UKCPS Parking Fine - Leaving Site

Big_Bad_Dad

aimingforadebtfreelife wrote: »

I am intrigued to the new majority of drivers who claim they can park where and when they want claiming its their right to do so. So the genuine users of the park struggle to park because of the self centred drivers who park there to avoid paying a car park charge and claim "so what".

Rogue motorists who abuse are a problem. I will grant you that. Nobody here encourages it.

This forum however deals with the wider problem of what happens when one is issued a charge, and as we know from a legal perspective, the demand is without substance; the parking companies themselves are the more sinister rogues who are targeting vulnerable individuals as is proven by their methods, lack of sympathy for the target's mitigating circumstances, and by their reason for operating which is purely to get rich yesterday.

Authorities on the other hand, with their penalty notices for traffic violations such as parking on a double-yellow when not in possession of blue badge, are a different outfit altogether. They at least may occasionally be human when handling appeals.

Redx

aimingforadebtfreelife wrote: »

Would you park on your neighbours driveway? That's private land. ???

Parking on private land relies on the laws of contract and trespass. Such that you have deemed to have accepted the terms by parking your car in such an area if there is adequate signage. Bearing in mind at the car park stated (which has over 1000 spaces) when you enter there is a sign at drivers eye level which is very large stating the terms and conditions for parking and that you agree to them if you choose to park your car there.

The firm sets out its penalty for failing to comply on the sign.

If anyone wants to ignore this then more fool them.

the "firm" is not allowed by law to charge a PENALTY, that would be ILLEGAL , as would a FINE too

it is also a fact that if the terms and conditions break the BPA CoP (and many of them do) then its not enforcible in law !

if it breaks the UNFAIR TERMS AND CONDITIONS ACT it is also not enforcible in law

this is why they fail to win so many times at popla, becasue they break the T&C of the trade body , The BPA , never mind the genuine pre-estimate of loss etc

if the signage was fair and did not break the BPA terms and conditions, did not break various laws like the EQUALITY ACT 2010 or THE UNFAIR TERMS AND CONDITIONS act rhen maybe the PPC or landowners would have a case

either way, its still not illegal to park on private land, but it is considered trespass

Stroma

aimingforadebtfreelife wrote: »

Would you park on your neighbours driveway? That's private land. ???

Parking on private land relies on the laws of contract and trespass. Such that you have deemed to have accepted the terms by parking your car in such an area if there is adequate signage. Bearing in mind at the car park stated (which has over 1000 spaces) when you enter there is a sign at drivers eye level which is very large stating the terms and conditions for parking and that you agree to them if you choose to park your car there.

The firm sets out its penalty for failing to comply on the sign.

If anyone wants to ignore this then more fool them.

But private companies cannot issue penalties, that is unlawful ! Didn't you know? And please don't come here with the parking on someone else's driveway garbage! This is not a driveway but retail park where you are invited to park!

Also you quite correctly say it's the law of contract that govern this, that contract must be fair, and must be for the loss only of that exact stay, explain how a third party contractor who doesn't own the land has lost money? And explain why it's the same amount on every breach? And finally if this parking company is reclaiming losses, how do they post a profit each year?

Big_Bad_Dad

Well since you used Burgerking, you have one foot through the door of acceptance, even if your departure from the premise did technically breach the terms.

But then let's look at this one closer. Who issued the ticket? What proof did he have other than "what I personally witnessed"? How does he know you did not drop your partner off before the entrance and that it had been your partner whose purpose the drive was to be at the facility? Does driving in alone render this impossible? How does he know you didn't drive in for the purpose of someone who was already there and your only reason for popping out was to fetch your lift home from farther down? - Your partner or friend already having had the spare set of keys.

Proving that one is IMPOSSIBLE and how easy is it to get a statement from a close trusted friend that they were in fact the subject of the vehicle and that they were there the whole time. If UKPC don't accept it, POPLA will.

You're in the clear my friend. Trust me.

Coupon-mad

aimingforadebtfreelife wrote: »

If you class "going off site" as spending 2 hours at an Ice Hockey match at the Arena over the road then surely a charge is justified???

No!! An extortionate 'charge' by a third party agent, who are neither the landowner nor even maintain the car park?

Whatever next, you think the agency firm who do the cleaning there can charge £100 if someone drops a receipt (littering)?!

Same thing, private companies can't fine people. Properly argued at POPLA stage, this will be easily won as the charge is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss and the PPC are not the landowner. Add to that, the fact (as the Judge McIlWaine said in VCS v Ibbotson) that if an operative watched the driver appear to leave the (undefined) boundary, then the PPC had a legal duty to mitigate any loss by warning him, not rubbing their hands with glee and issuing a fake parking ticket.

You are also defending the indefensible, a firm which issues fake POPLA codes:

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2013/12/ukcps-try-new-scam-handing-out-fake.html

It has happened more than once - there are other forum examples of a code with a 'P' instead of a number on the end. UKCPS taking the P?

Big_Bad_Dad

Coupon-mad wrote: »

You are also defending the indefensible, a firm which issues fake POPLA codes:

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2013/12/ukcps-try-new-scam-handing-out-fake.html

It has happened more than once - there are other forum examples of a code with a 'P' instead of a number on the end. UKCPS taking the P?

Absolutely amazing! I never knew that until I read this.

Do you know, the first time I had a matter which needed to go to POPLA, I couldn't for the life of me work out why I was receiving error messages! I thought there was a problem with my laptop. I then tried the local library and got a bit further (different configuration) but in the end, it still "blew back".

"Oh well, you didn't appeal to POPLA, you therefore owe us!"

In their dreams!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Redx

aimingforadebtfreelife wrote: »

If you class "going off site" as spending 2 hours at an Ice Hockey match at the Arena over the road then surely a charge is justified???

and if that is true, in the words of many a POPLA assessor it is NOT what is written on the sign, it is what the BPA CoP says it should be , namely :- A GENUINE PRE-ESTIMATE OF LOSS

The Appellant submits that the amount of the parking charge does not reflect the Operator’s loss, and so is not enforceable. The Operator has not addressed this submission.

It appears to be the Appellant’s case that the parking charge represents a sum for specified damages, in other words compensation agreed in advance. Accordingly, the charge must represent a genuine pre-estimate of the loss caused by the alleged breach. The Operator does not appear to dispute that the sum represents damages, and has not attempted to justify the charge as a genuine pre-estimate of loss. They simply state that they do not believe that that charge is not excessive, but have not elaborated in any sufficient detail their justification why.

Consequently, I have no evidence before me to refute the Appellant’s submission. Accordingly, I must allow the appeal.

the OFT seem to believe the sum of £12 is adequate !!!

Lfcmonkey

Wow I've certainly opened up a can of worms. To me the Arena is all part of the complex..... it doesn't state anywhere what exactly is classed as "site" and what venues are accepted as part of the agreement to park there. I go and see a local team and put money into local businesses and to be fair it isn't cheap. I could just sit at home and watch sport on TV but I get out and provide support to a team in the area. There are 100's of people who park there to watch the game and I'm pretty sure they don't all receive tickets.

Coupon-mad

''To me the Arena is all part of the complex..... it doesn't state anywhere what exactly is classed as "site" and what venues are accepted as part of the agreement to park there.''


Exactly - how would you know any differently? And that's another appeal point for POPLA stage, no defined 'site boundary' on signage and no attempt to mitigate loss by stopping the driver they watched. You might be amused to read the famous 'next time bring your toothbrush' court case words from Judge McIlWaine in VCS v Ibbotson:

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?act=attach&type=post&id=16231

A very relevant one for you to cite and worth a read, as it's funny to read the single-handed demolition of a PPC's case by the Judge!

lescm19

Redx wrote: »

there are many instances where we believe the motorist should pay a reasonable fee if they broke a reasonable rule, the OFT thought of this that it would be say £12

Precisely what I thought.
"Oh well, I didn't read the small print, it's a fair cop guv" and would have shelled out £20 without thinking about it. Instead I have discovered that not only do the 'enforcers' of these places not only tear the ar5e out of it (by over-penalizing overstayers and site-leavers) they don't even bother complying with industry standards.
I'm afraid I have no sympathy for them and I hope this will be borne out by my forthcoming appeals and dialogues with said rogues.