Parking Penalty Appeal Information

JEG1965

Edinburgh City Council waived my penalty charge on the grounds that the warden had made an error in processing the ticket. It took a very long time to uncover this error. I suspect that this was a tactic to prevent the floodgates opening.

Note that they only discovered this processing error on my second appeal. The fact that they didn't find it on my first appeal (which didn't include the contract argument) makes me think they worked VERY hard to find it. That encourages me.

I'm off to research the crucial contract point. The debate arising from this approach has been very interesting and, undoubtedly, helpful regardless of perspective.

JEG1965

'Perhaps you could advise us all how we can avoid/ challenge parking fines with a reasonable chance of success.'

MPYTHON that's exactly what I hope to do. I'm aware there are weaknesses in my argument but it worked. I wouldn't expect the council to admit that all their contractor's vending machines are operating under a technical illegality. They certainly weren't aware of it and will be a little worried IN CASE some pain-in-the-neck has found that they've been charging people unfairly.

If I was them I'd find an alternative reason to waive this particular appeal to prevent it arising before the parking adjudicator.

mpython

Thanks Jeg, I realise that your motive for this thread was to try & help people save money and I have found your points interesting even though I have disagreed. In contrast, Dazco's posts have been unconstructive & bile ridden and undermined the usefulness of this thread to new readers. My question 'Perhaps you could advise us all how we can all avoid/ challenge parking fines.." was directed at Dazco, not you.

Let us know how your research turns out.

velocity_boy

dazco wrote: »

You cannot say that on here mate. You will get every tofu eating, carrot crunching, guardian reading, car hating, propaganda believing, do-gooder opposing you.

And all the people with normal thoughts will not post, therefore giving the illusion that the soft !!!!! bleeding heart liberals are in the majority.

And they love that.

you won't catch me being scared to say what i think, my opinion is that if your opinion isn't racist or sexist or anything like that, then its your opinion and you are perfectly entitled to hold it. i don't expect people to agree with me but i don't agree with wardens hanging round cars (which they do in my home town- from having about 10 mins left on the ticket) intimidating drivers and all we get out of it are speed humps and 'traffic calming' !!!!!!????
yeah ok, there are idiots in the world, but there are a heck of a lot of normal, law abiding people who pay taxes and it gets wasted on absolute garbage by councils, so then they make you pay to breathe and enforce some kind of !!!!!! turpin gestapo to enforce it with an iron fist, lunacy complete bloomin lunacy.
i'll get off my soapbox now

JEG1965

The manufacturers of parking vending machines appear to be few. It seems less than two:
http://www.bemrosebooth.com/intelligence/car_parking_news_articles/1703/Itsmobile_and_Parkeon_win_at_British_Parking_Awards_2004.html
From which comes:
‘Parkeon was formerly Schlumberger e-City, the Parking and Ticketing Systems division of Schlumberger. The company was at the forefront of the development of pay & display terminals in the 1970s and has 30 years of proven innovation and proven expertise in the parking business.
Today Parkeon is a leader in parking systems and equipment, offering both on-street and off-street parking solutions. The company employs over 800 people worldwide and generated revenues of €122 million in 2003.
With an installed base in excess of 120,000 machines, its parking terminals are a familiar sight in over 3,000 cities across 40 countries and its pay & display systems control over 3 million parking spaces around the world. Over the last 15 years, Parkeon has developed an installed base of 3,000 ticket vending machines for heavy and light rail, underground and multimodal transport operators in Europe and in the US.
Thanks to world-class engineers and substantial investments over the last three years, Parkeon has built undeniable technological leadership in its field. Parkeon provides complete parking revenue collection solutions, equipment and services to municipalities and car park operators.’

JEG1965

In light of the marketing cited, would I, I wonder, be able to utilise European legislation?

‘European legislation has influenced, in particular, rules on jurisdiction, choice of law, consumer contracts and contracts of employment.’ (McBryde cited in Huntley et al, ‘Contract’, 2003;41).

What of the manufacturer of the vending machines? It appears to me, I may be wrong, that E.U. laws which have strengthened the Sale of Goods Act 1979 might apply here if the manufacturer of the vending machines makes any promotional claims about their product. If I read this correctly the local authorities utilising the product may be liable for unsatisfactory goods supplied under the contract of sale. - I’m uncertain here if I’m dealing with a service or a good though.

‘Substantial amendments to the Sale of Goods Act 1979 (SGA) have been made as a consequence of the EU Directive (99/44/EC, 25 May 1999) on Certain Aspects of the Sale of Consumer Goods and Associated Guarantees. The Sale and Supply of Goods to Consumer Regulations 2002 (SI 2002, No. 3045), which came into force on 31 March 2003, have amended the SGA and injected some revolutionary concepts into English law. The new provisions apply only where one party ‘deals as a consumer’… ‘consumer’ being defined in reg. 2 as ‘any natural person who, in contracts covered by these Regulations, is acting for purposes which are outside his trade, business or profession.’ Regulation 3 amends the SGA, s.14(2), relating to satisfactory quality, and inserts new ss. 14(2D) and (2E). Section 14(2D) alters the law fundamentally in providing that ‘if the buyer deals as a consumer… the relevant circumstances mentioned in subsection (2A) above include any public statements on the specific characteristics of the goods made about them by the seller, the producer or his representative, particularly in advertising or labelling.’ The seller of goods is now clearly liable for any ‘public statements’ made about the goods but the truly dramatic change here is that consumers can now rely on advertising produced by a manufacturer of goods when seeking to render the seller liable for unsatisfactory goods supplied under the contract of sale. The reform is long overdue and recognises modern advertising and marketing practices by which consumers are attracted to brand name goods because of a manufacturer’s claims which are endorsed, explicitly or implicitly, by the retail seller.’ (Blackstone’s Q & A Law of Contract, 2005;74).

Further, one of the ‘Principles of European Contract Law (prepared by the Commission on European Contract Law 1999 & 2002) is Article 4:109 ‘Excessive Benefit or Unfair Advantage’ which notes: ‘(1) A party may avoid a contract if, at the time of the conclusion of the contract:
(a) it was dependent on or had a relationship of trust with the other party, was in economic distress or had urgent needs, was improvident, ignorant, inexperienced or lacking in bargaining skill, and
(b) the other party knew or ought to have known of this and, given the circumstances and purpose of the contract, took advantage of the first party's situation in a way which was grossly unfair or took an excessive benefit.
(2) Upon the request of the party entitled to avoidance, a court may if it is appropriate adapt the contract in order to bring it into accordance with what might have been agreed had the requirements of good faith and fair dealing been followed.
(3) A court may similarly adapt the contract upon the request of a party receiving notice of avoidance for excessive benefit or unfair advantage, provided that this party informs the party who gave the notice promptly after receiving it and before that party has acted in reliance on it.
I wonder if (2) above might encourage the manufacturer to alter the charging system in their machines?

Any comments welcome.

JEG1965

But before that I think I still have to consider a preliminary matter:

Problem 1:

When is a contract formed between motorist and council when the motorist parks in a controlled public parking zone?

Is it (a) when a vehicle occupies a vacant payment-controlled space? Or (b) when the motorist’s parking payment is accepted by the vending machine? Or (c) when the motorist attaches the voucher to their vehicle windscreen?

A Professor of Law from Oxford University believes that such questions aren’t too easy, noting, ‘we enter into contracts as a regular part of life and generally we experience no difficulty in so doing. A simple case is the purchase of a morning newspaper or the purchase of a bus ticket when travelling to work. What doubt can there possibly be about the existence of such contracts or their basis? But, behind the apparent simplicity of these transactions, there lurks a fierce controversy. In an introductory work of this nature we cannot give full consideration to these great issues of debate’. (McKendrick, E., Contract Law (2000;1).

I'm still reviewing case law and academic opinion on this and there are different views but these are shaped by different circumstances.

I'm actually coming to the view that, as the motorist is vulnerable to a penalty from the moment they park, that the contract may not be concludable until the voucher paid for is affixed to their windscreen.

The interim period of 5 minutes which wardens are to apply 'with discretion' should perhaps be mandatory thus allowing a motorist a reasonable time to return from purchasing their voucher and affix it to prevent a penalty?

I suspect there are plenty of flaws in that approach though.

RadoJo

Similar theme, but slightly different issue - what about missing parking tickets? I recently received a notice through the post that I had failed to pay a parking fine within the stated time limit. I had never seen a parking ticket, and can only assume that someone had removed it from my windscreen by way of a prank, as the warden had taken a photo of my car with the ticket on it (so they say). However, I could hardly claim to have a photo of my car without a ticket on it as I was not aware than one had even been issued!

Fortunately, I could actually prove that I was not parked illegally on the day in question (I have a permit which was issued with the wrong date) but had I not been able to, the first I would have known about the fine would have been AFTER the period where I could have paid the reduced amount had passed. It hadn't occurred to me beforehand, but couldn't an unscrupulous traffic warden ticket your car, take a photo, and then remove it to ensure the higher rate penalty would be paid. And even the less paranoid possibility that someone else could remove it before you get to your car (which I suspect happened in my case) means that there is no security. Considering these are documents imposing fines which could become a matter of law it seems that the system of issuing them is seriously flawed, and I think this is another layer of vulnerability to which drivers are subjected.

Golden_Oldie

RadoJo wrote: »

Similar theme, but slightly different issue - what about missing parking tickets?

Surely this is unfair as it would appear that the onus is being passed onto the consumer to prove otherwise.

Maybe it is adviseable, although unreasonable and impractical, to take a digital photo of your car every time you return after parking at a meter.

At least this way if a warden or a practical joker removed an issued parking ticket and you were to receive an unexpected fine for unpaid parking fee, you'd at least be in a position to prove otherwise.

Golden_Oldie

Still awaiting an update by the OP. Any news?