losses/damages are sufficent enough to make such an action worth while. It is highly unlikely that a DJ will be convinced that this would amount to any where near what the PPC's Parking Charge Notice demands and so it makes it a gamble for them litigate which is why they don't even with all the threats that they will make.

Surely it is the prescence of the sign with clear terms and conditions which leads to the alleged breach of contract ? Without it there is no breach.
if a PPC wants to make it a term of the contract that certain spaces are solely for the use of a particular group of people aren't they entitled to do so ?
Otherwise I agree with all you have said.