Would this be permitted in law?

Guys_Dad

Captain_Leaky wrote: »

I say, well done that man Benefitsmaster. I also say, thanks you to Guys Dad for his post.

Moving on - Can I ask - is it morally right that we contest every notice issued regardless? If so, on what grounds? Moral? (Legal irregularities are fine) even if the defaulter is in the wrong and is just trying to get off?

On one hand, we have the company - some act to the letter of the law as it stands, and others 'Take a chance', and play fast and loose. Similarly, we have the punters, some of whom have been illegally and morally wronged, whereas others are culpable but do not wish to pay up.

So, do we fight the principle of enforced parking charges on private land universally, and without regard? If so, why? If, for example, the letter of the law was observed to the last i & t, and the penalty was actually a 10th of what they try to charge at present, would that change people's perceptions at all?


Can I also ask - what is the threshold whereby a case is so weakly argued that the PEC (Parking Enforcement Company) wins every time?

That's the trouble with the law in this country - it is adversarial in nature, i.e. those with the deepest pockets always seem to win, simply because they can afford the best legal advice.

Before you all jump on me - just because they are in a position to afford it, doesn't necessarily mean that they buy the correct package, regardless of price.

Sorry for the ramblings, just trying to get a handle on things.

I am always glad when I get an opportunity to roll out and dust down my old reply to such a question.

You are making the newbies' common mistake which is "I done wrong, guv, so they are right to charge me. How can I defend that??".

Our point is " regardless of the facts, PPCs are penalising motorists to a ludicrous extent to which they are not entitled and we concentrate on helping people based on that point"

Suppose you had been caught doing 35 mph in a 30 mph limit. You get to the Magistrates court and they say "Guilty. Lock him up for 2 years".

You would get a brief to appeal the sentence, not the verdict irrespective of whether you were "guilty" or not.

So that's the case here. You are appealing the "sentence" of £100 that does not fit the "crime",

So, you major on the "No genuine pre-estimate of loss" point.

Also, suppose the PPC didn't have the right to charge you 1p as they didn't have a valid contract with the landowner? So you demand that they produce the contract in question that actually specifies that they are allowed to charge you.

Going back to the "crime" of speeding. Suppose that there were no 30mph signs up and it wasn't obvious that you were in built up area. Would that be fair? So you challenge the signage of the park in question. Obviously the signage was inadequate or you would have seen it

.

Basically, that's it in a nutshell.

BenefitMaster

Or, to put it into simpler terms.

IN a free car park, no one has lost if you overstay, park crooked, etc. It's free... it's a gift, there is no charge, and you cannot contract to breach.

In a paid car park, the parking company has lost if you overstay... They have lost the amount you should have paid..

In other words, the loss in each type of car park is minimal, and certainly not £100 a time. That is a fake charge, made up by a company who know most people will see the £100 writ large and just say "Buggre it" and pay up.

Bargepole and I were discussing this over coffee before court the other day - why do the PPCs go to court, when they lose money doing so - it's a loss leader to encourage unquestioning compliance.

The_Deep

- why do the PPCs go to court, when they lose money doing so - it's a loss leader to encourage unquestioning compliance.

But the more cases they lose, and the more we publish them, the less effective a deterrent it becomes. Also the more they take to court. the easier it will be for a judge to t detect a pattern.

Personally, I very much doubt if actually going to court is cost effective.

BenefitMaster

The_Deep wrote: »

- why do the PPCs go to court, when they lose money doing so - it's a loss leader to encourage unquestioning compliance.

But the more cases they lose, and the more we publish them, the less effective a deterrent it becomes. Also the more they take to court. the easier it will be for a judge to t detect a pattern.

Personally, I very much doubt if actually going to court is cost effective.

I'm inclined to agree with you - Losses like Lemon & Harris, and the publicity surrounding them really do hurt the PPC's as a whole, not just the one involved.

However, one thing I found out recently, that I'm very pleased about.

I'm considered "Toxic" by Parking Eye. :rotfl:

The_Deep

... especially after costing PE over £1000 today when they didn't get a Costs Order against me :-)

I am intrigued, are we to be told more?

BenefitMaster

The_Deep wrote: »

... especially after costing PE over £1000 today when they didn't get a Costs Order against me :-)

I am intrigued, are we to be told more?

In my first ever PE appeal, I included the paragraph "If you do reject the challenge and insist upon taking the matter further I must inform you that I may claim my expenses from you. The expenses I may claim are not exhaustive but may include the cost of stamps, envelopes, travel expenses, legal fees, etc. By continuing to pursue me you agree to pay these costs when I prevail."

I prevailed, so I sued for my costs.

PE ducked and dodged for over a year, and it finally came to court last week. The claim was dismissed, but no costs were awarded, and it was calculated by Bargepole and myself that it had cost me £80, and cost PE probably in excess of £1000, including their LPC person, who was a Solicitor-Advocate.

So a Phyrric victory - but still worthwhile.

I'll be using a different form of words in future.

Mrs BP as was says I should never have pursued the claim, but I wasted their time and their money - not a lot, but that's cost them 10 tickets worth of income and they can't do a thing about it.

Redx

thanks for the PE costs update, I thought that your court case was about now as you mentioned it a month or two ago and said it was going ahead in december , shame you did not win in this case but good to know that you took them on and did not lose due to the fact that they bully people daily insuch an arrogant manner since they started the court claims prompting the fightbacks

The_Deep

I applaud you sir, sometimes, even when you are out of pocket as a result of a dispute, if you cost your adversary much more then as it is worth making a stand.

In 2008 in Spain my car was written off. I applied for a refund of the of RFA, the DVLA docked one month because I applied a few days late, (I had been injured).

Anyway, after three months of toing and froing, after I had reached the third stage, they gave way and refunded me my £14. It must has cost them £££s, it certainly cost me a lot of time.

I am now girding my loins to do battle with Reading Borough Council, the jobsworths have me a Blue Badge, they know not with whom they tangle..

BenefitMaster

The_Deep wrote: »

I am now girding my loins to do battle with Reading Borough Council, the jobsworths have me a Blue Badge, they know not with whom they tangle..

You and I should meet for a coffee sometime, Sir - Stoke Barehills and Aldbrickham are not that far apart, indeed the PPA inaugural board meeting took place in that town.