Can I challenge a penalty charge on behalf of another person?

Coupon-mad

nig3d wrote: »

ignorance is no defence in law in any part of the world I believe. However I don't understand why you mentioned it, are you telling me that I somehow broke the law?

Nope but the Residents Committee remain jointly and severally liable for the actions of any contractors and agents you allow on site. So, if UKCPM break the Equality Act re a disabled person, scamming them for money for their Blue Badge slipping down (if you have a disabled bay for example) then the Residents' Committee are liable.

Or if they issue a ticket and damage a car - you (the Committee) are liable.

You've taken on a notorious company to do a 'job' (and they will do a job on people!) yet all you needed was a couple of polite signs and/or a barrier, not a scammer issuing pretend tickets followed by threatening letters.

''PROSECUTION'' you think? It's not a criminal offence!

These companies exist because idiot landowners get talked into thinking this is a 'solution' and don't simply Google the firm first.

nig3d

I will consider your saying for the next GM. What you say sounds very worrying, I may need to contact my solicitor as well to see what they think about it.

Coupon-mad

nig3d wrote: »

I will consider your saying for the next GM. What you say sounds very worrying, I may need to contact my solicitor as well to see what they think about it.

Why not - they will confirm that a principal is liable for the actions of any agent. But they won't understand private parking charges I shouldn't think, not many solicitors do and will just assume that 'there is a contract if there are signs up'. Never mind the fact the charge is disproportionate to any loss.

Luckily the Government are looking more closely at this growing scam:

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/cars/article-2995823/Crackdown-cowboy-parking-firms-issuing-tickets-like-confetti-Eric-Pickles-takes-control.html

and there's a case in the Supreme Court at the end of this month:

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/cars/article-3059231/Barry-Beavis-raises-6k-24-hours-looks-appeal-parking-fine-Supreme-Court.html

HTH

ColliesCarer

nig3d wrote: »

ignorance is no defence in law in any part of the world I believe. However I don't understand why you mentioned it, are you telling me that I somehow broke the law?

I think the above question has already been ably answered by Redx and Coupon-mad - but just to answer you directly - no that wasn't what I meant.

Apologies if I phrased it badly - but I was really just trying to warn you to be careful because the Residents Committee (as I had pointed out earlier and which has also been explained further since by C-M and Redx) are responsible for ....

ColliesCarer wrote: »

.........the actions of your agents for which you are jointly and severally liable btw!!!!!

and could face lawsuits themselves as Redx and C-m have explained

ManxRed

Some questions for your committee meeting:

1. Do they believe that the charges levied by the parking company are legally enforceable, and if so, why? Note that 'being told this by the parking company' is not really an acceptable response. They lie. They lie a lot.

2. What due diligence was carried out before appointing the company? Note that 'looking at their website' isn't an acceptable response. There are plenty of tales of woe to be found on the internet, about this and other private parking companies.

3. Who signed the agreement with the parking company? Were any legal people asked to review the contract?

Note that there's a high probability that the person who signed the agreement may well be the person getting a financial kickback from the parking company for the tickets, and may well be the one doing the ticketing, but keep that to yourself for now.

bazster

nig3d wrote: »

unluckily the GM happens once a year, so I have to wait for the next one to investigate.

If this committee is properly constituted and you are a member then (i) you ought to be able to demand financial information at any time (contact the chairman or secretary) and (ii) there would be a procedure for calling an Extraordinary General Meeting rather than waiting for an annual meeting.

bazster

nig3d wrote: »

If these company were all scams, probably they would not exist, right?

Wrong. They are all scams and still they exist.

nig3d wrote: »

I found extreme to compare breaking the law to not being able to see that the driver shouldn't have paid at all despite warnings of further prosecution.

It is a civil matter, nothing more than a speculative invoice from a private company. No offence has been committed and there is no question of prosecution.

You have allowed yourself to be bamboozled by the blizzard of bullsh|t these companies use to intimidate people. It's all bluster and lies. And the sad thing is they are your agent - you and the rest of your committee - so you are ultimately responsible for their lies and intimidation.

Redx

and it is the above mantras we try to get across to all landowners or managing agents, as usually they are blissfully unaware of it, until it creeps up and bites them on the backside

fisherjim

I really can't understand why the OP bothered coming on here in the first place, when they ignore, or challenge everything that its advised!