Private company parking fine!!!

ManxRed

You need to call the fire brigade, as this particular parking company's pants are on fire. They HAVE breached the BPA's code of practice, you can Google this and play spot the breach but you might need quite a lot of biro ink.

Debt Collectors are powerless. They can ask politely, no more. If you want to ignore them, then fine, if not then you can send them a letter telling the debt is denied, refer it back to their client. At this point they MUST leave you alone. Failure to do so would constitute harassment on their part.

They CANNOT send in bailiffs until taking you to court (unbelievably unlikely), winning (pigs taxiing down runway at this point), and then you STILL have the opportunity to pay up within 28 days. Only THEN, can they call in bailiffs.

They'll probably try and mislead you on that at some point in their correspondence as well.

frederick1945

Thanks for replies, firstly sorry I am new to these threads and seem to have crashed in on someone elses rather than start a new thread.
I have actually written to BPA about the sign etc and unbelievably they have written back to say this parking enforcement company has NOT breached there code off practice!!

Coupon-mad

Not really unbelievably, they always say that. Because the BPA is not a regulator. It's the private parking firms' old boys club.




Do not ignore a private parking ticket - from 2013 onwards things changed in England/Wales. If yours is Parking Eye then they are suing people and so are some other PPCs.

You must appeal and with current forum advice, you will win at popla - we win 100% of appeals in 2014.

Please click to page one of the forum, get off this old thread. See my signature below for where to click to read current advice. Please read the NEWBIES thread at the top of this very forum.

Did I say STOP reading this ancient thread, NOW??!!

give_them_FA

The main mistake you have made, Frederick, is to take this scam seriously, and stand and argue about it instead of just ignoring it like the rest of us do. Of course they are not going to give you a straight answer or listen to one word you say. They are SCAMMERS. All they are interested in is getting you to give them money. And the BPA is the Scammers' Guild. They run it, it isn't some sort of official body even though it pretends to be.

Just drop it and let them talk to themselves!

frederick1945

Thanks guys, think I will just ignore letters from debt collectors now. Recently got wind of another unscrupulous performance from this same enforcement company. A young tennant in there first affordable flat was parked in there designated parking bay but there permit had come unstuck from the windscreen and fallen on the front seat. Despite an explanation this person was harrassed into paying up!

give_them_FA

Disgraceful. That is the way they operate. But as I always say, letting a parking parasite loose in residential areas only ever results in the residents themselves being the victims. The party can still sue for harassment; it is, after all, the ultimate in harassment to browbeat someone into paying something they never owed.

Ask them if they are up for it.

As a minimum it should be possible to browbeat them (or the landlord) into refunding the money. If they are prepared to actually sue they should get a refund plus more besides.

cmrfly01

Rosylee wrote: »

Hi

I have just received a parking fine from MET as I was parked at McDonalds in Shirley Solihull. The free stay was 90 minutes - I stayed for 114 minutes. I was not even aware there was a time limit as when I arrived it was raining very hard and I was hunkered down with loads of bags running to get indoors. So I never saw the signs. It was only when I came outside (it was sunny again), that I saw the signs and realised that I had over stayed.

I am so annoyed, mostly at McDonalds for using these companies. They advertise free wifi and many people use their laptops and have lunch too which is what I did - this encourages people to stay that bit longer.

I have seen people say that we should ignore it and I have watched the you tube video of watchdog, but as it was done in 2010, I wanted to ask if anyone has been taken to court by this company yet. Is it still a good idea to ignore the demands, no matter how they escalate. I am so angry - why does the government not ban these companies. People are struggling enough as it is. It would have been better if they had barriers up and one has to pay parking fees on your way out. At least you know up front what is required.:mad:

[FONT=Book Antiqua, serif]Hello,[/FONT]


[FONT=Book Antiqua, serif]Firstly, you haven't received a 'Fine', but mealy an invoice in pursuant of some outrageous amount they'd like to claim from you. First things first, Do not pay this invoice, it's not a criminal offence for you to ignore their correspondence. [/FONT]


[FONT=Book Antiqua, serif]Firstly, you claim you never saw the signs, [/FONT][FONT=Book Antiqua, serif]So of course the requirements of forming a contract such as meeting of minds, agreement, certainty of terms, Full disclosure, Etc where not satisfied, therefore there is no legally binding contract between yourself and MET parking. [/FONT]


[FONT=Book Antiqua, serif]Therefore, Seeing as no contract exists between yourself and MET Parking, then at most you're guilty of civil trespass (though this is neither admitted or denied). Given that you did no damage to the property, or to the car park, and seeing as the car park was probably not full when you arrived nor was it full when you left, I would suggest that there was no loss incurred to MET Parking as a result of your actions.[/FONT]


[FONT=Book Antiqua, serif]The charge/s that they are trying to levy against you, are [/FONT][FONT=Book Antiqua, serif]Punitive[/FONT][FONT=Book Antiqua, serif]/[/FONT][FONT=Book Antiqua, serif]unfair[/FONT][FONT=Book Antiqua, serif] and [/FONT][FONT=Book Antiqua, serif]unreasonable[/FONT][FONT=Book Antiqua, serif], even if a contract exists between yourself and MET Parking, they can not charge you for losses or damages which they did not occur (This becomes a penalty, in which, as MET are a private company, can not issue nor enforce a penalty).[/FONT]


[FONT=Book Antiqua, serif]The charges they are levying are an unfair term (and therefore not legally binding) pursuant to the [/FONT][FONT=Book Antiqua, serif]Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999[/FONT][FONT=Book Antiqua, serif]. In particular, [/FONT][FONT=Book Antiqua, serif]Schedule 2[/FONT][FONT=Book Antiqua, serif] of those Regulations gives an indicative (and non-exhaustive) list of terms which may be regarded as unfair and includes;[/FONT]


[FONT=Book Antiqua, serif]Schedule 2(1)(e)[/FONT][FONT=Book Antiqua, serif] States that ''Terms which have the object or effect of requiring any consumer who fails to fulfil his obligation to pay a disproportionately high sum in compensation." [/FONT]

[FONT=Book Antiqua, serif]Regulation 5(1)[/FONT][FONT=Book Antiqua, serif] States that, ''A contractual term which has not been individually negotiated shall be regarded as unfair if, contrary to the requirement of good faith, it causes a significant imbalance in the parties' rights and obligations arising under the contract, to the detriment of the consumer.[/FONT]

[FONT=Book Antiqua, serif]Regulation 5(2) [/FONT][FONT=Book Antiqua, serif]States that, ''A[/FONT][FONT=Book Antiqua, serif] term shall always be regarded as not having been individually negotiated where it has been drafted in advance and the consumer has therefore not been able to influence the substance of the term." [/FONT]

[FONT=Book Antiqua, serif]Regulation 5(4)[/FONT][FONT=Book Antiqua, serif] States that, ''It shall be for any seller or supplier who claims that a term was individually negotiated to show that it was.''[/FONT]

[FONT=Book Antiqua, serif]Regulation 5(5)[/FONT][FONT=Book Antiqua, serif] States that, ''[/FONT][FONT=Book Antiqua, serif]Schedule 2[/FONT][FONT=Book Antiqua, serif] to these Regulations contains an indicative and non-exhaustive list of the terms which may be regarded as unfair.''[/FONT]

[FONT=Book Antiqua, serif]Regulation 6(1)[/FONT][FONT=Book Antiqua, serif] States that, ''Without prejudice to R[/FONT][FONT=Book Antiqua, serif]egulation 12[/FONT][FONT=Book Antiqua, serif], the unfairness of a contractual term shall be assessed, taking into account the nature of the goods or services for which the contract was concluded and by referring, at the time of conclusion of the contract, to all the circumstances attending the conclusion of the contract and to all the other terms of the contract or of another contract on which it is dependent.''[/FONT]

[FONT=Book Antiqua, serif]Regulation 6(2)[/FONT][FONT=Book Antiqua, serif] States that ''In so far as it is in plain intelligible language, the assessment of fairness of a term shall not relate [/FONT][FONT=Book Antiqua, serif](a)[/FONT][FONT=Book Antiqua, serif]to the definition of the main subject matter of the contract, or [/FONT][FONT=Book Antiqua, serif](b)[/FONT][FONT=Book Antiqua, serif]to the adequacy of the price or remuneration, as against the goods or services supplied in exchange.[/FONT]

[FONT=Book Antiqua, serif]Regulation 8(1)[/FONT][FONT=Book Antiqua, serif] States that, ''An unfair term in a contract concluded with a consumer by a seller or supplier shall not be binding on the consumer.''[/FONT]

[FONT=Book Antiqua, serif]I[/FONT][FONT=Book Antiqua, serif]n respect of the above, this would also be a breach in regards to the[/FONT][FONT=Book Antiqua, serif] Unfair [/FONT][FONT=Book Antiqua, serif]Contract Terms Act 1977, [/FONT][FONT=Book Antiqua, serif]and of course [/FONT][FONT=Book Antiqua, serif]Common law [/FONT][FONT=Book Antiqua, serif](Law of the land, England is a common law jurisdiction), which would dictate that one can only pursue a claim against another if they have proof that as a result of your actions, that you have caused 'Loss, Injury or Harm' to another person or party. Surely, If you had caused some kind of damages in which they had incurred, how would they explain your reasoning behind these threats to raise the 'Charge' up after X amount of[/FONT][FONT=Book Antiqua, serif] days[/FONT][FONT=Book Antiqua, serif] of none payment ? If the [/FONT][FONT=Book Antiqua, serif]damages have occurred (Which they are claiming), then there wouldn't be a set amount, as damages will not be of the same value each and every time, nor would they constitute towards further losse[/FONT][FONT=Book Antiqua, serif]s and costs due to none payment of their unenforceable invoice. [/FONT]


[FONT=Book Antiqua, serif]The charges they are levying are an unreasonable indemnity clause pursuant to [/FONT][FONT=Book Antiqua, serif]section 4(1)[/FONT][FONT=Book Antiqua, serif]of the [/FONT][FONT=Book Antiqua, serif]Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977[/FONT][FONT=Book Antiqua, serif] which provides that;[/FONT]


[FONT=Book Antiqua, serif]Regulation 4(1)[/FONT][FONT=Book Antiqua, serif] States that, ''Person cannot by reference to any contract term be made to indemnify another person (whether a party to the contract or not) in respect of liability that may be incurred by the other for negligence or breach of contract, except in so far as the contract term satisfies the requirement of reasonableness.''[/FONT]


[FONT=Book Antiqua, serif]Also note, if they claim that the charges are a result as a 'Fee, Charge or demand' for a service provided to you in good faith, then I would argue that they must be reasonable under '[/FONT][FONT=Book Antiqua, serif]Section 15 of the Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982[/FONT][FONT=Book Antiqua, serif].' I would also ask for an exact breakdown of what goods/services they have supplied and how the charges are calculated and made up (To the exact penny), as of course is your right, [/FONT][FONT=Book Antiqua, serif]Section 15[/FONT][FONT=Book Antiqua, serif] of the [/FONT][FONT=Book Antiqua, serif]Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982[/FONT][FONT=Book Antiqua, serif] states the following:[/FONT]


[FONT=Book Antiqua, serif](1)[/FONT][FONT=Book Antiqua, serif]Where, under a contract for the supply of a service, the consideration for the service is not determined by the contract, left to be determined in a manner agreed by the contract or determined by the course of dealing between the parties, there is an implied term that the party contracting with the supplier will pay a reasonable charge.[/FONT]
[FONT=Book Antiqua, serif](2)What is a reasonable charge is a question of fact; In light of this section, I would most certainly argue and question whether these charges are in fact 'Reasonable'.[/FONT]


[FONT=Book Antiqua, serif]A Charge In [/FONT][FONT=Book Antiqua, serif]Legal[/FONT][FONT=Book Antiqua, serif] terms, is a 'Demand' (An Amount) as a price from someone for a service rendered or goods supplied. Therefore what exactly are they 'Charging' you for ? I would actually like to see a breakdown of exactly how their charges are composed (Penny for penny), what they cover, and why they are at the amount set. [/FONT]


[FONT=Book Antiqua, serif]If they have the charges set out before any breach of alleged contract happens, then they surely do not reflect any losses incurred to MET Parking do they... If they did then they wouldn't have a set amount to charge as they wouldn't know how much to charge until the breach of contract arises, therefore, the charge is not a charge, but a Punitive amount (An amount set to punish you). they're trying to impose a penalty upon you, in which they have no authority to do so. Only a court can impose and enforce a penalty against someone.[/FONT]


[FONT=Book Antiqua, serif]The sum they charge you for '[/FONT][FONT=Book Antiqua, serif]Liquidated Damages'[/FONT][FONT=Book Antiqua, serif], Liquidated damages (also referred to as Liquidised and ascertained damages) are damages whose amount the parties designate during the formation of[/FONT][FONT=Book Antiqua, serif] a contract [/FONT][FONT=Book Antiqua, serif]for the injured party to collect as compensation upon a specific breach, or [/FONT][FONT=Book Antiqua, serif]'Breach of Contract'[/FONT][FONT=Book Antiqua, serif] must reflect the 'True' damages and looses incurred (suffered by MET parking) due to the breach of contract, and not exceed these damages incurred otherwise it becomes a '[/FONT][FONT=Book Antiqua, serif]Penalty[/FONT][FONT=Book Antiqua, serif]', and of course, [/FONT][FONT=Book Antiqua, serif]MET Parking[/FONT][FONT=Book Antiqua, serif] being a private company, can not issue nor enforce a [/FONT][FONT=Book Antiqua, serif]penalty[/FONT][FONT=Book Antiqua, serif]. Only the courts can issue and enforce a Penalty. [/FONT]


[FONT=Book Antiqua, serif]The contractual element [/FONT][FONT=Book Antiqua, serif]of any claim being brought forward against you, Firstly and most simply, when you park in the car park and over stay or misuse the facilities in some way you breach the contract you have with the land owner. The terms they state is something along the lines of you will not overstay or misuse the facilities, these are terms on which the contract for parking is based, thus when you do something contrary to these terms you breach the contract. The common law holds that the remedy for breach of contract is [/FONT][FONT=Book Antiqua, serif]damages[/FONT][FONT=Book Antiqua, serif]. Therefore the land owner is entitled to damages covering the costs incurred as a result of you breaching the contract. [/FONT]


[FONT=Book Antiqua, serif]If you where to over-stay at a car park then the land owner loses revenue. Thus if parking is stipulated and set at a certain amount each hour (Lets say £1.00) an hour and you overstay by an hour then the damages are £1. of course they may argue that you are liable for the time of any attendant who may be involved in the issuing of an invoice. This claim is of course nonsense, and nonsensical. The fact is that they employ staff to be at the car park for all eventualities (automatic number plate recognition cameras I think).[/FONT]


[FONT=Book Antiqua, serif]In other words, And I could honestly go on for hours about how many statutory laws they've breached in issuing you the invoice, it's an unenforceable invoice which isn't worth the paper it's written on. [/FONT]


[FONT=Book Antiqua, serif]Do not pay. Simple as, no fear, because they will honestly do nothing. No court action, no nothing. Have a good night ![/FONT]

give_them_FA

Or- Don't pay the tw*ts. :rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

Kite2010

frederick1945 wrote: »

I have disputed a private parking invoice on grounds that my driver was doing a ten minute delivery. This was ignored and reference made to signs at the entrance to the car park. There was no such sign at the entrance only a small sign in the car park a long way from where vehicle was parked. However a few weeks later a big sign has now been erected! A letter to the parking company about this ended in a reply to me that they had not breached BPAs code of practice.
This so called debt has now been passed to a debt collecting company. My question is what powers do these debt collecting companies have in making me pay ? Presume no different than the parking company itself ? Can they send bailiffs in if the matter has not gone to court ?

I wonder if they got planning permission for that new sign (as IIRC you need planning permission if a sign is bigger than a certain size).

[The local tesco got slapped with a wet fish for not getting planning permission for a 3rd party to put up CCTV cameras to register number plates, so the cameras had to come down and the permission didn't get given, but the signs warning you will get a lovely £70 invoice if you overstay the 2 hour limit are still up]