Yet another parking "charge" thread

cyclonebri1

I know this has been done to death and I know the standard reply, and I get the "don't break the rules and you won't have the issue" view.

This is the situation. It is my daughter with the issue, she only mentioned it in passing and isn't familiar with the ignore them and they go away tactic.

There are 2 reasons I'm asking this, 1stly I understand there have been changes put in place from the date 1/10/12, the issue took place on 6/10/12.
And secondly it was a free car park, no charge for 2 hours and she was there only 30 mins.

But the actual "offence" it seems was of not parking in a marked box.
It was 1 of those situations where there was an area suitable to park a single car without causing any access issues or obstruction.

UKPS I think were the company covering the cinema/store car park.
She had the standard demand and replied back saying there was no reason she should not park there given the above info.

Next letter it's £100 not the original £50, and yesterday a letter from "Court Proceedings London Ltd" arrives offering to settle for £120 to prevent the £350 likely to be awarded in court.

Now I'm pretty sure that the issue is that the parking company has to prove that the owners have been deprived of the parking revenue??
There was no ticket to purchase, it was a free car park.

Any comments based on the anomalies I've detailed would be appreciated.

pogofish

cyclonebri1 wrote: »

I know this has been done to death and I know the standard reply, and I get the "don't break the rules and you won't have the issue" view.

Any comments based on the anomalies I've detailed would be appreciated.

The biggest anomaly is your strange idea about this "standard" reply - It is not!

You have a totally non-legal nor enforcable private ticket, which can be ignored completely!

There has been no change to this since 1st Oct. All that changed is that the PPCs are allowed to adress their empty threats to the RK instead of fishing to find out who was driving - The tickets themselves remain rubbish.

Why not have a look in the Parking Forum for many examples of the scam and quite probably examples of all the letters you are going to get from them and their powerless/fake debt collectors.

File and Forget!

cyclonebri1

pogofish wrote: »

The biggest anomaly is your strange idea about this "standard" reply - It is not!

You have a totally non-legal nor enforcable private ticket, which can be ignored completely!

There has been no change to this since 1st Oct. All that changed is that the PPCs are allowed to adress their empty threats to the RK instead of fishing to find out who was driving - The tickets themselves remain rubbish.

Why not have a look in the Parking Forum for many examples of the scam and quite probably examples of all the letters you are going to get from them and their powerless/fake debt collectors.

File and Forget!

Strange that you think it's odd that I expect the standard reply and then go ahead and give it????

It really is not that simple and most know that, you can be "charged" provided there is a loss and this is what I am mooting, in this case there isn't a loss. Plus the fact that she bit when the 1st letter arrived giving these people all the incentive they need to play the sucker hand.

I was simply interested to know what had changed in practice, rather than the change in the law as such??

There is no anomaly, just the fact that these clowns can take it to the courts if they are so inclined. If there is an anomaly it is the fact that some folks think they can't.

You may have gathered that my advice has been "you shouldn't have replied, don't reply again and let them try to prove a loss if they can, as there hasn't been 1" ;)

thenudeone

spot the contradiction:

pogofish wrote: »

There has been no change to this since 1st Oct.

pogofish wrote: »

All that changed is that the PPCs are allowed to adress their empty threats to the RK instead of fishing to find out who was d
driving

I am absolutely certain to get flamed for telling the truth by the anti-PPC lobby here on MSE.

Most seem to have quietly ignored the fact that the law now says:

The creditor has the right to recover any unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2012/9/schedule/4/enacted

Now; this is subject to a number of caveats and conditions, and only applies to parking charges (not penalties), and many companies will try to persuade you to pay using underhand tactics, but the landscape really is different now.

Any one who tells you that you can safely ignore a notice regarding parking charges from a landowner or their agent is not giving good advice.

But a landowner cannot impose a "penalty" charge for not parking within a box or any other rule-breaking. Only the parking charge is enforceable in law.

arcon5

It's often the case though that the parking management company peruse the debt and issue court claims in their name as if they was party to the contract rather than merely being agents of the land owners.

I've never read of a case for example whereby the claimant was listed as the land owner e.g. 'ASDA versus Mr X', more likely 'TPS versus Mr X' which is the problem.

cyclonebri1

But back on topic, where is the "debt" in my query??

peter_the_piper

thenudeone wrote: »

(1) The creditor has the right to recover any unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2012/9/schedule/4/enacted

(2)Any one who tells you that you can safely ignore a notice regarding parking charges from a landowner or their agent is not giving good advice.

(3)But a landowner cannot impose a "penalty" charge for not parking within a box or any other rule-breaking. Only the parking charge is enforceable in law.

(1) The landowner nhas the right to recover their losses from the driver or RK. to do this they have to go through a civil court, the ppc cannot although they try to make you think they can
(2)Only the landowner applies here unless he has signed over the rights to a ppc(and he would be mad to do so)
(3) The parking charge is only recoverable through the civil court not law.
(2)

Avoriaz

cyclonebri1 wrote: »

But the actual "offence" it seems was of not parking in a marked box.
It was 1 of those situations where there was an area suitable to park a single car without causing any access issues or obstruction.

Isn't it up to the land owner or car park owner to determine that and not your daughter?

How did she know that they don't want that space left clear for manoeuvring a large vehicle or for some other reason? She may not have been blocking normal cars but perhaps she was blocking a fire engine route. There are many other reasons why she might have been causing a potential problem.

Although I don't agree with the excessive penalty charge, I do think your daughter should be more considerate about where she parks.

peter_the_piper

Judt to reiterate, Private Parking Companies and Landowners cannot issue FINES or PENALTIES. Using your scenario they have not lost any money so cannot claim trespass either.

cyclonebri1

Avoriaz wrote: »

Isn't it up to the land owner or car park owner to determine that and not your daughter?

How did she know that they don't want that space left clear for manoeuvring a large vehicle or for some other reason? She may not have been blocking normal cars but perhaps she was blocking a fire engine route. There are many other reasons why she might have been causing a potential problem.

Although I don't agree with the excessive penalty charge, I do think your daughter should be more considerate about where she parks.

Then you are very very wrong in your assumption, but thanks anyway. I knew there would be 1:A which is why I tried to let you pass if only you had really read my 1st post

cyclonebri1

peter_the_piper wrote: »

Judt to reiterate, Private Parking Companies and Landowners cannot issue FINES or PENALTIES. Using your scenario they have not lost any money so cannot claim trespass either.

And that was exactly my view, no loss = no case.

To answer alvorez (sp) the "ticket" was for parking not obstruction, do your homework.