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. See the Community Noticeboard for more info. 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!

Parking fine at work

Options
1356

Comments

  • Fruitcake
    Fruitcake Posts: 59,463 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Name Dropper Photogenic
    fkrjd wrote: »
    Just to clarify something. The ticket says its a parking charge notice does this have a bearing on what I should do? Someone has told me I have to pay it


    What does it say in the NEWBIES thread? What have we been telling you? Who are you going to believe; an idiot or the experts on here who have helped thousands of people to get these fake unenforceable speculative invoices cancelled?


    Paying it would be a kick in the teeth for everyone here who has given up their time to help you.


    You still haven't told people that you have edited your appeal like I suggested so I suspect nobody has gone back to have another look at it.
    I married my cousin. I had to...
    I don't have a sister. :D
    All my screwdrivers are cordless.
    "You're Safety Is My Primary Concern Dear" - Laks
  • fkrjd
    fkrjd Posts: 33 Forumite
    edited 13 December 2014 at 3:43PM
    could someone check this over for me before I submit it to POPLA please I would welcome any feedback

    Dear POPLA,
    I am the registered keepe
    r and driver of this lease vehicle and this is my appeal citing the following reasons

    1 No GPEOL
    2 Lack of signage
    3 Lack of standing
    4 Unfair Terms

    1) The Charge is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss
    Their sign states the charge is for 'not fully complying with the conditions' so this Operator must prove the charge to be a genuine pre-estimate of loss. I pay £13:41 a month for the privilege to park at this site and my permit was displayed as required, so clearly there was no loss to the landowner.

    This Operator cannot demonstrate any initial quantifiable loss. The parking charge must be an estimate of likely losses flowing from the alleged breach in order to be potentially enforceable. Where there is an initial loss directly caused by the presence of a vehicle in breach of the conditions (e.g. loss of revenue from failure to pay a tariff) this loss will be obvious. An initial loss is fundamental to a parking charge and, without it, costs incurred by issuing the parking charge notice cannot be said to have been caused by the driver's alleged breach. Heads of cost such as normal operational costs and tax-deductible back office functions, debt collection, etc. cannot possibly flow as a direct consequence of this parking event. The Operator would have been in the same position had the parking charge notice not been issued, and would have had many of the same business overheads even if no vehicles breached any terms at all.

    2) Lack of signage - no contract with driver
    I see that the sign is placed high up. I put
    TPS to strict proof otherwise; The sign is not prominent, placed too high A Notice is not imported into the contract unless brought home so prominently that the party 'must' have known of it and agreed terms. The driver did not see any sign; there was no consideration/acceptance and no contract agreed between the parties.


    3) Lack of standing/authority from landowner
    TPS has no title in this land and no BPA compliant landowner contract assigning rights to charge and enforce in the courts in their own right.

    BPA CoP paragraphs 7.1 & 7.2 dictate some of the required contract wording. I put TPS to strict proof of the contract terms with the actual landowner (not a lessee or agent). TPS have no legal status to enforce this charge because there is no assignment of rights to pursue PCNs in the courts in their own name nor standing to form contracts with drivers themselves. They do not own this car park and appear (at best) to have a bare licence to put signs up and 'ticket' vehicles on site, merely acting as agents. No evidence has been supplied lawfully showing that TPS are entitled to pursue these charges in their own right.

    I require
    TPS to provide a full copy of the contemporaneous, signed & dated (unredacted) contract with the landowner. I say that any contract is not compliant with the requirements set out in the BPA Code of Practice and does not allow them to charge and issue proceedings for this sum for this alleged contravention in this car park. In order to refute this it will not be sufficient for the Operator merely to supply a site agreement or witness statement, as these do not show sufficient detail (such as the restrictions, charges and revenue sharing arrangements agreed with a landowner) and may well be signed by a non-landholder such as another agent. In order to comply with paragraph 7 of the BPA Code of Practice, a non-landowner private parking company must have a specifically-worded contract with the landowner - not merely an 'agreement' with a non-landholder managing agent - otherwise there is no authority.



    4) Unreasonable/Unfair Terms
    The charge that was levied is an unfair term (and therefore not binding) pursuant to the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999. The OFT on UTCCR 1999, in regard to Group 18(a): unfair financial burdens, states:
    '18.1.3 Objections are less likely...if a term is specific and transparent as to what must be paid and in what circumstances.

    A sign of terms was placed to high to read easily, is far from 'transparent'.

    Schedule 2 of those Regulations gives an indicative (and non-exhaustive) list of terms which may be regarded as unfair and includes at Schedule 2(1)(e) "Terms which have the object or effect of requiring any consumer who fails to fulfil his obligation to pay a disproportionately high sum in compensation." Furthermore, Regulation 5(1) states that: "A contractual term which has not been individually negotiated shall be regarded as unfair if, contrary to the requirement of good faith, it causes a significant imbalance in the parties' rights and obligations arising under the contract, to the detriment of the consumer".

    The charge that was levied is an unreasonable indemnity clause pursuant to section 4(1) of the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 which provides that: "A person cannot by reference to any contract term be made to indemnify another person (whether a party to the contract or not) in respect of liability that may be incurred by the other for negligence or breach of contract, except in so far as the contract term satisfies the requirement of reasonableness.”

    I contend it is wholly unreasonable to rely on signs in an attempt to profit by charging a disproportionate sum where no loss has been caused by a car in a car park where the bays are full.

    I therefore respectfully request that my appeal is upheld and the charge is dismissed.
  • fkrjd
    fkrjd Posts: 33 Forumite
    Fruitcake wrote: »
    What does it say in the NEWBIES thread? What have we been telling you? Who are you going to believe; an idiot or the experts on here who have helped thousands of people to get these fake unenforceable speculative invoices cancelled?


    Paying it would be a kick in the teeth for everyone here who has given up their time to help you.


    You still haven't told people that you have edited your appeal like I suggested so I suspect nobody has gone back to have another look at it.
    Sorry I did post the final draft but maybe I didn't make it clear enough. So I have posted again with the relevant request highlighted in blue in post# 23
  • Umkomaas
    Umkomaas Posts: 43,362 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Name Dropper Photogenic
    1) The Charge is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss
    Their sign states the charge is for 'not fully complying with the conditions' so this Operator must prove the charge to be a genuine pre-estimate of loss. I pay £13:41 a month for the privilege to park at this site and my permit was displayed as required, so clearly there was no loss to the landowner. [STRIKE]I may also add that I am not guaranteed a parking space so if I had not been able to park I myself would've have arguably incurred a loss.There is no loss flowing from this parking event because the car park was full, so if by parking on a grass verge there was no loss of potential income in an already full car park.[/STRIKE]

    Take that lot out - not helpful to your case.
    I contend it is wholly unreasonable to rely on signs in an attempt to profit by charging a disproportionate sum where no loss has been caused by a car in a car park where the bays are full. I put this Operator to strict proof to justify that their charge, under the circumstances described and with their utter lie about the keeper's right to appeal 'only if the car is stolen' in mind, does not cause a significant imbalance to my detriment and to justify that the charge does not breach the UTCCRs and UCT Act.

    If the car park is full, a motorist who has not paid is arguably blocking a space someone else could use - and pay for, thus a 'loss'. You need to sort out that statement in your appeal.

    I've not gone back over your entire thread, but have TPS actually said that 'only if a car is stolen.........' is the only keeper appeal route? Find it a bit improbable, but prepared to be unsurprised. :)
    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 Street
  • fkrjd
    fkrjd Posts: 33 Forumite
    edited 13 December 2014 at 3:42PM
    Umkomaas wrote: »
    Take that lot out - not helpful to your case.



    If the car park is full, a motorist who has not paid is arguably blocking a space someone else could use - and pay for, thus a 'loss'. You need to sort out that statement in your appeal.

    I've not gone back over your entire thread, but have TPS actually said that 'only if a car is stolen.........' is the only keeper appeal route? Find it a bit improbable, but prepared to be unsurprised. :)
    Thanks for replying I have changed it again as suggested so would welcome your or anybodies feed back
  • fkrjd
    fkrjd Posts: 33 Forumite
    edited 14 December 2014 at 1:16AM
    could someone check this over for me before I submit it to POPLA please I would welcome any feedback. If someone could indicate they have read it and agreed with what I have submitted I would be grateful

    Dear POPLA,
    I am the registered keepe
    r and driver of this lease vehicle and this is my appeal citing the following reasons

    1 No GPEOL
    2 Lack of signage
    3 Lack of standing
    4 Unfair Terms

    1) The Charge is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss
    Their sign states the charge is for 'not fully complying with the conditions' so this Operator must prove the charge to be a genuine pre-estimate of loss. I pay £13:41 a month for the privilege to park at this site and my permit was displayed as required, so clearly there was no loss to the landowner.

    This Operator cannot demonstrate any initial quantifiable loss. The parking charge must be an estimate of likely losses flowing from the alleged breach in order to be potentially enforceable. Where there is an initial loss directly caused by the presence of a vehicle in breach of the conditions (e.g. loss of revenue from failure to pay a tariff) this loss will be obvious. An initial loss is fundamental to a parking charge and, without it, costs incurred by issuing the parking charge notice cannot be said to have been caused by the driver's alleged breach. Heads of cost such as normal operational costs and tax-deductible back office functions, debt collection, etc. cannot possibly flow as a direct consequence of this parking event. The Operator would have been in the same position had the parking charge notice not been issued, and would have had many of the same business overheads even if no vehicles breached any terms at all.

    2) Lack of signage - no contract with driver
    I see that the sign is placed high up. I put
    TPS to strict proof otherwise; The sign is not prominent, placed too high A Notice is not imported into the contract unless brought home so prominently that the party 'must' have known of it and agreed terms. The driver did not see any sign; there was no consideration/acceptance and no contract agreed between the parties.


    3) Lack of standing/authority from landowner
    TPS has no title in this land and no BPA compliant landowner contract assigning rights to charge and enforce in the courts in their own right.

    BPA CoP paragraphs 7.1 & 7.2 dictate some of the required contract wording. I put TPS to strict proof of the contract terms with the actual landowner (not a lessee or agent). TPS have no legal status to enforce this charge because there is no assignment of rights to pursue PCNs in the courts in their own name nor standing to form contracts with drivers themselves. They do not own this car park and appear (at best) to have a bare licence to put signs up and 'ticket' vehicles on site, merely acting as agents. No evidence has been supplied lawfully showing that TPS are entitled to pursue these charges in their own right.

    I require
    TPS to provide a full copy of the contemporaneous, signed & dated (unredacted) contract with the landowner. I say that any contract is not compliant with the requirements set out in the BPA Code of Practice and does not allow them to charge and issue proceedings for this sum for this alleged contravention in this car park. In order to refute this it will not be sufficient for the Operator merely to supply a site agreement or witness statement, as these do not show sufficient detail (such as the restrictions, charges and revenue sharing arrangements agreed with a landowner) and may well be signed by a non-landholder such as another agent. In order to comply with paragraph 7 of the BPA Code of Practice, a non-landowner private parking company must have a specifically-worded contract with the landowner - not merely an 'agreement' with a non-landholder managing agent - otherwise there is no authority.



    4) Unreasonable/Unfair Terms
    The charge that was levied is an unfair term (and therefore not binding) pursuant to the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999. The OFT on UTCCR 1999, in regard to Group 18(a): unfair financial burdens, states:
    '18.1.3 Objections are less likely...if a term is specific and transparent as to what must be paid and in what circumstances.

    A sign of terms was placed to high to read easily, is far from 'transparent'.

    Schedule 2 of those Regulations gives an indicative (and non-exhaustive) list of terms which may be regarded as unfair and includes at Schedule 2(1)(e) "Terms which have the object or effect of requiring any consumer who fails to fulfil his obligation to pay a disproportionately high sum in compensation." Furthermore, Regulation 5(1) states that: "A contractual term which has not been individually negotiated shall be regarded as unfair if, contrary to the requirement of good faith, it causes a significant imbalance in the parties' rights and obligations arising under the contract, to the detriment of the consumer".

    The charge that was levied is an unreasonable indemnity clause pursuant to section 4(1) of the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 which provides that: "A person cannot by reference to any contract term be made to indemnify another person (whether a party to the contract or not) in respect of liability that may be incurred by the other for negligence or breach of contract, except in so far as the contract term satisfies the requirement of reasonableness.”

    I contend it is wholly unreasonable to rely on signs in an attempt to profit by charging a disproportionate sum where no loss has been caused by a car parking on a grass verge where the bays are full.

    I therefore respectfully request that my appeal is upheld and the charge is dismissed.
  • fkrjd
    fkrjd Posts: 33 Forumite
    edited 15 December 2014 at 12:35AM
    could someone check this over for me before I submit it to POPLA please I would welcome any feedback. If someone could indicate they have read it and agreed with what I have submitted I would be grateful

    Dear POPLA,
    I am the registered keepe
    r and driver of this lease vehicle and this is my appeal citing the following reasons

    1 No GPEOL
    2 Lack of signage
    3 Lack of standing
    4 Unfair Terms

    1) The Charge is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss
    Their sign states the charge is for 'not fully complying with the conditions' so this Operator must prove the charge to be a genuine pre-estimate of loss. I pay £13:41 a month for the privilege to park at this site and my permit was displayed as required, so clearly there was no loss to the landowner.

    This Operator cannot demonstrate any initial quantifiable loss. The parking charge must be an estimate of likely losses flowing from the alleged breach in order to be potentially enforceable. Where there is an initial loss directly caused by the presence of a vehicle in breach of the conditions (e.g. loss of revenue from failure to pay a tariff) this loss will be obvious. An initial loss is fundamental to a parking charge and, without it, costs incurred by issuing the parking charge notice cannot be said to have been caused by the driver's alleged breach. Heads of cost such as normal operational costs and tax-deductible back office functions, debt collection, etc. cannot possibly flow as a direct consequence of this parking event. The Operator would have been in the same position had the parking charge notice not been issued, and would have had many of the same business overheads even if no vehicles breached any terms at all.

    2) Lack of signage - no contract with driver
    I see that the sign is placed high up. I put
    TPS to strict proof otherwise; The sign is not prominent, placed too high A Notice is not imported into the contract unless brought home so prominently that the party 'must' have known of it and agreed terms. The driver did not see any sign; there was no consideration/acceptance and no contract agreed between the parties.


    3) Lack of standing/authority from landowner
    TPS has no title in this land and no BPA compliant landowner contract assigning rights to charge and enforce in the courts in their own right.

    BPA CoP paragraphs 7.1 & 7.2 dictate some of the required contract wording. I put TPS to strict proof of the contract terms with the actual landowner (not a lessee or agent). TPS have no legal status to enforce this charge because there is no assignment of rights to pursue PCNs in the courts in their own name nor standing to form contracts with drivers themselves. They do not own this car park and appear (at best) to have a bare licence to put signs up and 'ticket' vehicles on site, merely acting as agents. No evidence has been supplied lawfully showing that TPS are entitled to pursue these charges in their own right.

    I require
    TPS to provide a full copy of the contemporaneous, signed & dated (unredacted) contract with the landowner. I say that any contract is not compliant with the requirements set out in the BPA Code of Practice and does not allow them to charge and issue proceedings for this sum for this alleged contravention in this car park. In order to refute this it will not be sufficient for the Operator merely to supply a site agreement or witness statement, as these do not show sufficient detail (such as the restrictions, charges and revenue sharing arrangements agreed with a landowner) and may well be signed by a non-landholder such as another agent. In order to comply with paragraph 7 of the BPA Code of Practice, a non-landowner private parking company must have a specifically-worded contract with the landowner - not merely an 'agreement' with a non-landholder managing agent - otherwise there is no authority.



    4) Unreasonable/Unfair Terms
    The charge that was levied is an unfair term (and therefore not binding) pursuant to the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999. The OFT on UTCCR 1999, in regard to Group 18(a): unfair financial burdens, states:
    '18.1.3 Objections are less likely...if a term is specific and transparent as to what must be paid, where parking is or is not allowed and in what circumstances.

    A sign of terms was placed to high to read easily, is far from 'transparent'.

    Schedule 2 of those Regulations gives an indicative (and non-exhaustive) list of terms which may be regarded as unfair and includes at Schedule 2(1)(e) "Terms which have the object or effect of requiring any consumer who fails to fulfil his obligation to pay a disproportionately high sum in compensation." Furthermore, Regulation 5(1) states that: "A contractual term which has not been individually negotiated shall be regarded as unfair if, contrary to the requirement of good faith, it causes a significant imbalance in the parties' rights and obligations arising under the contract, to the detriment of the consumer".

    The charge that was levied is an unreasonable indemnity clause pursuant to section 4(1) of the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 which provides that: "A person cannot by reference to any contract term be made to indemnify another person (whether a party to the contract or not) in respect of liability that may be incurred by the other for negligence or breach of contract, except in so far as the contract term satisfies the requirement of reasonableness.”

    I contend it is wholly unreasonable to rely on signs in an attempt to profit by charging a disproportionate sum where no loss has been caused by a car parking on a grass verge where the bays are full.

    I therefore respectfully request that my appeal is upheld and the charge is dismissed.
  • Coupon-mad
    Coupon-mad Posts: 151,776 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Name Dropper Photogenic
    Your signage point is a bit short of detail, yet as you have already admitted to being the driver, you could add details such as you already told us above :

    I was parked on a grass verge in the hospital grounds, nowhere in the surrounding area was there any signage saying parking was not permitted in the area I had parked.


    sineage = signage
    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 THREAD
  • fkrjd
    fkrjd Posts: 33 Forumite
    edited 14 December 2014 at 7:49PM
    I checked today there was signage placed high up on a lamp post near to where I was parked but it was facing away from where I was so I did not see it which I am worried will not be seen as a defence in law.
  • Coupon-mad
    Coupon-mad Posts: 151,776 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Name Dropper Photogenic
    What 'defence in law'? This isn't about a 'defence' nor excuses on your part - you will win this on 'no GPEOL'.
    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 THREAD
This discussion has been closed.
Meet your Ambassadors

🚀 Getting Started

Hi new member!

Our Getting Started Guide will help you get the most out of the Forum

Categories

  • All Categories
  • 351K Banking & Borrowing
  • 253.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
  • 453.6K Spending & Discounts
  • 244K Work, Benefits & Business
  • 598.8K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
  • 176.9K Life & Family
  • 257.3K Travel & Transport
  • 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
  • 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
  • 37.6K Read-Only Boards

Is this how you want to be seen?

We see you are using a default avatar. It takes only a few seconds to pick a picture.