There is no such thing as a PARKING FINE - please read

Oopsadaisy

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz


zzzzzzzzzzzz

zzzzzzzzz

mmmmmm


what what what

oh you scared me waking me up like that

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

bargepole

screwbiedooo wrote: »

.... So, if any assertions I make are false please point it out objectively with the actual truth.

The truth:

Most Council PCNs are issued under the TMA2004. Whether or not you have seen it, or signed it, is irrelevant: it is enacted legislation, and ignorance of the law is no excuse.

The Council has to abide by the Act as well, so all of its signs, bay markings and paperwork have to be compliant. If the CEO makes an error issuing the ticket, eg wrong reg no., wrong location etc., the ticket is void.

An informal challenge can be made to the Council, then a formal challenge, then ultimately the appeal can be taken to an adjudicator (PATAS or TPT). The odds of success at these hearings is far better than that suggested by the OP; drivers win their appeal in between 60% and 80% of cases, depending on the area. Often the Council will not bother turning up at the hearing, when they know they are in the wrong.

If you don't pay or go through the appeal process, a court order will be made against you. There is no opportunity to have a trial - it sucks, but that's the way it is.

The order can be enforced by bailiffs, whom you don't have to let into your house, but they can clamp/tow the vehicle, and it will cost considerably more than the original ticket.

You can get away with a foreign-registered car for a maximum of 12 months. An 0845 number is a waste of time; they will write to you, not phone you. Failure to notify DVLA of your change of address will cause you even more trouble, not an advisable course to take.

Coupon-mad

Trebor16 wrote: »

Are they employed by the police though CM? Are you confusing the fact they are civilian but employed by the police with certain jobs being outsourced to private companies.

What is going on already in Lincolnshire and to follow in Surrey and West Mids is for the services to be taken over by G4S, a private company. In Lincolnshire about 600 police civilian staff now work for G4S and they have already announced they are to shed 10% of those posts.

Works for a private company. Does a job for the Police involving ID and detention.

Coupon-mad

HO87 wrote: »

The vast majority of private parking companies operate on land in private ownership or subject to private leases. Provided there are clearly displayed and easily understood signs (the wording of which may form the basis of a contract - i.e. it makes a clear offer of parking) then if someone parks on that land a court is entitled to draw the conclusion that the offer has been accepted and a contract has been formed whether or not the parker has announced their non-acceptance of the offer. In such circumstances the operator does not have to prove that a contract was formed but that on the balance of probabilities it was.

Even after VCS -v- HMRC?

Stephen_Leak

Yes. HO87's comments refer to the creation of the contract.

If the parker then breaches a fair and reasonable term of the contract, there is still little, if anything, that the landowner or agent (pre VCS vs. HMRC) or the landowner (post VCS vs. HMRC) can legally claim or do.

Coupon-mad

But I was reading VCS -v- HMRC as saying clearly that, regardless of signs, a PPC with insufficient propriety interest in the land can't form a meaningful/lawful contract with a motorist. Ergo there is no contract, no offer of parking etc.

arcon5

screwbiedooo wrote: »

9. What can you do?

Read the signs to determine any parking restrictions.
Abide by the rules of the car park or park elsewhere

Just a couple of things

peter_the_piper

Coupon-mad wrote: »

But I was reading VCS -v- HMRC as saying clearly that, regardless of signs, a PPC with insufficient propriety interest in the land can't form a meaningful/lawful contract with a motorist. Ergo there is no contract, no offer of parking etc.

I'm looking forward to seeing this tested by a ppc trying it on.
No ppc with an ounce of brain would try it though.

HO87

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Even after VCS -v- HMRC?

Yes, indeed. On the basis that the entity posting the notices has an interest that enables them to offer a valid contract. In the relevant case, of course, VCS were held not to have sufficient interest to be able to offer a contract to park in the first place such that any purportedly contractual charges were nullified.

screwbiedooo wrote: »

What you are suggesting is that private 'PCCNs' and the like ought to be paid, whereas there is a concensus to ignore them.

I made no such suggestion. I merely set out how a valid contract could be formed. Like it or not the established law provides for this. The points, with regard to the way in which PPC's choose to interpret the law, has always been whether they are entitled to offer contracts in the first place, whether their signs establish an offer and what exactly is the legal status of the charges they attempt to levy.

There is no contradiction in my statements. Granting the power of the state to a private corporation is indeed anathema. Allowing a private corporation to act as a contractor to a local authority is not granting them the power of the state. The power remains with the local authority who direct the operation of their contractor. However, the contractor's involvement is nevertheless oriented toward profit and this must skew things to a greater of lesser degree. A recent decision at an employment tribunal bears this argument out.

Insofar as any of your assumptions have been false, it has been repeatedly pointed out that there is no requirement at law that contracts be signed or that they are set out in writing. Verbal contracts are perfectly normal and indeed everyday events. Attempting to suggest that PPC's be asked to produce written and signed contracts is pointless and betrays an ignorance of the law.

As the enforcement of decriminalised parking law is based on statute there is no contract to be produced by an enforcing authority. This is an argument that collapses on the vaguest of examination.

Why should it be necessary that the location where back-office work done for councils operating decriminalised enforcement be covered by the Traffic Management Act 2004?

screwbiedooo

bargepole wrote: »

The truth:

Most Council PCNs are issued under the TMA2004. Whether or not you have seen it, or signed it, is irrelevant: it is enacted legislation, and ignorance of the law is no excuse.

The Council has to abide by the Act as well, so all of its signs, bay markings and paperwork have to be compliant. If the CEO makes an error issuing the ticket, eg wrong reg no., wrong location etc., the ticket is void.

An informal challenge can be made to the Council, then a formal challenge, then ultimately the appeal can be taken to an adjudicator (PATAS or TPT). The odds of success at these hearings is far better than that suggested by the OP; drivers win their appeal in between 60% and 80% of cases, depending on the area. Often the Council will not bother turning up at the hearing, when they know they are in the wrong.

If you don't pay or go through the appeal process, a court order will be made against you. There is no opportunity to have a trial - it sucks, but that's the way it is.

The order can be enforced by bailiffs, whom you don't have to let into your house, but they can clamp/tow the vehicle, and it will cost considerably more than the original ticket.

You can get away with a foreign-registered car for a maximum of 12 months. An 0845 number is a waste of time; they will write to you, not phone you. Failure to notify DVLA of your change of address will cause you even more trouble, not an advisable course to take.

Are you claiming that the right to due process of law is repealed? If so, it's pretty big news but I haven't seen it in any news bulletins. I doubt any judge in the land would claim it. If you convince yourself of it though, then sure, you are not going to obtain such a thing. Please see Thoburn vs Sunderland Council and divisional court findings re: constitutional statutes and constitutional rights. They are not repealed by TMA 2004.

Is a PCN a fine or a penalty? Cannot be a fine. No-one calls them fines except the people who get them. So is it a penalty? Penalties must be agreed in contract as far as I know, surely not statute. Surely a 'statutory penalty' would be a fine in all but name, applicable only in criminal law, by a judge. You know what the 'statutory response' to your informal representation is? A 'Notice of Refusal'. They tell you that before you bother!

Re 'Bailiffs': I think I made a quite reasonable suggestion that a simple wall, gate or garage will practically preclude any bailiff from towing or clamping a vehicle on your property. A loving and loyal staffy, lab or even spaniel will keep him off the doorstep. No law against this. I discussed bailiffs with an auctioneer of seized goods who works regularly with bailiffs on distraints. His only advice, don't let them in.

Re: foreign-registered vehicles. 12 months from when? Some French people come to UK every summer on holiday (can't think why). Are they impounded? Sorry, but I don't see how that can be enforced, except through dutiful self-deception by the citizen. I have foreign friends resident here in UK for many years on the same foreign plates. Never been a problem, rather useful in the circumstances we are discussing. Nothing unlawful about it either.

I distrust adjudicators. Why? 1. They are not courts. Courts are meant to be our impartial adjudicator in civil cases. 2. They serve the (to my mind illegitimate) system. Consenting to their adjudication is to lend legitimacy to that system. Being dependent on that system they are vulnerable to conflicts of interest. 3. I caught Southeastern Railway operating its own debt claim service and its own 'independent' adjudication service, IPFAS. Laughable - I kid you not. I know that's a rail case, but I have little reason to believe parking would be any different. The interests they serve are pretty much the same. 4. In one parking case I pointedly refused consent to adjudication. The claimant filed to PATAS in my name anyway. That is just plain fraud and a collusion - a crime! I called them on it and they dropped it double quick.

Re: 0845 number. Not sure they they will only write instead of phoning, but that in itself would be great wouldn't you say? If they do call, you can of course try and keep them on the line. That's the idea. It serves extra usefulness in putting off cold-callers and nuisances.

Re: Order for recovery (not Court Order). Do you know who issues the order? Not a court. The back office staff of huge private outsourcer at their call centre on some anonymous business park ("under authority of TEC"). Fraud? Collusion? Hmm, borderline... I got a "Magistrate court summons" from a council earlier this year. It was issued by the claimant in the name of the court, with a demand for payment on the back! (impartiality???) I phoned the court and they didn't know anything about it! I called them on it and they dropped the proceedings with an apology.

What you say is a reasonable line of least resistance if you accept the wolves are running the sheep farm now and you can't fight them. But, don't we also have a duty to ourselves to stand upon our rights and do something about it? A right cannot be a wrong! Starts with actually knowing them, which, as you will know, we are mostly pitiful at, which is why the whole scam works.