We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum... Read More »
IMPORTANT: Please make sure your posts do not contain any personally identifiable information (both your own and that of others). When uploading images, please take care that you have redacted all personal information including number plates, reference numbers and QR codes (which may reveal vehicle information when scanned).
We're aware that some users are experiencing technical issues which the team are working to resolve. Thank you for your patience.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Court found in my favour
Options

psm232
Posts: 7 Forumite
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.
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.
0
Comments
-
Well done for winning the case.**********************************************
Trying to educate people to stop littering the country side in trail races!!!
**********************************************0 -
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
regards0 -
Hat tip to the judge, common sense prevails. Did you have a hand in this CM?You never know how far you can go until you go too far.0
-
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?Please note, we are not a legal advice forum. I personally don't get involved in critiquing court case Defences/Witness Statements, so unable to help on that front. Please don't ask. .
I provide only my personal opinion, it is not a legal opinion, it is simply a personal one. I am not a lawyer.
Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day; show him how to catch fish, and you feed him for a lifetime.Private Parking Firms - Killing the High Street0 -
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]Hi, we’ve approved your signature. It's awesome. Please email the forum team if you want more praise - MSE ForumTeam0 -
Haswell = Conman - sue me Peter if I'm lying !!!!!!! He's a nasty nasty human being."The darkest places in hell are reserved for those who maintain their neutrality in times of moral crisis." - Dante Alighieri0
-
Excellent news psm, stand up to the bullies.Illegitimi non carborundum:)0
-
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)!What part of "A whop bop-a-lu a whop bam boo" don't you understand?0
-
Hat tip to the judge, common sense prevails. Did you have a hand in this CM?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)!
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.PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT (except N.Ireland).
CLICK at the top or bottom of any page where it says:
Home»Motoring»Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD0 -
Firstly, well done!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 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 :-)0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply

Categories
- All Categories
- 350.7K Banking & Borrowing
- 253K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 453.4K Spending & Discounts
- 243.7K Work, Benefits & Business
- 598.5K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 176.8K Life & Family
- 256.9K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards