Court found in my favour

psm232

Last Wednesday I was taken to court by UKCPS for not paying £100 fine, for parking in the wrong place in a free car park. I hadn't paid the fine (the amount of which kept altering) because I felt very strongly that it was unreasonable to demand so much money when I was not aware of having done anything wrong.

Before we went to court my husband and I looked at UKPCS'S argument very carefully. They were saying that a contract had been created because they had put up numerous notices that said a contract had been created if I parked my car. I argued that you cannot be party to a contract that you don't know about and I had not seen the signs, which was true. It was dark and I was not expecting to see signs in a free car park. I accepted that there were numerous signs on site but said that I had not passed many of them to get to where I parked and had not been aware of them. Even if I had noticed them I would have assumed there were those notices saying the owners of the car park did not accept liability for any damage etc. and I couldn't read them because it was dark.

In his case, the guy from UKPCS quoted a judg who said that not seeing the signs was not enough. Having read the whole case he quoted from, we pointed out the the judgement was ultimately found in favour of the woman who had parked her car and not seen the signs. I took a photo of one of the signs in the dark and pointed out how it was impossible to read.

The judge found that the signs, although large had too much information on them to make them easy to read and ordered that signs should be put up which made it clear that although it was a free car park, penalties could apply. The UKPCS man said that this had already been done, although after I had got my parking ticket.

My husband went to look at this sign yesterday. He said that although it was larger, the only thing you could see clearly, when driving a car, was a large P for parking sign.

In my opinion, the way UKCPS is making money is by fining people for things that they do not realise they shouldn't be doing and most definitely wouldn't do if they thought they would have to pay through the nose for doing so.

If anyone is going to court or appealing over an issue like this, in a free car park. Go armed with evidence of the size of the signs, and the font size on them. Take photographs of the signs as soon as possible, showing exactly what you would have seen. I would also look up the rules of the BPA. Don't accept anything the other side says and make sure you can prove every point of your case all along the way.

This is rather long, but I was so angry when I heard what the new UKCPS sign is like. Basically they're taking the !!!!. Yes, there's a new sign, but it still doesn't make the situation clear. Personally, I found the whole thing horribly stressful and I am going to check wherever I park from now on, even free car parks, but I hope someone will take UKCPS on. At the very lest it would be good if they had to abandon the signs they have already paid out for and produce some new ones.

gertysingh

Well done for winning the case.

Redx

glad to hear it , although these are not fines but unfair speculative invoices and good to know you beat these fools at their own game , especially as ukcps are bullies and like to trap the unwary and infirm and pensioners etc

I assume the judge found in your favour and through the case out (case dismissed)

I also hope you claimed back costs and expenses to put upkcps even more out of pocket

if its not revealing too much, be interesting to know which car park it was, where it is in the country, and if you made ukcps travel a long distance to go to your local court ?

and any other relevant info , possibly even a case number ?

if its too much info, then sorry I asked and dont reveal what you dont wish to

parking prankster may well be interested in your case too

well done once again

regards

The_Deep

Hat tip to the judge, common sense prevails. Did you have a hand in this CM?

Umkomaas

Well done OP - impressed by the way you handled this and defeated a threatening and overbearing organisation.

Could you reveal who the UKCPS representative was please. Was it a solicitor or was it the UKCPS office manager - P Haswell Esq?

Parking-Prankster

Coincidentally I was just about to blog about another case UKCPS lost this week...on signage.


I would be very interested to know more details. Please contact me at [EMAIL="prankster@parking-prankster.com"]prankster@parking-prankster.com[/EMAIL]

Hot_Bring

Haswell = Conman - sue me Peter if I'm lying !!!!!!! He's a nasty nasty human being.

Ivor_Pecheque

Excellent news psm, stand up to the bullies.

trisontana

As well as Hasbeen there is a new boy on the block who works for UKCPS. He goes by the name of Stephen Hall and he does not like these forums. In fact he calls people who post on them, and offer advice "internet gurus". I think he meant it as an insult, but the OED definition of "guru" is "An influential teacher or popular expert:". Which sums up very neatly what people on here are trying to do (and succeeding)!

Coupon-mad

The_Deep wrote: »

Hat tip to the judge, common sense prevails. Did you have a hand in this CM?

Not this one, no, would never have relied on a defence on signage issues alone. I think this OP did very well with what sounds like a risky defence.

trisontana wrote: »

As well as Hasbeen there is a new boy on the block who works for UKCPS. He goes by the name of Stephen Hall and he does not like these forums. In fact he calls people who post on them, and offer advice "internet gurus". I think he meant it as an insult, but the OED definition of "guru" is "An influential teacher or popular expert:". Which sums up very neatly what people on here are trying to do (and succeeding)!

He also describes our defences as 'forum scam defences' but they win don't they, Stephen?!

WELL DONE, psm232, please can we know the court, date, Judge, claim number and detail (or let the Prankster have those to blog about)? The details are needed for others to cite your case as persuasive, just as you would have been able to cite UKCPS v Gaskell, etc.

The_Slithy_Tove

Firstly, well done!

psm232 wrote: »

The judge found that the signs, although large had too much information on them to make them easy to read and ordered that signs should be put up which made it clear that although it was a free car park, penalties could apply. The UKPCS man said that this had already been done, although after I had got my parking ticket.

My husband went to look at this sign yesterday. He said that although it was larger, the only thing you could see clearly, when driving a car, was a large P for parking sign.

Did the judge actually use the word "penalty"? I would hope not.


In any case, maybe you would like to write to the judge and explain how the new signs still don't meet his instructions (enclose photos). He may be interested :-)