Apoca parking fine Luton Airport info needed please

Jamie_Carter

prosnap wrote: »

I love it when someone comes on here and "bigs" it up without having a clue what they are talking about. :rotfl:

Even better when they carry on despite overwhelming evidence that they are wrong.

No evidence whatsoever....read the thread.

Jamie_Carter

Stroma wrote: »

He reminds of someone else who comes here defending parking eye, similar kind of drivel, similar kinds of comments about getting legal advice etc , it maybe is that person's other account here ? Lots similarities , think Coupon maybe knows the one I'm thinking of

When have I defended any dodgy parking company.

All I have said is that you and the rest of your armchair experts should keep quiet until you know for sure what you are talking about.

Jamie_Carter

pustit wrote: »

So what are "the tight security for anti terrorist reasons"
let me know this then I will relate my experience(s) at Luton Airport

If you had any experience, then you wouldn't expect me to tell you. Especially in a forum.

Jamie_Carter

Coupon-mad wrote: »

We did...when it was first started over 2 years ago. Long before you ever appeared with your clueless rantings.

Why are you on a mission to make this the longest and most pointless drivel of a thread on the parking forum?!

You haven't read my posts properly, otherwise you wouldn't be kicking and screaming so much. You would see that see that I'm just advising caution.

Stroma

Jamie_Carter wrote: »

I'm not talking about the ones that don't get to court. Half of those that do find in favour of the parking company, and that isn't very good odds. If they decided to take them all to court, then 50% would be a huge number. Which makes it very irresponsible for you to give the advice that you do.

You really have lost touch with reality, they would never take people to court enmasse, as that is not their business model, and they would have to hire an army of people all around the UK to take up defended cases.

This is not going to happen though, as claims like this are noted and companies with become vexatious litigants as their claims would be without merit. We are currently seeing CEL making outrageous claims that are being defended, they are trying to claim about £350 a ticket, this is not based in reality and its an abuse of the courts.

There are a number of companies who have admitted that they would never go to court ever, and there are others that the contracts they have will not allow them to make claims, I suspect that Smart and Highview do not have authority from Asda and Tesco to issue claims, the reason is because in 6 years I have yet to see one claim from them

Stroma

Jamie_Carter wrote: »

When have I defended any dodgy parking company.

All I have said is that you and the rest of your armchair experts should keep quiet until you know for sure what you are talking about.

Um wouldn't that apply to you as well,? Because clearly you have no idea at all

Stroma

Jamie_Carter wrote: »

You haven't read my posts properly, otherwise you wouldn't be kicking and screaming so much. You would see that see that I'm just advising caution.

You are advising anything but drivel, you have no concept of the facts, you don't realise that to issue penalties, one of these must occur

1) Council adopts road, and has a TRO on there
2) A Bylaw must cover this specifically
3) A police officer can issue a FPN on obstruction

But we know 100% that this company is not acting on authority, the reason we know is within this thread and others. You may continue with your drivel, but no matter what you say you are incorrect in this regard.

I look forward to the next pointless irrelevant post that everyone is laughing at. There surely must be a village missing someone here somewhere.

Stroma

And just to reiterate what this is

Catherine13 wrote: »

Found on justanswer. com

Customer Reply

THe document does not refer to any council or by-law, the main bulk states the following:

" Notice is hereby served to the owner of vehichle registration LL58JPU

For the alleged contravention of 04-Dropping off or picking up outside of designated area at Luton Airport on 10/11/2011 at 06.22

The alleged contravention is a BREACH OF THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF USE of the Airport Road and signs are clearly displayed throughout the area showing these terms and conditions.

A charge of £80 is payable and must be paid before the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the date of this notice. If the charge is paid beforethe end of the period of 14 days beginning with the date of service of this notice, the amount will be reduced by 50%. If the above charge is not paid before the end of the 28 day period, PLEASE BE AWARE THAT THIS MATTER MAY BE PASSED ON TO A THIRD PARTY FOR THE RECOVERY OF THIS DEBT."

The letter then has two more sections; 'how to pay' and 'how to contact us'.

I did not see any signs stating anything, non visable to me or in an obvious place - I count myselt as a vigilent, law-abiding driver. my passenger exited the car, whilst the car was stationary in traffic. Do you think it would be worth asking them to send me evidence of the contravention?

Thanks

Accepted Answer

OK. You certainly shouldn't pay.

These companies are private who have no more right to punish you for the manner of your driving or parking than your neighbours do. Only the council or the police can do that.

These fines are issued on the basis either that you have accepted a contract by parking at a location and breached it by staying too long or there is an act of trespass. They are really more of an invoice than a fine.

Its difficult to make either of those arguments apply here. I suppose they could try to argue trespass.

In any event though, a trespass is a tort like any other and they have to identify the driver to pursue it which they cannot do. The way to stop them dead is to write back refusing to give them the details of the driver. they have no power to make you. This is not a speeding offence.

They will keep writing to you. They will probably get debt collectors to write and maybe even a solicitor. Unless you actually get a court summons none of these correspondences are anything to worry about.

Im happy to discuss the above but please remember to click on accept.

. Feedback: 97.4 %Accepts: 16328Answered: 2/11/2011Barrister
Bar Exams, 3 years in practice.

Jamie_Carter

Stroma wrote: »

And just to reiterate what this is

So no mention of a bus lane or bus station as in the OP's case.

Stroma

Jamie_Carter wrote: »

So no mention of a bus lane or bus station as in the OP's case.

Do you realise that the OP is from more than 2 years ago ? The fact is this is private land that bylaws do not cover as you can see in the link to it. Terms and Conditions of parking are the key words, that indicates that no bylaws covers this, no adoption of roads by the council as a TRO would have to cover that.