Parking Charge Notices - Town & City Parking (Asda)

dldbsl

hi everyone
i was just wondering if there was any update on the general advice given on here and elsewhere on ignoring everything you receive.

The reason for this is some information i came across whilst searching the internet. UKPC have run a story (undated) on their website stating they won a case and were able to combat ALL defences suggested by various websites.

here is a extract - any comments on the current position?
.........................................................................................

Hi All,
Firstly an apology if you have already received this ... I only did part of the BPA Distribution list yesterday ...
Just an update - As some of you may remember back in May 2008 we commenced a legal action against a defendant who parked on private land and received a parking charge notice.
The defendant used many of the internet forums to gain advice and submitted a 'robust and unbeatable defence' to the court - The comments made by the sites such as Consumer Action Group and PePiPoo amongst others was along the lines of "a good defence will always defeat the private parking companies and their un-enforceable invoices"
Although our website contains details of a few past cases taken to court (including judgements), they have always been questioned by the so called experts on internet forums as badly defended etc... This case yesterday proved that even with their excellent/fail proof defences a PPC can and will win.

The case dealt with the 4 major issues that face EVERY private parking ticket issued:

1. The identity of the driver, The defendant always denied/never accepted being the driver and said many people have access to his car and at times indicated his brother was driving as they are very similar in looks - There was no CCTV of the area and the issuer did not see the driver ... The court found that on the balance of probabilities he was the driver
2. The signage was inadequate for any person and not sufficient to form a contract if the person did not see it, Various case law was quoted and the court ruled from the evidence of ourselves that the signage was there to be seen and the fact it was not seen (or claimed not to have been seen by the defendant) was not sufficient and the court found in favour of ourselves.
3. There was no consideration (an integral part of a contract) ... The court heard various case law and whilst there was no physical consideration the court found that the consideration was in fact the use of a facility and nothing is free in life - so the court ruled in our favour.
4. The charge is a penalty .. The defendant used various case law (Dunlop, Clydebank Shipping, Price v Easton) .. We used the McAlpine-v-Tilebox and comments at the end of Arthur-v-Anker with details of our charges and breakdown ... The court found that the charge was NOT a penalty but an agreed charge and awarded in our favour.

The court was very critical of the methods used by the defendant and by his taking advice by the internet forums - The judge described the defendant as "Disingenuous".
The case lasted some 3.5hrs and could have a major impact for private parking enforcement in the courts.
I have attached a press release that has been sent to local newspapers in the Manchester Area, BBC Breakfast (who did report on private parking last week), ITV in Manchester and BBC Manchester.
This has been reported by local press (links below) and details sent to the nationals, hopefully they will be interested ...
So, a very high profile and successful case by ourselves and the private parking industry in general.

esmerobbo

They are quoting the Stephen Thomas case, it wasn't even their case! Even if it was it doesn't set a precedent the same court the next day could find the exact opposite.

Look at this case! https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/3672741

And this! http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=59380&mode=threaded&pid=564302

Plus T&CP and UKPC have never done court!

Sirdan

dldbsl wrote: »

hi everyone
i was just wondering if there was any update on the general advice given on here and elsewhere on ignoring everything you receive.

The reason for this is some information i came across whilst searching the internet. UKPC have run a story (undated) on their website stating they won a case and were able to combat ALL defences suggested by various websites.

here is a extract - any comments on the current position?
.........................................................................................

Hi All,
Firstly an apology if you have already received this ... I only did part of the BPA Distribution list yesterday ...
Just an update - As some of you may remember back in May 2008 we commenced a legal action against a defendant who parked on private land and received a parking charge notice.
The defendant used many of the internet forums to gain advice and submitted a 'robust and unbeatable defence' to the court - The comments made by the sites such as Consumer Action Group and PePiPoo amongst others was along the lines of "a good defence will always defeat the private parking companies and their un-enforceable invoices"
Although our website contains details of a few past cases taken to court (including judgements), they have always been questioned by the so called experts on internet forums as badly defended etc... This case yesterday proved that even with their excellent/fail proof defences a PPC can and will win.

The case dealt with the 4 major issues that face EVERY private parking ticket issued:

1. The identity of the driver, The defendant always denied/never accepted being the driver and said many people have access to his car and at times indicated his brother was driving as they are very similar in looks - There was no CCTV of the area and the issuer did not see the driver ... The court found that on the balance of probabilities he was the driver
2. The signage was inadequate for any person and not sufficient to form a contract if the person did not see it, Various case law was quoted and the court ruled from the evidence of ourselves that the signage was there to be seen and the fact it was not seen (or claimed not to have been seen by the defendant) was not sufficient and the court found in favour of ourselves.
3. There was no consideration (an integral part of a contract) ... The court heard various case law and whilst there was no physical consideration the court found that the consideration was in fact the use of a facility and nothing is free in life - so the court ruled in our favour.
4. The charge is a penalty .. The defendant used various case law (Dunlop, Clydebank Shipping, Price v Easton) .. We used the McAlpine-v-Tilebox and comments at the end of Arthur-v-Anker with details of our charges and breakdown ... The court found that the charge was NOT a penalty but an agreed charge and awarded in our favour.

The court was very critical of the methods used by the defendant and by his taking advice by the internet forums - The judge described the defendant as "Disingenuous".
The case lasted some 3.5hrs and could have a major impact for private parking enforcement in the courts.
I have attached a press release that has been sent to local newspapers in the Manchester Area, BBC Breakfast (who did report on private parking last week), ITV in Manchester and BBC Manchester.
This has been reported by local press (links below) and details sent to the nationals, hopefully they will be interested ...
So, a very high profile and successful case by ourselves and the private parking industry in general.

1) The defendant failed to convince the DJ he was not the driver ...he is described as "disingenuous" in legal speak that means the DJ thought he was lieing.
A word to the wise a defence of "you can't prove who was driving" will fail ..you need evidence that shows how/why you were on balance more likely to not be the driver ..if you were then this defence is a non starter ..no one here advises misleading the court.

2) Signage varies, but if the signs are clear it is true that " I didn't see the sign" is not a defence.

3) Consideration ..well if the signage has the full terms available then yes there could be consideration..as for "nothing in life is free" that's basically irrelevant drivel form the DJ , most ASDA car parks are free are they not ?

4) This is ONE case in 2008 there have been several high profile cases in 2011 where the DJ has ruled that the charges most definitely are a penalty.

BUT most important of all is that what they quote sets no precedent and as such TCP do NOT risk taking people to court despite all their threatening bullying letters -so yes the advice remains IGNORE these idiots.

dldbsl

many thanks to esmerobbo and sirdan for your prompt replies and for clarifying things - i feel more at ease and await the escalating threats - 1st letter received today only 6 weeks after getting the Parking Charge Notice (PCN).

Hadeon

OP - you will receive a further 'reminder' from TCP in due course followed by junkmail threats from a DCA viz. Whyte & Co based in Kent.
IGNORE everything as already advised - you have nothing to worry yourself about.
You may however consider informing ASDA that you will be shopping elsewhere in future.

Coupon-mad

You would do much better not to search for and read their scam website but to read more forum threads on this one (if the link below stops working over time, all I did was searched this sub-forum for 'UKPC'):

UKPC threads

See how many people have asked similar questions, see how often we have replied saying that UKPC never do Court (except the time they were taken there thremselves by Trading STandards recently - it's linked on several of those threads).

And read the sticky threads at the top of the index view of the current forum threads - which is easily found by clicking on the right-hand end of the breadcrumb trail link above (the blue 'Home>Forums>...' link at the top of this page in small writing). Look at the stickies at the top of that view, watch the Watchdog video linked on a sticky by Crabman.

Relax and enjoy Christmas - but spread the word to family and friends to only ever take seriously a ticket from the Police, TFL or Council.

Hadeon

C-m - judging by the thread title, I believe the OP's 'ticket' was issued by TCP at an Asda supermarket.

Coupon-mad

Hadeon wrote: »

C-m - judging by the thread title, I believe the OP's 'ticket' was issued by TCP at an Asda supermarket.

Oh yeah, didn't spot that!

So here's the search result the OP could have found on this very forum:

Town City Asda

And as we all know, TCP have never ever done Court either. And reading the stickies and watching the Watchdog video still applies as the advice to the OP!

robredz

Saw TCP issuing a ticket to a woman in Wrexham Asda who had mobility issues, she was parked in a disabled bay and was arguing with the TCP Droog. I walked past and said to her it is an unenforceable invoice and ignore it, and that BBs don't apply on private land. saw a manager inside and told him that their PPC's tickets were unenforceable and if I had been the one to get a ticket, they would be cited for breach of the Equalities Act.

they were clueless

esmerobbo

The manager will probably be googling away to see what the eqaulities act is!

robredz

esmerobbo wrote: »

The manager will probably be googling away to see what the eqaulities act is!

And when he finds out will do nothing, or more likely contact TCP who will tell him not to be silly and let them carry on scamming.