Abusive parking

Johno100

2 years and £5k! Blah that's nothing.

Mercedes left in car park for THREE YEARS racks up £14k bill

IT'S ALWAYS annoying to get hit with a big parking ticket - but one car owner owes £14k after leaving their vehicle in a multi-storey car park for three years.

The Mercedes C Class is due to be towed away after racking up £14,235 in charges - at least five times what the car is worth.

The car has been gathering dust in the £13-a-day Broadway Plaza car park, Birmingham, since 2011 and has been blocked by a safety barrier to prevent the owner collecting it without paying.

Police have established that the car, which was left in the car park unlocked, wasn't stolen, reported missing or involved in any known crime.

Despite the logbook inside revealing the driver's details, all attempts to contact the Coventry owner have failed.

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/536192/Mercedes-car-park-14k-bill

bazster

Hahaha, any advance on 3 years/£14k?

bod1467

Despite the logbook inside revealing the driver's details,

Slack reporting as usual from a journo.

Johno100

enfield_freddy wrote: »

why are the council getting involved on private land?

Because they and the police can now do so thanks to Section 55 of POFA amending Section 99 of Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 to extend the powers to remove vehicles to all areas of private land (not only roads, as was previously the case) where they are illegally, obstructively or dangerously parked or broken down.

enfield_freddy

where they are illegally, obstructively or dangerously parked or broken down.


however , unless you know differently , the car does not meet those requirements

Johno100

enfield_freddy wrote: »

where they are illegally, obstructively or dangerously parked or broken down.

however , unless you know differently , the car does not meet those requirements

Well it is certainly causing an obstruction, nobody else can park there and that's kinda the idea of a car parking space in P&D car park.

I also wouldn't fancy my chances of starting it in it's present condition, so I think it ticks the box for broken down.:D

enfield_freddy

ok , getting in to pedantic , the customer entered the car park and accepted the terms and conditions of parking, NCP accepted the customers business , and if they wish to amend there terms and conditions , should obtain the customers details , and allow them a set period of time to either accept or decline there offer.


they have not done this ,


NCP have already failed on a long lasting towing case, that cost them a lot of money.

bazster

The exact wording is this: "Removal of vehicles illegally, obstructively or dangerously parked, or abandoned or broken down."

That vehicle is clearly abandoned, just look at it. What would you have the council do Freddy, leave it there for the next 500 years until it becomes just a heap of iron oxide? Or until some yobs set it alight?

bazster

enfield_freddy wrote: »

ok , getting in to pedantic , the customer entered the car park and accepted the terms and conditions of parking, NCP accepted the customers business , and if they wish to amend there terms and conditions , should obtain the customers details , and allow them a set period of time to either accept or decline there offer.


they have not done this ,


NCP have already failed on a long lasting towing case, that cost them a lot of money.

It's not NCP removing it, it's the council. They have the statutory power to do so. They will be following the laid-down procedure, which entails writing to the keeper at their last know address, and posting notices on the vehicle itself, giving the opportunity for the keeper or owner to remove the vehicle. What else do you want them to do, hire a private detective to trace the owner?

enfield_freddy

true , but why did they not attempt to contact the customer much earlier? , why the delay between jan 2015 and now?
apart from a bit of nice free publicity