Please help!! 20+ parking tickets

The_Deep

If it was numbered spaces or near/at capacity I'd agree with you, but in this case it isn't.

Do we know that for sure?

No-one is being deprived of anything,

No, if the OP parks in Mr Smith's space and Mr Smith has a hire car and wishes to park there that day, is he not being deprived?

Morality aside, focusing purely on the contract law and ignoring the long suffering MA, the invoices are entirely unenforcable. You know that as well as I do.

Tell that the Mr Lander, he had to pay £826 to Napier

http://www.napierparking.co.uk/assets/Uploads/PDF/Court-judgements/Napier-V-Lander-SUMMARY.pdf

Also, PE have had several wins, probably hundeds. Do not say that the appellant offered a poor defence, the invoices were upheld, so no, I do not know that.

So whilst we can advice the OP to resolve the parking issue (which she has done by parking elsewhere), we shouldn't be treating the actual invoicing issue any differently to anyone else here. Just because she's technically in the wrong doesn't mean she actually owes these parasites £2000 + costs (20 tickets @ £100 each). Any loss (of which there was none) should be reimbursed to the landowner, and the PPC should have attempted to resolve the issue without issuing invalid invoices like confetti. Do you disagree?


Yes absolutely.

I still think that her best option is to negotiate with the PPC, I'll bet Mr Lander wishes he had done so.

Ralph-y

lyndsay1989 .... I have just posted on another thread where the OP had made the comment

"I haven't found all this bickering back & forth very helpful I might add."

my reply was

"you have to understand that this forum is overseen , not by professionals ... but by unpaid volunteers....

most of which have found themselves helping out on the forum after getting help here in the past ....

as such some times differences do emerge as to the best way forward.

the message as a whole is the same, just tactics differ ... If you have ever had the misfortune to have two or more solicitors giving advice then you would think that all this "bickering back & forth" is nothing more than a quiet chat "

then some boring bits about the thread

there is no point worrying about it .... its just part of forum life ....

just pick which bits you want and discard the rest

good luck

Ralph:cool:

Herzlos

Definitely, the advice here is given by volunteers, and opinions are of those volunteers themselves, and some reader discretion is advised. Which advice you decide to act upon is entirely up to you and you should feel under no pressure or obligation to follow any. We're ultimately not responsible for the outcome, and can only help as best as we can.

The_Deep wrote: »

If it was numbered spaces or near/at capacity I'd agree with you, but in this case it isn't.

Do we know that for sure?

Do we need to? What evidence do you require and why won't you accept the OP's statement of fact? I understand you dislike tenants taking liberties, but there's not a shred of evidence in this case that those liberties actually hurt anyone.

No, if the OP parks in Mr Smith's space and Mr Smith has a hire car and wishes to park there that day, is he not being deprived?

Except Mr Smith doesn't have a space (they aren't allocated like that) and if he did bring a hire car in, he could use one of the other empty 49 unallocated spaces. He is therefore being deprived of nothing.

And if he was, how is paying some parasitic parking company going to address that?

Tell that the Mr Lander, he had to pay £826 to Napier

http://www.napierparking.co.uk/assets/Uploads/PDF/Court-judgements/Napier-V-Lander-SUMMARY.pdf

From a skim of that document, it looks as if Mr Lander didn't debate the loss or the validity of the contract, and it looks in fact to have been a pay and display car park for which he didn't pay. It's not materially similar to this case at all.

Also, PE have had several wins, probably hundeds. Do not say that the appellant offered a poor defence, the invoices were upheld, so no, I do not know that.

Have we seen any evidence of a well defended case that has been held in favour of the parking company in a while? I don't doubt PE has had numerous wins, but most of them appear to be defaults.

I still think that her best option is to negotiate with the PPC, I'll bet Mr Lander wishes he had done so.

Why negotiate with the PPC? Do you negotiate with Nigerian Princes too? There is really no negotiation and there's no point reasoning with them as they are unreasonable.

The_Deep

Do we need to? What evidence do you require and why won't you accept the OP's statement of fact?

You have missed my point, please point me to the post where she says bays are unnumbered. and I will concede the point.

From a skim of that document, it looks as if Mr Lander didn't debate the loss or the validity of the contract, and it looks in fact to have been a pay and display car park for which he didn't pay. It's not materially similar to this case at all.

I did not say that they were similar, I was just disproving your statement that PPC invoices were unenforceable.


Have we seen any evidence of a well defended case that has been held in favour of the parking company in a while? I don't doubt PE has had numerous wins, but most of them appear to be defaults.


Defended or not, the invoices were still enforced.

Herzlos

The unnumbered bays is inferred. She said she doesn't have a way of finding out who doesn't use their permits, so the spaces don't have numbers corresponding to the flats.

That the invoices were held up in some poorly defended cases doesn't make them valid. If they were valid and legally enforceable this forum wouldn't exist

The_Deep

The unnumbered bays is inferred. ... the spaces don't have numbers corresponding to the flats.

This is common practice. It ia to prevent anyone breaking into a flat and stealing car keys from knowing which car to steal.

nigelbb

The_Deep wrote: »

The unnumbered bays is inferred. ... the spaces don't have numbers corresponding to the flats.

This is common practice. It ia to prevent anyone breaking into a flat and stealing car keys from knowing which car to steal.

They don't have to be labelled with the number of the corresponding flat. It's simple enough to label them 1A 2A 3A or AA AB AC then allocate those labelled spaces to a particular flat.

lyndsay1989

The parking bays are numbered but do not correspond with apartment numbers. I advertised for a parking space within the building on Friday night and thankfully one of the tenants contacted me and agreed to rent their space to me for £100 a month so now I have a permit and parking space and should no longer receive any more parking tickets.

The debt collectors letter says I need to respond by the 15th September. Am I right to assume that I ignore them and only respond to the parking company if they contact me further?

Redx

well done

IGNORE the debt collectors and IGNORE the debt collector letters too

debt collectors are powerless and can only try to harass you through mail and phone calls etc

DC= Debt Collectors = Deceitful Cowards (bullies)

only deal with an official LBC or an official MCOL (court claim) from the PPC

MothballsWallet

toddstar wrote: »

yeah, so I wonder why the deeps panties are all twisted up then.

I hope his wife gave him a rollocking for taking her clothes