UK Parking Control LTD

Truth1_2

Today, I received a £90 Parking Charge ticket on my car window as a result of parking my car in a disabled car park, beside JJB, Marks and Spencer in a Belfast shopping complex, Northern Ireland. Granted I did not display a valid disabled persons badge on my car, but the reason for parking was to provide my mother in her 80's who has not applied for the badge despite have a degree of osteperosis some space while leaving my car and shop. In addition I failed to see the UK CPL signs until after I received the notice.
Reading your forum, it appears you recommend I ignore the parking ticket despite claims that under the Administration of Justice Act 1970, failure to pay may lead to court action, contacting DVLA to determine my address details, and instructing a debt recovery agency to recover the amount?
Any advice???

Thanks in advance

Stephen_Leak

Mentioning The Administration of Justice Act 1970, is PPC cynicism at is best. Or should that be worst? All of the things they mention might happen, if it was a legal debt. But, there is one tiny flaw in their plan. It isn't a legal debt, no more than a Nigerian scam e-mail.

Firstly, the legal stuff.

Only councils, the police, train operators and Transport for London can impose legally enforceable fines or penalties. A private company or individual can't. A private parking company (PPC) call their tickets “Parking Charge Notices”, not “Penalty Charge Notices”. In law, they’re called “speculative invoices”.

Any warning signs are usually so badly positioned and worded, that they won’t have created a fair and legally binding deemed contract between the car park owner and a driver entering the car park in the first place. See The Unfair Contract Terms Act 1997 and Excel Parking Services vs. Cutts, Stockport, 2011.

All the car park owner (CPO) can claim from a driver in damages for any alleged breach of any alleged contract is what they’ve lost as a result. If it’s in a free car park or the driver paid, this is £0.00. Demanding more has been judged to be unreasonable and therefore an unfair contract penalty under the terms of The Unfair Contract Terms Act 1997, which is not legally enforceable. See Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co. Ltd. vs. New Garage & Motor Co. Ltd., House of Lords, 1914 and countless cases since.

There are also now recent landmark court cases, VCS Parking Control vs. Ronald Ibbotson, S!!!!horpe, 2012, HM Revenue & Customs vs. VCS Parking Control, Lower Tax Tribunal, 2012 and VCS Parking Control vs. HM Revenue & Customs (Appeal), Upper Tax Tribunal, 2012. In these cases, the judges ruled that only the car park owner can take drivers to court. The Upper Tax Tribunal is a court of record, equivalent to the High Court, and therefore its judgement sets a legal precedent.

The Blue Badge scheme doesn’t apply to private car parks. Anyone, who’s disabled under the terms of The Equality Act 2010 can use a disabled parking bay. If they’re also Blue Badge holders, they don't need to display it. The Equality Act doesn't say that able-bodied drivers can't also use disabled parking bays. OK, maybe they shouldn't, but they can. This probably contravenes the terms & conditions for the car park, which usually state that you shouldn't park in a disabled bay without displaying a badge. This, in itself, contravenes The Equality Act.

What should I do now?

We don’t condone not paying or overstaying in a pay car park. If you owe the CPO the original charge, then you ought to write to the CPO, offering this in “full and final settlement”. In any event, you should write to the CPO, advising them that they are "jointly and severally liable" for the actions of their agents, the PPC, and that any further actions by either of them would be regarded as harassment under the terms of The Protection from Harassment Act 1997. This ought to make the CPO call off the PPC and, hopefully, realise the potential cost of doing business with a PPC.

Don’t appeal to the PPC. They always reject them. What’s in it for them to let anyone off? Actually, there is something in it for them: information. They need to know the identity of the driver of the vehicle involved at the time, because that’s who the alleged contract was with. If they don’t know who the driver was, they have to make do with harassing the registered keeper.

With windscreen notices, an appeal letter will tell them your name and address, and maybe who was driving at the time. If they don’t know who the driver was, they have to buy the details of registered keeper from the DVLA. With postal notices, they’ve had to do this already. But they still need to know the identity of the driver.

They sometimes say that they have the right to ask for this information. This doesn’t mean that you have to tell them.

However, even if you’ve written and told them who the driver was, it just means that they can now harass the driver instead of harassing the registered keeper.

How will they do this to me?

The PPC, then a debt collector and then a solicitor will send you a series of letters. The debt collector and solicitor are usually also the PPC, but using different headed paper. These letters will threaten you with every kind of financial and legal unpleasantness imaginable to intimidate you into paying.

But, they can't actually do anything, for the same reason that a blackmailer can't take anyone who didn’t pay them to court.

What should I do then?

Continue to ignore everything you get from the PPC and their aliases. It does seem odd to deal with something like this by ignoring it. Eventually, they will run out of empty threats and stop throwing good money after bad.

HO87

UK Parking Control Ltd. The company that quotes the Administration of Justice Act in its literature and claims, on its website (Click here) to:

"...abide by the Private Parking Management (Regulation) Act 2005, which amended the Private Security Industry Act 2001"

All of this despite the fact that no such Act exists and UKPC cannot possibly be unaware of that fact. The purpose of the private members bill of the same name - which was presented to Parliament in March 2005 (it didn't get out of the starting blocks, by the way) - was to make the enforcement of private parking regulations a licensable activity within the terms of the Private Security Industry Act. UKPC does not, of course have an SIA licence for this purpose because the regulations were never passed into law and no such requirement ever made. And UKPC abide by it?

One must therefore ask why the company continues to state this as a fact and use it, it seems, as a means of justifying and legitimising its activities?

One must also question why mention is made, on the same webpage, of the case Arthur v Anker? This is a genuine piece of case law which relates to the clamping of vehicles on private land but if you read UKPC's summary you'd gain the distinct impression that the case related to private parking. It did not.

Their summary states:

"The judge ruled that when Mr Arthur parked in breach of the terms and conditions prominently displayed at the site, he had entered into a contract with Mr Anker’s company and broken the terms. Therefore he was liable to pay the charges levied."

What is excluded is that this was actually a case heard at the Court of Appeal by a panel of three judges and the principles invoked were not those of the law of contract but of the older legal concept known as volenti non fit injuria - no injury is suffered by he who consents. UKPC's summary therefore misrepresents the findings of the case and conveniently avoids mention of a subsequent case (Vine v London Borough of Waltham Forest [2000] which refined the concepts established in Arthur v Anker where they related to the prominence of warning signs and also set out that it was necessary the signs had been seen and understood by a motorist if any proceedings were to succeed. Both of these cases establish a legal precedent - that is the judgment is binding on lower courts in England & Wales.

UKPC go on to quote the case of Stephen Thomas. They quote this in such a way as to suggest it is case law - that is to say that it established a legal precedent. It did not and cannot possibly have done so. And the reason? The case was heard in the County Court where no such case establishes a precedent. The facts and interpretation of the case bore only on that case and no others. This again serves only to misrepresent UKPC's legal status and that of any claim they may make. Were UKPC to suggest that they are unaware of the fact that Thomas set no precedent - and nor could it ever have done so in the County Court - would be to entirely undermine their assertions about the law.

They go to mention that the cases of Arthur v Anker and Thomas are regarded by Scottish courts as "persuasive - not binding". Firstly, Thomas set no precedent of any type whatsoever in English law and is certainly not persuasive anywhere least of all Scotland where all English case law is regarded as persuasive rather than binding.

The case of Onifade was heard in a Sheriff Court - the lowest Scottish court - and, like its English and Welsh counterparts - establishes no precedent whatsoever.

None of this is of course convenient to UKPC's argument which is, in essence, you must believe every word we tell you and must therefore pay us what we're asking for. Really?

Truth1_2

Guys,

Thanks for your advice, have you come across anyone who has been taken to court?Is there any possibility I will be fined, obviously I dont want a criminal record? I reside in Northern Ireland, you talk about England & Wales and Scotland laws.
Is there any difference?

taffy056

Truth1 wrote: »

Guys,

Thanks for your advice, have you come across anyone who has been taken to court?Is there any possibility I will be fined, obviously I dont want a criminal record? I reside in Northern Ireland, you talk about England & Wales and Scotland laws.
Is there any difference?

Private parking is a civil matter, its not criminal at all, so its impossible to get a criminal record for such a ticket. Yes people have been taken to court, here are the statistics from a FOI request recently to the courts. We know 1.8m fake tickets were issued

Tickets Issued : 1,800,000
Small claims issued: 845
Chance of a small claim being issued : 1 in 2130
Claims heard before a judge: 49
Successful claims: 24
Unsuccessful claims: 25
Chances of going to court: 1 in 32,000
Chances of losing: 1 in 72,000

So are you worried? Well you shouldn't be

trisontana

Of course you won't get a criminal record. This is a civil law issue and nothing to do with the criminal law at all

Stephen_Leak

Truth1 wrote: »

<snip> Is there any possibility I will be fined <snip>

It isn't a fine.

trisontana wrote: »

Of course you won't get a criminal record. <snip>

Not unless the OP buys Agadoo by Black Lace. :dance:

Buzby

All you did was go shopping - get this in proportion.

I would suggest next time you drop the passenger off at the entrance and park elsewhere, doing the reverse at the end of the shop. My parents were very frail, but because they didn't drive, no 'badge' was available for me to take them, so I had to use this routine every time.

pie_face_2

taffy056 wrote: »

Private parking is a civil matter, its not criminal at all, so its impossible to get a criminal record for such a ticket. Yes people have been taken to court, here are the statistics from a FOI request recently to the courts. We know 1.8m fake tickets were issued

Tickets Issued : 1,800,000
Small claims issued: 845
Chance of a small claim being issued : 1 in 2130
Claims heard before a judge: 49
Successful claims: 24
Unsuccessful claims: 25
Chances of going to court: 1 in 32,000
Chances of losing: 1 in 72,000

So are you worried? Well you shouldn't be

Just...

Stephen_Leak

Buzby wrote: »

All you did was go shopping - get this in proportion.

I would suggest next time you drop the passenger off at the entrance and park elsewhere, doing the reverse at the end of the shop. My parents were very frail, but because they didn't drive, no 'badge' was available for me to take them, so I had to use this routine every time.

OK, but why should you have to go out of your way to avoid being blackmailed?

The Blue Badge scheme doesn’t apply to private car parks. Anyone, who’s disabled under the terms of The Equality Act 2010 can use a disabled parking bay. If they’re also Blue Badge holders, they don't need to display it. No more than they need to ring a hand bell and shout, "Unclean". The terms & conditions for the car park usually state that you shouldn't park in a disabled bay without displaying a badge. This, in itself, contravenes The Equality Act.

Coupon-mad

Stephen_Leak wrote: »

The Blue Badge scheme doesn’t apply to private car parks. Anyone, who’s disabled under the terms of The Equality Act 2010 can use a disabled parking bay. If they’re also Blue Badge holders, they don't need to display it. No more than they need to ring a hand bell and shout, "Unclean". The terms & conditions for the car park usually state that you shouldn't park in a disabled bay without displaying a badge. This, in itself, contravenes The Equality Act.

Yep, no need for a Blue Badge because the right to park there comes from the 'reasoanable adjustment' part of the Act, which has to be provided for any qualifying disabled person.

Such people are definied clearly in the Act as anyone with a long term condition - considered to be one lasting 12 months or more - which adversely affects their day-today living (and who need to use the adjustment). Not just someone with a Blue Badge, or a Blue Car or even a Blue Rinse!

This sort of Equality Act breach, followed by harassment in the form of letters, is something a motorist could take to small claims for compensation. Still waiting for someone to do so - but when they do it could surely get a 4 figure sum.

It just needs a motorist to lay the groundwork, make the position clear about the harassment and law breach to all parties (particularly a retailer like a big Supermarket). Then if the PPC is not called off, go for the jugular, naming both parties in a small claim and also claiming back the Court fee and a few expenses (PPC and retailer). No Supermarket would want an Equality Act breach case like this against them I am sure.