UKPC keep issuing Parking Charge when not applicable

bazster

You need to be slightly careful because it sounds like you don't have dedicated parking just for you, you are simply parking in a general parking area that belongs to "your" block and where you are entitled to park. Is that right?

If so, you can't sue for trespassing on the land because you're not the occupier of the land. The freeholder could sue, but I don't suppose could be bothered.

Trespass to goods however sounds much more promising (interfering with your car by sticking stupid bits of paper on it). This from Wikipedia (which means it's probably all wrong :rotfl:):

Trespass to goods is defined as "wrongful physical interference with goods that are in the possession of another". It is covered not only by the common law, but also by the Torts (Interference with Goods) Act 1977, which was written to clear up the confusing rules on trespass to goods which had evolved over the centuries.[5] It is similar to the tort of conversion, which covers the interference with goods in a way which is inconsistent with the rights of the owner.[43] "Physical interference" is usually the taking or destroying of goods, but can be as minor as touching or moving them in the right circumstances. In Kirk v Gregory,[44] the defendant moved jewellery from one room to another, where it was stolen. The deceased owner's executor successfully sued her for trespass to goods. Goods cover almost any physical object, including animals, as in Slater v Swann,[45] but not organs, as in AB & Ors v Leeds Teaching Hospital NHS Trust. "Possession" has the standard legal meaning, referring to the claimant's right to use, control or deal with the item. This can include owners, but also bailees.

It is unknown what mental element is expected in cases of trespass to goods; while trespass to the person requires intent, the requirements for trespass to goods have never been tested in court. The common remedy is damages, which may be awarded regardless of if any actual harm is suffered; where there is damage, the defendant will only be liable if he could have reasonably foreseen it, as in Kuwait Airways Corporation v Iraqi Airways Co (No 5). Valid defences are those of statutory authority, consent, where it is necessary to interfere with the goods, or jus tertii.

I'm not a lawyer though, so do your own homework and make up your own mind about it!

The_Slithy_Tove

I think suing UKPC for harassment would be an easier solution.

The_Deep

The_Slithy_Tove wrote: »

I think suing UKPC for harassment would be an easier solution.

This is worth reading

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=71795

and this

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?377246-UKPC-liable-for-trespass-**SUCCESS**