Parking Eye Parking Charge Notice

give_them_FA

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Looks that way to me as well. :T

Was the decision made by a circuit judge?

Better. By an upper Tribunal which apparently ranks with a High Court Decision. Might be appealed to the Court of Appeal, though I would think.

give_them_FA

Yes, the lawabidingcitizen seems to have made a rapid exit after this news came up. Can't think why, as he is not connected with any PPC, is he? :rotfl::rotfl:

malkyh

give_them_FA wrote: »

Yes, the lawabidingcitizen seems to have made a rapid exit after this news came up. Can't think why, as he is not connected with any PPC, is he? :rotfl::rotfl:

Maybe he has been given a stack of Reg numbers from his boss to ring the DVLA about.

lawabidingcitizen1

poshandspecs wrote: »

I'm in the same boat as peppercherry but only overstayed the free parking at Welcome Break by 12 mins. After reading all the threads I think I'll make a paper aeroplane with my parking charge but just a bit worried about what I've read about them clamping us if we are found parking at a welcome break again with the "fine" outstanding. We travel regularly so a there's a distinct possibility they'll cross our path. Also, can their debt recovery people phone you up or turn up on the door step? Has this happened to anyone?
Thanks in advance.

Private parking companies do take people to court. They win cases and if defendant is ordered to pay costs on top of the fine, then it will run into the thousands.

lawabidingcitizen1

give_them_FA wrote: »

Yes, the lawabidingcitizen seems to have made a rapid exit after this news came up. Can't think why, as he is not connected with any PPC, is he? :rotfl::rotfl:

No such luck

trisontana

lawabidingcitizen1 wrote: »

Private parking companies do take people to court. They win cases and if defendant is ordered to pay costs on top of the fine, then it will run into the thousands.

Except it's not a "fine", and PPCs lose more cases then they win.
As regards "thousands" do you mean PE case where they we awarded the princly sum of just under a hundred pounds plus £15 for two unpaid P&D tickets? That case actually cost PE several thousand pounds to pay for the four "legal experts" they had hired.

lawabidingcitizen1

trisontana wrote: »

Hot off the press - decision of the Upper Tax Tribunal in the case of VCS v HMRC:-

The appeal tribunal held:

1. VCS did not have any right to occupy land or to pursue any action in trespass (which is what VCS had claimed they were doing).
2. Such payments they received by way of "Parking Charge Notices" were not therefore a payment by way of damages and were not therefore exempt from VAT.
3. That on the basis of their standard agreement with landowners there could have been no contract formed between VCS and the motorist because its limited rights to access to the land did not extend to being able to offer the right to park.
4. The signs used by VCS cannot have effect because they have no right in law to make any offer to park in the first instance.
5. Any contract to park could only be formed between the landowner and the motorist
6. Any parking charges collected by VCS would therefore be, in effective, damages in breach of contract or trespass but because they were retained by VCS they constituted a standard-rated consideration and VAT was therefore payable against them.

Interesting that you say 'hot of the press'. Looks to me like this one was made public over a year ago!

lawabidingcitizen1

give_them_FA wrote: »

Dynamite. If upheld that will put the skids under the whole operation. I too have queried under what right a PPC can sue for a trespass/contract on someone else's property. Now I have the answer just in time for a defence I am writing.

Forum users, please continue to ignore the Parking Company boss posting under the name of lawabidingcitizen. He is doing his best to mislead you. You could get taken to court by a PPC- but the odds against it happening are of the order of 10,000 - 1 against; after which the odds of their winning are of the order of 5 - 1 against.

And some of the "wins" are against stooge defendants as a put-up job.

Let's face it, he wouldn't be here if what he was saying were true. He would be too busy preparing Court cases.

Just parking company lies, please ignore.

There is certainly some misleading going on on this site. People with parking tickets that come to this site are being told to ignore ticket. They are not being told that there is a risk that they will be liable for thousands after a very stressful court case. In the quote there you admit there is a risk. Why don't you tell them that up front?

trisontana

lawabidingcitizen1 wrote: »

Interesting that you say 'hot of the press'. Looks to me like this one was made public over a year ago!

Wrong again! :-

RELEASE DATE: 02 May 2012

trisontana

lawabidingcitizen1 wrote: »

There is certainly some misleading going on on this site. People with parking tickets that come to this site are being told to ignore ticket. They are not being told that there is a risk that they will be liable for thousands after a very stressful court case. In the quote there you admit there is a risk. Why don't you tell them that up front?

As I asked above, by "thousands" do you mean the PE V Smith case?