Northern parking services ticket claims on private property but their pics show not

The_Slithy_Tove

IamEmanresu wrote: »

BiB are correct as parking in Newcastle is decriminalised.

But this isn't to do with parking, it's to do with a fraudulent act. Wouldn't Trading Standards be a better approach?

Herzlos

Have you complained to the DVLA too, that NPS are issuing tickets on council land?

Go back to the police and file a fraud report - they are trying to gain monies by deception (by pretending they can issue tickets there). If they ever took you to court you'd have a slam dunk win just by showing them the photos.

bazster

Exactly, you've complained to The Fuzz about the wrong thing. Show The Fuzz (and T.S.) the photos you've shown us and complain that the parking company is impersonating authority and perpetrating a fraud in trying to get money out of you by pretending it has the authority to issue tickets on the public highway. Do it in writing, too easy to fob you off on the 'phone.

This is going nowhere near a court, and if it goes nowhere near a court it'll go nowhere near a bailiff.

System

But this isn't to do with parking, it's to do with a fraudulent act. Wouldn't Trading Standards be a better approach?

Follow the money. If it is decrim, the BiB are not interested. If you ticket on Newcastle City's patch they will be.

See reports on Bradford MBC and Car Parking Enforcement Company. CPEC were thrown out of the BPA with 52 saction points.

eddddy

bazster wrote: »

Exactly, you've complained to The Fuzz about the wrong thing. Show The Fuzz (and T.S.) the photos you've shown us and complain that the parking company is impersonating authority and perpetrating a fraud in trying to get money out of you by pretending it has the authority to issue tickets on the public highway. Do it in writing, too easy to fob you off on the 'phone.

This is going nowhere near a court, and if it goes nowhere near a court it'll go nowhere near a bailiff.

The offence would be Fraud by false representation (Fraud act 2006 section 2)...

Fraud by false representation

(1)A person is in breach of this section if he—

....(a) dishonestly makes a false representation, and
....(b)intends, by making the representation—

......(i) to make a gain for himself or another, or
......(ii) to cause loss to another or to expose another to a risk of loss.

(2) A representation is false if—

....(a) it is untrue or misleading, and
.... (b)the person making it knows that it is, or might be, untrue or misleading.

See: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/35/section/2

I suspect the challenge for the police would be proving (2)(b) beyond reasonable doubt. (i.e. proving that the person who issued the ticket and/or the company knew that the OP did not have to pay a charge, as opposed to making a mistake.)

If the OP can find evidence that the person/company knew (e.g. as a result of previous challenges etc), that could strengthen a complaint to the police of fraud.

bazster

eddddy wrote: »

The offence would be Fraud by false representation (Fraud act 2006 section 2)...

Thanks.

eddddy wrote: »

I suspect the challenge for the police would be proving (2)(b) beyond reasonable doubt. (i.e. proving that the person who issued the ticket and/or the company knew that the OP did not have to pay a charge, as opposed to making a mistake.)

If the OP can find evidence that the person/company knew (e.g. as a result of previous challenges etc), that could strengthen a complaint to the police of fraud.

What if they persist in demanding money after being told it's the public highway and they have no authority?

However, the main challenge would be that the police seem to think that fraud in general has been decriminalised.

eddddy

bazster wrote: »

What if they persist in demanding money after being told it's the public highway and they have no authority?

Yes - I guess it would be fraud if somebody continues to make 'false representations', once they know that what they are saying is, or might be, untrue.

(But again their defence might be that they don't believe that what the OP is telling them is correct. i.e. They genuinely believe that they are correct and the OP is wrong. You and I might suspect otherwise - but proving this kind of stuff beyond reasonable doubt can be quite a challenge!)

Herzlos

But would it be reasonable for them to conclude that the appelant is lying about the public road outside their address being council controlled? That's going to be a hard sell to a judge.

James423

I recently parked nearby, in the parking area for the gym members, however there is 4 bays assigned to the warehouse. I only found that info out afterwards. Seen a lot of gym members were using these bays out of the warehouse business hours. I had only joined up the week before so that worked out well for me.
Advice?

bod1467

James423 wrote: »

Advice?

Stay on your own thread instead of hijacking this one?