We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.

This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.

IMPORTANT: Please make sure your posts do not contain any personally identifiable information (both your own and that of others). When uploading images, please take care that you have redacted all personal information including number plates, reference numbers and QR codes (which may reveal vehicle information when scanned).
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
The Forum now has a brand new text editor, adding a bunch of handy features to use when creating posts. Read more in our how-to guide

I have received a fine from UKPC

13567

Comments

  • Wig
    Wig Posts: 14,139 Forumite
    sayno wrote: »
    I recieved a 'fine' from ukpc. I sent an appeal and my appeal was rejected. Have I put myself in a bad situation as I have corresponded to them.

    Yes, if you admitted to being the driver.
  • Trebor16
    Trebor16 Posts: 3,061 Forumite
    Wig wrote: »
    I don't see that anyone can only request "costs" from their customers...

    You buy a TV in Currys and you expect to pay only costs?
    You employ a builder to build you a conservatory and you expect to only pay his costs?
    You drive into a car park and you intend to ignore the displayed tarrif and only pay them their costs?

    Sorry, but I think youre wrong. There could be a question mark over the added on £40, but that could be put down to admin costs.

    The car park is a free car park so what is the tariff that the OP is ignoring?
    "You should know not to believe everything in media & polls by now !"


    John539 2-12-14 Post 15030
  • ashleypride
    ashleypride Posts: 657 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 500 Posts Combo Breaker
    edited 17 September 2011 at 11:11AM
    Wig wrote: »
    I don't see that anyone can only request "costs" from their customers...

    Sorry, but I think youre wrong. There could be a question mark over the added on £40, but that could be put down to admin costs.

    Sorry but you are wrong. The PPC can only claim reasonable damages from the OP failing to uphold their part of the contract. The car park was free.
  • Wig wrote: »
    If it was a charge for users of the car park over 2 hours it could be found by a court (lower court) to be legitimate.....other lower courts have done as much in the past.

    If it was a daily parking charge then yes...

    But it wasn't, it was a free car park, with a penalty clause. Daily parking charges don't suddenly change from £50 to £90, neither does Perky do daily parking charges in free car parks.
  • Back to the OP..

    Either 1) Ignore, or 2) Complain to the retailers you were visiting and get them to deal with the PPCs threatograms.
  • Wig
    Wig Posts: 14,139 Forumite
    edited 17 September 2011 at 2:57PM
    Sorry but you are wrong. The PPC can only claim reasonable damages from the OP failing to uphold their part of the contract. The car park was free.
    Trebor16 wrote: »
    The car park is a free car park so what is the tariff that the OP is ignoring?

    This is where you could both be wrong - in this case. If the sign says parking is free for first 2 hours but therefter a charge of £xx will be made then it is a tariffed car park and not free from that point, drivers agree to the conditions when they park. Courts have upheld the use of tariffs to deter unauthorised parking so you are both wrong. Equally courts have thrown out what they determine to be a penalty charge. Depending on the wording of the sign it will either be a penalty or a legitimate tariff.

    To blindly advise the OP to just ignore everything, knowing that she has identified herself as the driver is IMO bad advice.
  • trisontana
    trisontana Posts: 9,472 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 1,000 Posts Combo Breaker
    Except that it's not a proper charge, mainly because there is no method of paying that extra money in the car-park if you decide to stay over the "free" allowance.
    What part of "A whop bop-a-lu a whop bam boo" don't you understand?
  • Wig
    Wig Posts: 14,139 Forumite
    edited 17 September 2011 at 2:56PM
    trisontana wrote: »
    Except that it's not a proper charge, mainly because there is no method of paying that extra money in the car-park if you decide to stay over the "free" allowance.

    And yet some courts disagree with your argument. It's not black & white.
  • trisontana
    trisontana Posts: 9,472 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 1,000 Posts Combo Breaker
    Wig wrote: »
    And yet some courts disagree with your argument. It's not black & white.

    Can you cite these court cases?
    What part of "A whop bop-a-lu a whop bam boo" don't you understand?
  • Wig
    Wig Posts: 14,139 Forumite
    edited 17 September 2011 at 3:58PM
    No, I've forgotten the names who lost, but they do exist. I read a thread where the guy lost (and he came back to say he had lost) I think it might have been Perky who won. but I am only guessing.

    Equally can you give reference to cases won by drivers?

    I am aware of the Excel parking class action which was succesful, but then their signs were not correctly worded.
This discussion has been closed.
Meet your Ambassadors

🚀 Getting Started

Hi new member!

Our Getting Started Guide will help you get the most out of the Forum

Categories

  • All Categories
  • 354.3K Banking & Borrowing
  • 254.4K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
  • 455.4K Spending & Discounts
  • 247.3K Work, Benefits & Business
  • 604K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
  • 178.4K Life & Family
  • 261.5K Travel & Transport
  • 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
  • 16K Discuss & Feedback
  • 37.7K Read-Only Boards

Is this how you want to be seen?

We see you are using a default avatar. It takes only a few seconds to pick a picture.