Don't pay unfair private parking tickets - a con?

Coupon-mad

anotheruser wrote: »

I am still unclear on this whole matter of parking fines.

There is a supermarket near me that has signs stating I can park free for 2 hours. Anything over that I must pay or risk a fine. The signs are clear, while the font is a little small for some people, I can read it. The entrance also has a number plate reader which flashes so you know they know your car reg.

The car park is run by NCP (I will attempt to get a picture of the sign today).

How can MSE be bleating about "don't pay private car park fines" when it's clear what the regulations are? I suspect many car parks are the same, clear signage. I do agree there are a good number that aren't but I think it's a bit dubious running a story which suggests you can ignore these "invoices".

- because these are not 'regulations', just arbitrary rules made up by NCP to make money...for NCP. They only make money if they issue PCNs, in a free car park, so they are incentivised.

- because the extortionate charge doesn't relate to the Supermarket or landowner's or NCP's loss.

- the fact that all POPLA (independent appeal stage) cases are won against NCP and 99% of other PPCs, when an appellant says 'the charge is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss' shows you that the above is true.

- because these are not fines. No-one can fine another (not even in HHJ Moloney land).

- because putting some signs up does not form a contract without consideration flowing between the claimant and motorist. In a free Supermarket car park no payment of a fee is due and in most cases no-one has to spend a minimum spend instore (often you don't even have to stay on site) so there is no consideration from the motorist. Parking is offered free.

- who says you can ignore invoices like this? Has not been the forum advice for almost 2 years! Dangerous tactics when you think some PPCs sue ignorers.

- I think the OP is falling into the trap that lots of people do 'there are signs up & it's NCP (and I've heard of them) so it must be legit!' My OH thinks like that too.

Daps

bazster wrote: »

I told you already, damages for trespass can be (and often are) assessed as the notional value of the benefit obtained from the trespass. If you don't believe me, Google is your friend.

And, as The Deep says, there may be consequential losses to consider as well as the cost of pursuing the damages.

You haven't told me anything already; this was my first post on this thread, the first post on this subject, and the first time I've seen a reply from you to a post of mine.

I'm not disputing any of what you have just said, but again I don't see how there would be any value obtained by the trespass. In a hypothetical negotiation between the landowner and motorist, regarding a visitor space in a free car park, the amount that could reasonably have been agreed between the two parties for a, let's say, one hour trespass would surely still be zero, or very little above it.

As someone who is one of the most anti-PPC posters on the forum I'm not sure why you're taking the opposite line here? The arguments you and The Deep are using are surely the sames ones the PPC are using, but I still don't see how the notional value of the benefit obtained by the trespass would be £100 as the PPCs charge, or even the £10 that was stated earlier as a hypothetical.

bazster

Daps wrote: »

You haven't told me anything already; this was my first post on this thread, the first post on this subject, and the first time I've seen a reply from you to a post of mine.

I think it's reasonable to assume that when someone is posting on a thread they have read what went before. If you disagree and intend to make a habit of posting randomly on threads with no awareness of the foregoing then you are going to have a hard time around here.

Daps wrote: »

I'm not disputing any of what you have just said, but again I don't see how there would be any value obtained by the trespass. In a hypothetical negotiation between the landowner and motorist, regarding a visitor space in a free car park, the amount that could reasonably have been agreed between the two parties for a, let's say, one hour trespass would surely still be zero, or very little above it.

Who said anything about a hypothetical negotiation? If paid parking in the general area for a few hours would typically cost, say, £10, there's the value of the benefit. That the damages might be small doesn't alter the facts, the landowner is still entitled to pursue them.

Daps wrote: »

As someone who is one of the most anti-PPC posters on the forum I'm not sure why you're taking the opposite line here? The arguments you and The Deep are using are surely the sames ones the PPC are using, but I still don't see how the notional value of the benefit obtained by the trespass would be £100 as the PPCs charge, or even the £10 that was stated earlier as a hypothetical.

It's entirely unrelated to PPC's. PPC's can't be trespassed against and hence can't sue for damages arising from trespass unless they are also the landowner, which is very rarely the case. The law relating to torts such as trespass is ancient and very well established, but that is not what PPC's use, they use their own perverted interpretation of contract law, not tort. If you don't understand that yet then you need to do some more reading around the subject.

There was a trespass case involving UKPC where a landowner sued them for damages because they kept trespassing to ticket his car on his own property. He was awarded £150 damages and £1,280.26 costs. Like I said, The Deep is being pretty generous with his £10 suggestion.

The_Deep

Residents using up visitor spaces with second vehicles may be a problem for you, but the correct solution cannot possibly be PPCs issuing £100 charges to genuine visitors.

Hardly a free car park. Flats with parking always attract a premium over those without in the same location. The minimum cost to the landowner will be i.r.o. £6.00 WRT parking by visitors, there has to be some control lest riff raff park there permanently. There are complicated and expensive methods of preventing abuse, but in small complexes they are uneconomical.

One of my flats is directly opposite a multi-story car park, and yet people still park in my space, how can I prevent them without breaking the law?

One solution would be to engage a PPC, there are only 18 flats and one of the owner occupiers would probably agree to self ticket.

Coupon-mad

Oh come on we don't need arguments.

The_Deep

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Oh come on we don't need arguments.

This is not an argument, this is a discussion.

Nodding_Donkey

Yes it is.


(sorry couldn't resist, I'll get me coat)

anotheruser

Nodding_Donkey wrote: »

** See how it works? I don't own this board, have no authority or legal standing to charge you anything and the charge is a completely made up figure. Now according to you that is reasonable.

Yes, but if the supermarket owns the land....

This is the point people seem to gloss over every time, in most threads.
If the company owns the land and says there is a £60 charge for anything over 2 hours, why is that not enforceable?

I deciphered the Newbies thread full of CAPITAL LETTERS, ITALIC AND BOLD and different sizes of text all over the place, but the majority of it is fighting an "invoice" not why they can't issue the invoice if they own the land?.

As I said, the signs in the car park I am referring to are clear, visible and not un-fair in their time limit.
I'd prefer someone who isn't "THEY ARE ALL EVIL" to reply rather than people simply stating "read the newbie thread".

Are you saying that unless the supermarket can prove it has lost out, they can't issue me with a fine/invoice/whatever else you want to be pedantic about?
Surely the supermarket has lost out because I have taken the space of a potential customer?

---

Another example is the place I work at.
There is a time limit of 20 mins, it's on private land, signs are clear and not un-fair terms, we issue tickets, people pay.
The terms of parking in that area are that you don't spend longer than 20 mins there. If someone spends an hour, why should they not pay?

bazster

anotheruser wrote: »

Another example is the place I work at.
There is a time limit of 20 mins, it's on private land, signs are clear and not un-fair terms, we issue tickets, people pay.

They are idiots then.

He's going to ask us next how we'd like it if someone parked on our driveways.

Umkomaas

Are you saying that unless the supermarket can prove it has lost out, they can't issue me with a fine/invoice/whatever else you want to be pedantic about?

It's not us saying that - the law says that!