Railway station car park - fine

AliceBanned

Obviously I find it fascinating..:D

nigelbb

The whole private parking business is based on lies that PPCs claim give them the right to demand a penalty for infringing the rules that they make up.

Most PPCs claim that you enter into a contract by reading their signs. They further claim either that their £100 charges are for breaching that contract or alternatively that it is charge for parking that you agreed to as part of that contract e.g. £100 for the option of parking in a disabled bay without a blue badge.

Under English contract law any damages for a breach of contract must be a genuine pre-estimate of losses & penalties are not allowed. Even so-called penalty clauses in a contract cannot be an arbitrary sum designed to 'fine' the party who breaches the contract. The remedy in law is that the injured party be put in the position as though the breach had never happened e.g. if you contract to purchase a car but it is delivered late you cannot 'fine' the seller £5000 but you could claim for the cost of a hire car. So the losses sustained if you overstay in a free car park must be approaching zero. If it's Xmas & the car park is so full that you prevent a genuine shopper from parking then a loss could be argued but would be difficult to quantify.

The argument that the 'fine' is a contractual charge is also a nonsense as no reasonable person would pay £100 for the privilege of a larger parking bay a bit nearer the supermarket door. Charging £100 for the option of obstructing a fire exit is also clearly not a valid charge. The fact that there is in fact no facility for paying the £100 in advance is another point that indicates this is not a legitimate charge. Legislation forbids one-sided contracts where the consumer has no ability to negotiate terms & is significantly disadvantaged.

There is a third grous of PPCs who claim that their 'fines' are damages for trespass. There are basic reasons in law why a party who does not own the land nor have a proprietary interest in the land cannot take legal action against a third party for trespass. Only the landowner or tenant can sue for damages for trespass & even then again the damages must be based on a genuine pre-estimate of the losses.

There are many other strong arguments that demonstrate the whole business model is flawed e.g. the PPCs operate as agents of the landowner or even as agents of the landowner's agent so it's very likely that in any case they cannot even enter into a contract with a third party (the driver) for parking services on behalf of their principal (the landowner).

These are just some basic points why the whole PPC business is a scandal waiting to break on the scale of PPI mis-selling. The amount of money involved isn't as great but many times more people have been duped but these crooks.

AliceBanned

Wow. And because most people at some point have received a legal parking penalty from the council, and it is made to look like one of these, people aren't questioning it. It doesn't seem like an arbitrary amount, because the charges are often of a similar amount. It is intimidation. Great that consumers are gaining more and more power. True if people could claim back it would be a lot - considering the clampers of the past charging often £400 or more to get your car back. Luckily I avoided those but they are intimidating and it was so extreme!!

Coupon-mad

AliceBanned wrote: »

Just had a look at the POPLA decisions thread. So in effect it is to do with land ownership and contracts, and the fact that the charges are inflated above the loss incurred? On those grounds alone, regardless of whether I could or could not get a valid ticket (without missing my train lol) are enough? Thanks.

Did you see the latest win where the guy offered £10? Similar to your case and an option for you (but do not name yourself as driver when it's time to challenge, simply reply in 'registered keeper mode' to the first letter). You will win if you follow our advice at POPLA stage, and yes, many favourable decisions are made by POPLA based on the very relevant issues of land ownership and contracts, and the fact that the charges are inflated above the loss.

And the reason for waiting for the first letter is because:

- some windscreen scam fake PCNs are never followed up (I had one like that)

- a windscreen PCN is normally 'found' by the driver and you do not want to be saying who was driving nor implying it (protects your position)

- they are likely to breach the POFA with the Notice to Keeper wording or timeline or both, adds to your POPLA challenge points.


So basically you do need to wait and pick your moment to challenge, so they can dig a hole for you to bury them in at POPLA with a carefully-constructed appeal. Sorry if it came across that we were railroading you into this course of action, to us it's obvious because we know fake PCNs are scams and the whole PPC World 'industry' is rotten to the core.

To us, giving the advice we do umpteen times a day on here is simple, a no-brainer, it's like telling someone what to do with a phishing email. It's a similar scam and whether or not the person should send money isn't really under debate, in our minds, hence we were very definite (pushy?!) with the first responses! Sorry!

AliceBanned

No problem at all, CouponMad. Thanks for the further explanation. I just needed to understand it all fully for myself before I could follow the advice! It makes perfect sense now. People will not necessarily take your advice if they feel they are going to be harrassed by the parking company or even risk getting a CCJ - it takes a while to get your head around what is "legal" as we are all brainwashed into believing "authority" to some extent.:D. I just wanted to make the point that I felt I was being asked to believe another authority, telling me not to pay and that was just as bad. maybe I'm just stubborn.;)

AliceBanned

ps I'll have a look at the win you mention. Thanks. Not going to take any action until I get the letter!!

AliceBanned

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Did you see the latest win where the guy offered £10? Similar to your case and an option for you !

Could you post a link please? Can't find the one you are referring to. Thanks.

nigelbb

AliceBanned wrote: »

Could you post a link please? Can't find the one you are referring to. Thanks.

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?act=attach&type=post&id=22260

nigelbb

Even if a contract for parking exists (which is arguable) it must be with the landowner not with some 3rd party parking management company. The retailers engage the likes of PE so that they can make out they have clean hands when it comes to enforcement. It's like the CIA hiring mercenaries for black ops so that they have plausible deniability. It would be a PR disaster for ALDI or Tesco if it were their name on the court papers when their customers get sued.

AliceBanned

nigelbb wrote: »

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?act=attach&type=post&id=22260

So the companies have no way of proving the charge is appropriate, therefore can't get away with charging it? If I understand it.