UKCPS parking ticket help?

Tatteh

Hello all,

First of all I'd like to thank those who have taken the time to submit the abundance of information and those that have offered there help on the subject of parking tickets.

Now, on to the subject at hand.

I realise after reading the newbie thread that it says you should ALWAYS dispute a private parking ticket no matter the circumstances. Therefore it will be necessary to start the process as stated in the newbie thread.

I would just like to give the circumstances of this post so I can use this as a thread to keep others updated on it's progress in the dispute to help anyone in a similar situation.

The driver parked the car in question in a UKCPS parking area marked "Residents only" as they were only staying for around 1 hour, they did not however notice the signs hanging 12 feet from the floor stating that parking there without a permit would enter them into a contract meaning that they would have to pay £60/£100 for the privilege. It appears that there is not really the case that others have, but anyone would like to avoid a £60-£100 charge if possible.

Just gotta wait for a NtK to arrive so the first correspondence using the newbie template can be sent.

Wish me luck!

da_rule

Good luck.

Did you receive a notice to driver? (i.e. a ticket stuck to the vehicle)

Coupon-mad

I realise I do not really have the case that others do

Yes you do! Can you show us the signs wording though in a link to a photo? UKCPS sometimes word their signs as a 'contractual fee to allow you to park any old how'.

The template in the newbies thread is intended to get them to say which their charge is - breach or contract? But it would be useful to see the signs please.

Redx

I would edit post #1 as by giving out this information you are helping them, seeing as "they" read this forum (its an open public forum)

the word I (capital letter I) does not exist in this world of legality, but is often used by the ill informed or less experienced

THE DRIVER is the correct term , not I did this , I did that etc

what you believe is not relevant , its not about what you believe , its about THEM proving their invoice with contracts and figures and the signage complying with the BPA CoP etc, which I doubt you have the knowledge to comment on

in any case as defendant you allege none of it is compliant and make them prove their case

Tatteh

Hopefully I have changed my wording sufficiently.

There was indeed a ticket on the car windscreen.

I am having a little trouble getting a link to a sign picture but I will try again in a bit.

Redx

use a broken web link to tinypic or photobucket

Tatteh

http: //i1371.photobucket.com/albums/ag302/mattryder12/Mobile%20Uploads/20140526_190829_zpsfg9uvdzl.jpg

There we go

nigelbb

http://i1371.photobucket.com/albums/ag302/mattryder12/Mobile%20Uploads/20140526_190829_zpsfg9uvdzl.jpg

This sign clearly states permit holders only. If you are not a permit holder then you are not allowed to park i.e. you are trespassing. Whatever wording they put on the sign trying to dress up their £100 penalty as a contractual charge there is no getting away from the fact that as I frequently point out on this forum you cannot enter into a contract to do something that is forbidden.

Guys_Dad

Useful post, Nigel, but there is another way of reading the sign.

You are suggesting that the PERMIT HOLDERS ONLY wording applies to the whole notice.

However, it could be interpreted that it only applies to the paragraph that follows it. If you take the PERMIT HOLDER ONLY and the "Valid.............view" paragraph out (and the PPC can claim the two should be read together) then trespass doesn't apply and a contract could be formed.

This doesn't change the fact that the charge can be easily appealed.

nigelbb

The sign also read "This land is strictly for the parking of motor vehicles that comply with the following conditions indicated below"

then in double size font

"Permit Holder Only"

then in smaller font

"Valid permit must be displayed inside the front windscreen in full view"

You are not allowed to park if you are not a permit holder & not displaying your permit. You cannot enter a contract to do something that is prohibited.

A properly constructed offer of parking would be simply:-

Vehicles displaying valid permit - FREE
All other vehicles - £100

Guys_Dad

nigelbb wrote: »

The sign also read "This land is strictly for the parking of motor vehicles that comply with the following conditions indicated below"

then in double size font

"Permit Holder Only"

then in smaller font

"Valid permit must be displayed inside the front windscreen in full view"

You are not allowed to park if you are not a permit holder & not displaying your permit. You cannot enter a contract to do something that is prohibited.

A properly constructed offer of parking would be simply:-

Vehicles displaying valid permit - FREE
All other vehicles - £100

That would be my argument too - if I was in the motorist's place.

But, the conditions below state that for permit holders only, then they must display their permits.

It does NOT state that "those without permits are not permitted to park".

It may, by stint of the text size, imply that it is for permit holders to park only, but it is actually very cleverly worded to enable them to claim that they are offering parking to non-permit holders at a rate of £100 discounted.

Thee is sufficient leeway in the wording for both sides to present an arguable interpretation.