Motorway Services Parking Charge

Oopsadaisy

No matter how many times you say it or wish it to be, it's not a !!!!!!! penalty, it's an invoice/invitation to pay.

As such all the balderdash about Reg this and section this are a waste of time.

Oopsadaisy

It still amazes me.

4000 threads....saying ignore everything and don't appeal.

Stickies galore...saying ignore everything and don't appeal.

And people still come on and say 'I read all the stuff and appealed'.

Mental....

funkycoldribena

Oopsadaisy wrote: »

It still amazes me.

4000 threads....saying ignore everything and don't appeal.

Stickies galore...saying ignore everything and don't appeal.

And people still come on and say 'I read all the stuff and appealed'.

Mental....

I dont get it either,my brain cant fathom what people are thinking sometimes.

Sirdan

RENEGADE wrote: »

There is no confusion. ANPR is a system that authorities can use for speeding tickets (cameras), catching people driving in bus lanes and the like. No law forbids private companies from using it, but any invoice they generate needs to be stuck to the windscreen or handed to the driver. Had this not been the case, there would have been no changes to the law in March 2008 which named authorities exclusively, because the authorities would have been permitted to do this in the first place, but they weren't. QED.

BUT do bare in mind one thing: what I say applies purely to fines/penalties. Obviously the PPC does not admit to this document they send being a penalty but everybody knows that it is and this is where they themselves know they cannot advance. If they had been purely seeking the money lost through the period of time spent (eg. 2-24 hours, £10 for the vehicle) then this would have appeared fairer.

I know that at Weymouth, CP Plus use ANPR to enforce "Byelaw 14" on the railway carpark. I've known a few get tickets and each one has thrown the book at CP Plus on the conditions I mentioned to you and they backed down instantly.

...but then that's just CP Plus. Another rogue company whose staff have pigshιt for brains.

No the law whether you like it or not relates only to statutory bodies issuing statutory penalties whilst it allows for those bodies to use ANPR where previously they were not it does not follow that this prohibits PPCs from issuing invoices in this manner .

That's the whole problem with PPCs they are not regulated by statute so they can do as they please including issuing invoices by post generated by ANPR.

RENEGADE_2

Sirdan wrote: »

No the law whether you like it or not relates only to statutory bodies issuing statutory penalties whilst it allows for those bodies to use ANPR where previously they were not it does not follow that this prohibits PPCs from issuing invoices in this manner .

That's the whole problem with PPCs they are not regulated by statute so they can do as they please including issuing invoices by post generated by ANPR.

All right. I see your point. The PPCs are too deep in their unlawful actions and since they are not regulated, neither are we the drivers. They can send as many letters to me as they like on account of their precious "ANPR" (which in reality is a censor-activated snapshot of your entire vehicle) but I'll never pay a single one.

RENEGADE_2

Oopsadaisy wrote: »

It still amazes me.

4000 threads....saying ignore everything and don't appeal.

Stickies galore...saying ignore everything and don't appeal.

And people still come on and say 'I read all the stuff and appealed'.

Mental....

It is still worrying for an individual when he is hit with it for the first time. It was for me too some time back. People look at their document and are in two minds because of the wording, suddenly thinking "well, everyone else's are illegal but mine might just be enforceable because this looks all official". This is why they require encouragement from regulars here to assure them that they are in no trouble.

RENEGADE_2

Oopsadaisy wrote: »

No matter how many times you say it or wish it to be, it's not a fυcking penalty, it's an invoice/invitation to pay.

As such all the balderdash about Reg this and section this are a waste of time.

Then to recap to the OP - you need fear nothing from anybody, you are still home and dry, DO NOT PAY. Ignore all correspondences.

Sirdan

RENEGADE wrote: »

All right. I see your point. The PPCs are too deep in their unlawful actions and since they are not regulated, neither are we the drivers. They can send as many letters to me as they like on account of their precious "ANPR" (which in reality is a censor-activated snapshot of your entire vehicle) but I'll never pay a single one.

The point is that because they are not regulated it follows that using ANPR to generate "an invitation to pay" invoice for an alleged breach of contract is NOT unlawful per se.

However since the subject interests you.. look closely at
Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Bill...if passed in present form this will place a statutory requirement to place the invoice and all the terms and conditions on a stationary vehicle or hand it to the driver (or person appearing to be in charge of the vehicle...whatever that means )

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmbills/146/11146.i-v.html#top

RENEGADE_2

Sirdan wrote: »

The point is that because they are not regulated it follows that using ANPR to generate "an invitation to pay" invoice for an alleged breach of contract is NOT unlawful per se.

However since the subject interests you.. look closely at
Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Bill...if passed in present form this will place a statutory requirement to place the invoice and all the terms and conditions on a stationary vehicle or hand it to the driver (or person appearing to be in charge of the vehicle...whatever that means )

I had checked it prior to my last post, I used Wikipedia for a lead and followed on through the sources, that was why I said I see your point.

For what it's worth, PPCs may not use terms such as "fine" or "penalty" and only get away with "charge" because the very same term is used to describe the fee for parking on a property. This way, I am confident that letters to RKs for "unpaid charges" will still be unlawful if demanding £60 where loss of profit was £2 or where parking was free.

Sirdan

RENEGADE wrote: »

I had checked it prior to my last post, I used Wikipedia for a lead and followed on through the sources, that was why I said I see your point.

For what it's worth, PPCs may not use terms such as "fine" or "penalty" and only get away with "charge" because the very same term is used to describe the fee for parking on a property. This way, I am confident that letters to RKs for "unpaid charges" will still be unlawful if demanding £60 where loss of profit was £2 or where parking was free.

Not quite, it is against the British Parking Association's voluntary code of practice ..to use fine or penalty.

PPCs who wish to use the online link to DVLA data called AOS must be members of the BPA and abide by this code.

However the BPA is not a regulatory body ,it is a members club funded by PPCs.



As such PPCs , their debt collectors and Solicitors continue to use terms such as penalty or fine in signs and letters.

The BPA may ask them to stop but they sure as hell won't expel them or ask DVLA to suspend their AOS access.

OPC were prosecuted by trading Standards and convicted ..still in the BPA and their access to DVLA data was only suspended for a brief period of time.

Remember PPCs are unregulated and as such there is no such word as "can't" !!

PS Letters to RKs are not unlawful per se as there is no statute law to cover them( unless they really go too far in which case they could possibly be construed as harassment or fraud) ..they are however unenforceable..so just ignore is best advice.