Private Parking Ticket; Why to Ignore & not pay (Very Long Post)

cmrfly01

[FONT=Book Antiqua, serif]Hello All !

I've been doing a lot of research in to Private Parking companies, and just wanted to share some points to put people at ease who have perhaps been given a Parking Charge, and are slightly worried, me and a friend actually did a small experiment, where we collected a couple of parking charge notices (Privatley issued), to see how many by writing off a 7 page letter stating a lot of what is written in here, and of course our points raised under the Practice Direction on Pre-Action Conduct, would then cancel the charge, most of them did, we're still awaiting a reply from the last two.[/FONT]

[FONT=Book Antiqua, serif]I'm currently studying a Degree in law (LLB), and have become quite fascinated with the whole Private parking 'Scandal' so to say. I have also written many letters for people who have appealed against private parking charges, in all instances they've admitted defeat and cancelled the charge (because they're nothing but a scam). [/FONT]

[FONT=Book Antiqua, serif]As soon as you do the relevant research into various legislation, you'll soon understand why you should never pay these clowns a penny of your hard earnt money. [/FONT]

[FONT=Book Antiqua, serif]The charges that they impose, are unfair, and are punitive by all means. Which of course makes them unenforceable against you, most parking companies will act as a Limited Company, and Limited companies can not issue nor enforce a penalty. Their charges of between £40.00 - £120.00 are arbitrary and in no way proportionate to any alleged breach of contract they are claiming happened. [FONT=Book Antiqua, serif]This is all the more so for the additional charges which they add after non payment, remember, this would also apply to their mention of any costs incurred through a debt recovery agency unless it followed a [/FONT][FONT=Book Antiqua, serif]Court Order[/FONT][FONT=Book Antiqua, serif]. [/FONT][/FONT]

[FONT=Book Antiqua, serif]My local council issues Penalty Notices that are £25.00 for the first 14 days (These are generally backed up by the [FONT=Book Antiqua, serif]Traffic management Act 2004, and have to abide by legislation set out under the Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) General Regulations 2007, Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) Representations and Appeals regulations 2007, Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (Guidelines on Levels of Charges) (England) Order 2007), so as you can see, Private parking companies charge more then your local council (Of whom has the appropriate authority to issue such fines).[/FONT][/FONT]

[FONT=Book Antiqua, serif][FONT=Book Antiqua, serif]The charges they are trying to[/FONT][FONT=Book Antiqua, serif] levy against you, are an unfair term (and therefore not 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]

[FONT=Book Antiqua, serif]Schedule 2(1)(e) 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) 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) States that, ''A 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) 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) States that, ''Schedule 2 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) States that, ''Without prejudice to Regulation 12, 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) States that ''In so far as it is in plain intelligible language, the assessment of fairness of a term shall not relate (a)to the definition of the main subject matter of the contract, or (b)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) 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]In respect of the above, May I also refer you guys to the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977, and of course Common law (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. At which point has this occurred ? Are these firms really suggesting that they have incurred in excess of £40.00 in damages (Raising to over £120 usually) as a result of your actions ? Ask yourself that.
[/FONT][FONT=Book Antiqua, serif]
[/FONT][FONT=Book Antiqua, serif]Surely, If you had caused some kind of damages in which they had incurred, how would they explain their reasoning behind these threats to raise the 'Charge' up after 14 days of none payment ? If the damages have occurred (Which they claim), 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 losses and costs due to none payment of their unenforceable invoice's.[/FONT]

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

[FONT=Book Antiqua, serif]Regulation 4(1) 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 'Section 15 of the Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982.' I would ask for an exact breakdown of what goods/services you have supplied and how the charges are calculated and made up (To the exact penny), as of course is your right under Section 15 of the Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982 states the following:[/FONT]

[FONT=Book Antiqua, serif](1)[/FONT][FONT=Book Antiqua, serif][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]

[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]Please also take note, that In Legal terms, A Charge is a 'Demand' (An Amount) as a price from someone for a service rendered or goods supplied. Therefore I can not see what exactly they are '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 them ? 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 of course 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 the must charge for 'Liquidated Damages', Liquidated damages (also referred to as Liquidised and ascertained damages) are damages whose amount the parties designate during the formation of a contract for the injured party to collect as compensation upon a specific breach, or 'Breach of Contract' must reflect the 'True' damages and looses incurred (suffered by yourselves) due to the breach of contract, and not exceed these damages incurred otherwise it becomes a 'Penalty', and of course, Parking companies generally being a limited company (LTD) can not issue nor enforce a penalty. Only the courts can issue and enforce a Penalty. [/FONT]

[FONT=Book Antiqua, serif]Also, I notice that reading countless letters requesting payment from such firms and companies, that they do not include or meet certain legal requirements seeing as many of them are trading as a 'Limited Company' in pursuant of the The Companies (Registrar, Languages and Trading Disclosures) Regulations 2006, their letterhead's generally fails to include (1)The Company registration number and place of registration, (2)The company registered address and the address of its place of business, usually they only include a P.O. Box address, and I’m fairly sure that you can not trade from within the post office.[/FONT]

[FONT=Book Antiqua, serif]their parking charge notice's only includes (Let use Local Parking Security LTD as an example) in the letter head, they claim to be a Limited Company, [FONT=Book Antiqua, serif]If so, then why have they failed to include their Company Registration number and place of registration, along with their companies registered business address and the address of their place of business ? [/FONT][FONT=Book Antiqua, serif]I note that the[/FONT][FONT=Book Antiqua, serif]Companies Act 2006[/FONT][FONT=Book Antiqua, serif], [/FONT]The Companies (Registrar, Languages and Trading Disclosures) Regulations 2006, and the Business Names Act 1985 provides that every UKcompany should list on its website; It's name, its company registration number, its place of registration and its registered office address, Are they VAT registered ? Probably not.[/FONT]

[FONT=Book Antiqua, serif][FONT=Book Antiqua, serif]In light of the yellow packet in which is attached to your vehicle, generally which states something along the lines of 'It is an [/FONT][FONT=Book Antiqua, serif]OFFENCE[/FONT][FONT=Book Antiqua, serif] for anyone except the driver to remove this notice', What exactly is the offence here ? Seeing as it isn't a postal document in [/FONT][FONT=Book Antiqua, serif]respect to [/FONT][FONT=Book Antiqua, serif]the [/FONT][FONT=Book Antiqua, serif]Postal Services Act 2000[/FONT][FONT=Book Antiqua, serif], [/FONT][FONT=Book Antiqua, serif]it is simply an invoice which isn't addressed or named to a specific person, therefore, their use of the word 'Offence' to try and make this document sound official (Offence is defined as; a breach of a law or rule; an illegal act), so what [/FONT][FONT=Book Antiqua, serif]ACT is being breached here ? What law is being breached ? Surely if someone was to attach a flyer to my windscreen, this wouldn't constitute a criminal offence for someone over then the driver to move or tamper with the flyer would it ?[/FONT][/FONT]

[FONT=Book Antiqua, serif]In this respect, you could use the [/FONT][FONT=Book Antiqua, serif]Administration of Justice Act 1970 section 40, [/FONT][FONT=Book Antiqua, serif]Unde[/FONT][FONT=Book Antiqua, serif]r[/FONT][FONT=Book Antiqua, serif] Section 40 of the Administration of Justice Act 1970 [/FONT][FONT=Book Antiqua, serif]you will discover that the characteristics described above, which give the invoice it's official bearing and suggest that it's removal may be a crime, make the use, issuing and pursuit of funds claimed due because of such, a crime in itself,[/FONT][FONT=Book Antiqua, serif] Note section 40 (d) [/FONT][FONT=Book Antiqua, serif]specifically [/FONT][FONT=Book Antiqua, serif]The [/FONT][FONT=Book Antiqua, serif]Administration of Justice Act 1970, Section 40[/FONT][FONT=Book Antiqua, serif] of the act provides that a person commits an offence if, with the object of coercing another person to pay money claimed from the other as a debt due under contract, he or she [/FONT][FONT=Book Antiqua, serif](a)[/FONT][FONT=Book Antiqua, serif]Harasses the other with demands for payment which by their frequency, or the manner or occasion of their making, or any accompanying threat or publicity are calculated to subject him or his family or household to alarm, distress or humiliation [/FONT][FONT=Book Antiqua, serif](b)[/FONT][FONT=Book Antiqua, serif]Falsely represents, in relation to the money claimed, that criminal proceedings lie for failure to pay it[/FONT][FONT=Book Antiqua, serif] (c)[/FONT][FONT=Book Antiqua, serif]Falsely represent themselves to be authorised in some official capacity to claim or enforce payment [/FONT][FONT=Book Antiqua, serif]([/FONT][FONT=Book Antiqua, serif]d)[/FONT][FONT=Book Antiqua, serif]Utters a document falsely represented by him to have some official character or purporting to have some official character which he knows it has not.[/FONT]
[FONT=Book Antiqua, serif]
[/FONT][FONT=Book Antiqua, serif]Thus in light of the above, it appears to purport a PCN (Penalty Charge notice) or FPN (Fixed Penalty Notice), In which you should be reporting to the police in due course, and also their conduct to the Office of Fair Trading and Trading Standards.[/FONT]

[FONT=Book Antiqua, serif]Also, may I add, in light of the contractual element 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 your contract with the land owner. The terms state generally 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 D[/FONT][FONT=Book Antiqua, serif]amages[/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 I 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. [/FONT]

[FONT=Book Antiqua, serif]Their job description will generally involve the issuing and preparation of these invoices, therefore to imply that damages are incurred by the involvement of an employee hired for this express purpose is a quite ridiculous prospect and should be sternly resisted (particularly when the cost of one of these invoices is more than the attendant is paid per day) and I'm more than sure if they are on an hourly rate then the 2 minutes it takes to fill out an invoice would equate to a couple of pennies at most. Alternatively if I where to park incorrectly and use two bays I would suggest that in all reality the most that could be said to be valid damages is the value of the spaces you have used (so if I obscured a second space then double the cost of your parking). So as you can see actual damages in these cases will be absolutely minimal. Why, therefore, do they seek to charge the users of the car parks figures like £40 and £60 ? Probably because people are brought into some kind of fear, as they've made them selves out to be some official body that can impose 'Fines'.
[/FONT][FONT=Book Antiqua, serif]
So, stop the fear, and don't pay. They won't take you to court. Simple as really.
[/FONT]
[FONT=Book Antiqua, serif]M. Richards.
[/FONT]

trisontana

According to the worthless BPA, the "offence" that would be committed if you interfere or remove a ticket envelope is "theft".

Your comments would be welcome on that point.

ashleypride

cmrfly01 wrote: »

Why, therefore, do they seek to charge the users of the car parks figures like £40 and £60

And why does this figure double/triple after 7/14 days?

Welcome aboard, great first post.

vax2002

Nice long post, unfortunately as they target the sick and infirm writing to them only makes things worse.
Why bother letting them decide who wins the game, when you can just ignore them and you get to decide who wins.

cmrfly01

trisontana wrote: »

According to the worthless BPA, the "offence" that would be committed if you interfere or remove a ticket envelope is "theft".

Your comments would be welcome on that point.

[FONT=Book Antiqua, serif]The BPA just seems like an excuse for the DVLA to dish out drivers details in exchange for a small fee (DVLA makes around £3,500,000 from what I heard in relation to this).

I can't see how the removal of a envelope from a car windscreen could be construed as 'Theft', for a start who does the envelope belong to ? The driver or the company ? If its the driver, then can it be construed as theft if the driver has no prior knowledge to that item ? Yes and no really, but to interfere with it most certainly doesn’t, unless you have the intention to permanently deprive that person of the item in question (I'm more then sure the police wouldn't be to happy to hear about the theft of a plastic envelope containing an invoice). I think the appropriate legislation to research this would be the Theft Act 1968, section one describes theft as; S1 (1) A person is guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it.[/FONT]

cmrfly01

ashleypride wrote: »

And why does this figure double/triple after 7/14 days?

Welcome aboard, great first post.

[FONT=Book Antiqua, serif]I would suspect it's to put you under pressure to pay, if you know you could stop something bad from happening for £40 now, but in 14 days it would cost £80 to stop, then you'd choose the £40 option, this is especially ripe for people who aren't to knowledgeable on their rights in relation to these invoices (which is a large majority unfortunately). A lot of people can't be bothered so to say with appealing, or with going through threats from debt collectors, so they choose to pay right away. I'm surprised they're allowed to do this in today’s society, it seems like extortion through fear if you ask me.[/FONT]

[FONT=Book Antiqua, serif]It's great that such a large well known forum is educating people on this, as one of my pet hates are these clowns who pose as some kind of authoritarian figure. As my friend said, a parking company is mainly a group of people who failed their police exams, and their traffic warden exams. [/FONT]

cmrfly01

vax2002 wrote: »

Nice long post, unfortunately as they target the sick and infirm writing to them only makes things worse.
Why bother letting them decide who wins the game, when you can just ignore them and you get to decide who wins.

[FONT=Book Antiqua, serif]I do agree, absolutely ! Having seen the sort of letters they send out, they do make for a good laugh ! The general consensus around them would be not to enter correspondence with them at all. But sometimes it's a laugh to imagine what the person sitting in his little office is thinking when he reads through an 8 page letter with so much legislation mentioned, and so many questions raised, that he simply has no clue on what's going on. And it feels like a small bit of justice when they 'Cancel' a charge. [/FONT]

trisontana

Of course the real reason for including that wording on the ticket envelope is that it's yet another example of a PPC trying to fool people into thinking it's some sort of official document issued by an official organization.

Other examples are the names of some of these companies :-

Civil Enforcement Limited
Central Ticketing
Car Parking Partnership
MET
National Clamps
UKCPS (Crown Prosecution Service?)
UK Parking Patrol Office
Parkforce
Legal Parking Enforcers
Valid Parking
National Parking Management
County Parking Enforcement Agency

Plus two debt collectors:-

Court Proceedings Ltd
Judges Demand.

And the use of "PCN" which mimics penalty charge notices issued by councils.

In other words, one big con!

vax2002

They have seen and read every type of clever letter going, they simply do not care, most pay.
To under estimate these people is a mistake, many are millionaires within months and can buy influence with MP's and policy makers and we all know how greedy and corrupt they are.

trisontana

cmrfly01 wrote: »

[FONT=Book Antiqua, serif]I do agree, absolutely ! Having seen the sort of letters they send out, they do make for a good laugh ! The general consensus around them would be not to enter correspondence with them at all. But sometimes it's a laugh to imagine what the person sitting in his little office is thinking when he reads through an 8 page letter with so much legislation mentioned, and so many questions raised, that he simply has no clue on what's going on. And it feels like a small bit of justice when they 'Cancel' a charge. [/FONT]

You should enjoy this letter which is being sent to "Court Proceedings Ltd" by a poster over on PePiPoo:-

Dear Mr/Mrs M Harper

Thank you for you letter regarding the unsolicited parking invoice alleged issued to me by UKCPS, ive never laughed so much for ages.

Your letter is a clear breach of S40 Administration of Justice Act, in that not only does it attempt to falsely represent you authority (or lack of, in this case), but it is clearly designed to cause distress or alarm.

So, listen carefully, because, as Yvette in "'Allo 'allo" used to say, I will say this only once.

1. I deny any debt to you, UKCPS, or anyone else you are acting as agent for.
2. For the avoidance of doubt (and without suggesting that you would), please do not a) send me any document purporting to be from the County Court unless it is a valid Claim Form duly issued or b) write to me threatening to send round bailiffs without first going through the process of issuing a Claim Form and obtaining judgment.
3. Should i receive any further communications from you, with the exception of properly filed and served court papers, which i will be very pleased to defend in court, any such further fraudulent threatening letters from you constitute a criminal offence of harassment under both Section 40 of the Administration of Justice Act 1970, and Section 8. of The Protection from Harassment Act 1997, and will be reported to both the Police and Tradings Standards, and civil claim for compensation will ensue.

Whats more, you're taking the mickey. You do not have a CCA licence issued by the OFT to collect debts (your application submitted in August 2010 was "made of no effect" by the OFT in early March 2011). This prevents you from acting on behalf of other companies, and is clear breach of the Consumer Credit Act 1974.

Also, the letter is not compliant with Companies Acts requirements for official correspondence, as it does not give the place of incorporation

So, in summary , you write to me on dodgy non compliant letterhead, breaking at least three different statutes, and expect me to fork out money for an unproven debt i deny, with no legal authority to either enforce the alleged debt or even act as a debt collector.

You really need to go and get a proper job, theres no future for you in the one you have there.

cmrfly01

trisontana wrote: »

You should enjoy this letter which is being sent to "Court Proceedings Ltd" by a poster over on PePiPoo:-

Dear Mr/Mrs M Harper

Thank you for you letter regarding the unsolicited parking invoice alleged issued to me by UKCPS, ive never laughed so much for ages.

Your letter is a clear breach of S40 Administration of Justice Act, in that not only does it attempt to falsely represent you authority (or lack of, in this case), but it is clearly designed to cause distress or alarm.

So, listen carefully, because, as Yvette in "'Allo 'allo" used to say, I will say this only once.

1. I deny any debt to you, UKCPS, or anyone else you are acting as agent for.
2. For the avoidance of doubt (and without suggesting that you would), please do not a) send me any document purporting to be from the County Court unless it is a valid Claim Form duly issued or b) write to me threatening to send round bailiffs without first going through the process of issuing a Claim Form and obtaining judgment.
3. Should i receive any further communications from you, with the exception of properly filed and served court papers, which i will be very pleased to defend in court, any such further fraudulent threatening letters from you constitute a criminal offence of harassment under both Section 40 of the Administration of Justice Act 1970, and Section 8. of The Protection from Harassment Act 1997, and will be reported to both the Police and Tradings Standards, and civil claim for compensation will ensue.

Whats more, you're taking the mickey. You do not have a CCA licence issued by the OFT to collect debts (your application submitted in August 2010 was "made of no effect" by the OFT in early March 2011). This prevents you from acting on behalf of other companies, and is clear breach of the Consumer Credit Act 1974.

Also, the letter is not compliant with Companies Acts requirements for official correspondence, as it does not give the place of incorporation

So, in summary , you write to me on dodgy non compliant letterhead, breaking at least three different statutes, and expect me to fork out money for an unproven debt i deny, with no legal authority to either enforce the alleged debt or even act as a debt collector.

You really need to go and get a proper job, theres no future for you in the one you have there.

Haha ! That is fantastic !