Link Parking

Umkomaas

Pauly447 wrote: »

:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:Lol

Hello, and welcome to MSE.

Has something 'tickled' you? Do please share, otherwise a somewhat meaningless introduction of yourself to this forum.

Coupon-mad

Pauly447 wrote: »

:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:Lol

Got nothing better to do then, presumably you are another sad PPC employee? How about doing a job that actually gives some sort of service to people?

Yep we know Link Parking have won a couple of IAS appeals - so what. No-one takes them seriously and if they have won this one the OP isn't actually going to pay the scumbags. Yes he's posted his name here - again so what? I suppose you seem to have missed the fact we help people win in court as well - and if the 'notice to keeper' is an example of Link Parking's eye for detail then I would love to see their efforts of they tried a small claim!

No-one has to pay a fake PCN - even if they lose at IAS which isn't showing itself to be the independent appeal that the IPC claim it is.

Pauly447

If the IAS WASNT ABIDING TO THE RULES WHY HAVE THEY BEEN AWARDED FULL STATUS AS THEY WERE ON A PROBATION PERIOD BY DVLA.

I THINK THEY HAVE DONE MORE RESEARCH INTO PARKING ON PRIVATE LAND THAN THE BPA AS THE IAS ARE FROM A LEGAL BACKROUND.

I CAN GIVE SOME ADVISE AND HELP ON PARKING ON PRIVATE LAND WHICH WILL HELP YOU... ALL QUESTIONS WILL BE ANSWERED.

IM NOW AN OFFICIAL ARM CHAIR LAWYER

Coupon-mad

Oooh now he's back posting in capitals. Rather like one of Link Parking's useless signs then...all hot air. Still nothing better to do, mate? We don't need a lesson from you about the fact the IPC are trying to pretend their members operate a 'contractual fee/tariff' model. We can see what they are doing, we can see the reality and the consumer law breaches even if you can't.

Strange too that the IAS have started to make these dodgy decisions now they are no longer on probation. It hasn't gone unnoticed.

Umkomaas

Pauly447 wrote: »

If the IAS WASNT ABIDING TO THE RULES WHY HAVE THEY BEEN AWARDED FULL STATUS AS THEY WERE ON A PROBATION PERIOD BY DVLA.

I THINK THEY HAVE DONE MORE RESEARCH INTO PARKING ON PRIVATE LAND THAN THE BPA AS THE IAS ARE FROM A LEGAL BACKROUND.

I CAN GIVE SOME ADVISE AND HELP ON PARKING ON PRIVATE LAND WHICH WILL HELP YOU ALL QUESTIONS WILL BE ANSWERED.

IM NOW AN OFFICIAL ARM CHAIR LAWER

And one who can neither spell nor punctuate, and whose grammar is decidedly lacklustre. Back to the remedial class for you!

Pauly447

All your help & all your knowledge & you haven't managed to win a IAS appeal. Stop misleading people with all your Bulls..t.

Coupon-mad

Hahaha - we've won loads you twit, as have pepipoo forum. Here are just a few recent ones, off the top of my head:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/65926838#Comment_65926838

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/65843150#Comment_65843150

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4954485

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=91147

Also Fausty won but I can't find his thread, and loads on pepipoo I can't recall the usernames from. And if the IAS has started to make dodgy decisions we will work to help people win anyway, to read between the lines and learn like we did with POPLA. And the bottom line would be in small claims - are Link Parking up to it I wonder. Never heard of them.

Umkomaas

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Hahaha - we've won loads you twit.

Wrong vowel CM! :rotfl:

Pauly447

Lol I've looked at some of the appeals which have been one and it's not from anything to do with you very smart individuals

. ��������

Umkomaas

And here is proof-positive of just how much your outfit understands about any of this. Direct lift from your website.

Summary:

Our system is based on contract law. By the motorist entering the land and seeing the contractual warning signs displaying the terms and conditions for parking, they enter into a contract regarding the parking regulations. Should they choose to ignore the terms and conditions of parking, they are breaking the contract. This is enforceable in the civil courts.

There are several internet forums that deal specifically with parking charge notices issued by private parking enforcement companies. The information on these forums are often incorrect and the people offering this advice are not legally qualified in any way.\

Link Parking ensures that all our sites display contractual warning signs in prominent locations. This ensures that motorists have read and have contractually agreed to the parking regulations, as a result they also agree to pay a charge of \'a360 if they park in breach of those regulations. As per the agreement Link Parking reserves the right to add the costs involved in recovering the debt to the final amount owed.

Internet forums often claim that private parking enforcement companies never take people to court as parking charge notices are unenforceable. This is simply untrue. Below we will present some cases taken to court by private parking enforcement companies. In these cases the defendant used many avoidance defences, but the court ruled that the parking charge notices were issued correctly, the signage was clear and bound to have been seen by any reasonable person and that the parking charge was fair. In these cases the defendant had been led to believe (through internet forums) that the charge was unenforceable in the courts and the initial charge of \'a385 has ended up costing the defendant up to three times as much.

Case Law (England & Wales)\

Arthur v. Anker [1996] 2 WLR 602 and Vine v. Waltham Forest London BC [2000] 1 WLR 2383

These cases dealt specifically with whether the warning signs displayed resulted in the motorist entering into a contract with the private parking enforcement company. The court ruled that as the signs were there to be seen by any reasonable person that the contract was valid.

The court of appeal agreed and Lord Justice Roche stated "To show that the car owner consented or willingly assumed the risk of his car being clamped, it has to be established that the car owner was aware of the consequences of his parking his car so that it trespassed on the land of another. That will be done by establishing that the car owner saw and understood the significance of a warning notice or notices that cars in that place without permission were liable to be clamped. Normally the presence of notices which are posted where they are bound to be seen, for example at the entrance to a private car park, which are of a type which the car driver would be bound to have read, will lead to a finding that the car driver had knowledge of and appreciated the warning."

This shows that if the warning signs are there to be seen then a defendant can not claim to have not read and agreed to the contract.\

The Charges

Our signs clearly state that if motorists do not agree to the parking regulations and the parking charges therein they must not park their vehicle. The motorist can not claim that they did not see and therefore enter the contract if the signs are there to be seen by any reasonable person. (As per Vine case.)

In the Vine v. Waltham Forest London BC case the court ruled that the charge of \'a3105 was not unfair or unreasonable.\

Another example is taken from the Birmingham Airports website. They have introduced a new parking policy and have clear signage warning of the new regulations. If a driver chooses to park outside the terminal, he will be charged a rate of \'a3285 per day. If a driver parks in the long term car-park which is a 10minute walk away he can park for \'a32.99. The signs on display clearly state the charges and a driver has an option where to park his vehicle - Therefore he could not expect to argue the charges after being parked for 24hrs stating they are excessive - The same rules apply for parking charges issued by Link Parking.

Refusing To Pay/Assist

Internet forums often advise people to ignore parking charge notices or claim obstructive defences to avoid paying. This will almost always go against the defendant. In the courts the defendant may be seen as having something to hide if they have ignored the charge or sent obstructive defences.

One of the most common defences offered by motorists is that they were not the driver. The motorist often refuses to supply the details of the driver. When a case is taken to court the defendant will have to give the drivers details.

Under section 143 (1) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 -\
A keeper should know at all times who is driving a vehicle and to ensure they are insured, if a keeper allows a vehicle to be driven without insurance they are guilty of a criminal offence - By stating many people have access to a vehicle and as a result the defendant can not state who had it any one given date/time then they are confirming they did not know who was driving and therefore cannot be certain the vehicle was insured.

The exact wording is:

Users of motor vehicles to be insured or secured against third-party risks

(1) Subject to the provisions of this Part of this Act.
(a)A person must not use a motor vehicle on a road unless there is in force in relation to the use of the vehicle by that person such a policy of insurance or such a security in respect of third party risks as complies with the requirements of this Part of this Act, and
(b) a person must not cause or permit any other person to use a motor vehicle on a road unless there is in force in relation to the use of the vehicle by that other person such a policy of insurance or such a security in respect of third party risks as complies with the requirements of this Part of this Act.
(2) If a person acts in contravention of subsection (1) above he is guilty of an offence.
On the balance of probabilities it is very unusual for a person just to leave their car keys for anyone to drive it and therefore not know who is driving it, we are yet to have a case where a judge has considered this to be 'normal' (with possible exception of a vehicle which has an ANY DRIVER clause on the insurance certificate/schedule).
It is clear that Parking Charge Notices issued by private parking enforcement companies are a legitimate method of car park management for owners of private land. It is also clear that they are legal and fully enforceable through the courts.

}

Well, there we have it, both barrels of your shotgun fully discharged, both feet well and truly blown away, :rotfl: oh dear!

If you think this tosh and drivel is either accurate or will get you anywhere, you need to ask someone to explain (no doubt in words of one syllable) what this stuff is all about. Get hold of your lawyer

Better still, why not hang around here and read and learn; I'd do this before engaging your index finger on the keyboard anytime in the near future.

PS - were any of the above court cases brought by Link Parking? Erm ..... thought not.

PPS - !!!!!! has Road Traffic legislation got to do with contract law?

Talk about Mixed-Up Max? A lie down in a dark room with a cold flannel is recommended, I'm afraid.