IMPORTANT: Please make sure your posts do not contain any personally identifiable information (both your own and that of others). When uploading images, please take care that you have redacted all personal information including number plates, reference numbers and QR codes (which may reveal vehicle information when scanned).
We're aware that some users are experiencing technical issues which the team are working to resolve. See the Community Noticeboard for more info. Thank you for your patience.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!

Petition to government to change parking law

Options
13

Comments

  • Castle
    Castle Posts: 4,769 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 1,000 Posts Name Dropper
    bargepole wrote: »
    Had Mr Beavis been successful, the story would have been splashed across all the nationals and TV stations, no doubt accompanied with the headline 'Daily Mail Campaign Defeats Parking Bullies'. 'How the DM won the battle - exclusive report page 8'. 'Kim Kardashian's bum exposed in wind tunnel incident - pictures page 17'.
    So very true; if the government does eventually step in and regulate properly then the Daily Mail will be the first to claim that their campaign forced the government to act.
  • HO87
    HO87 Posts: 4,296 Forumite
    Parkrage wrote: »
    . Yes I've been amazed at the apparent lack of interest shown by the general public since the Beavis-PE SC judgement. Although I don't buy the Daily Fail everyday, I do buy it on Saturdays and I bought it on the day following the judgement announcement, expecting there to be a big splash - but there wasn't, and I've seen nothing in it since, not even in the 'Letters' section (remember, a couple or so years ago, the DF ran quite a campaign against PPCs).
    Welcome to the real world. Where it seems that provided they are fed with an endless stream of inane twaddle about equally as inane empty-headed celebrities famous for being... well, famous, fast food, and two weeks on the Costa Del Sol every year, an increasing number of our fellow countrymen are entirely happy to see the place going down the tubes and our freedoms with it.

    Just so long as Jeremy Kyle, Simon Cowell and some be-siliconed, botoxed bimbo are there to preside over things most would happily submit to anything our corporate / banker "betters" might dictate. The emphasis being on the word "dictate".[/rant mode]
    My very sincere apologies for those hoping to request off-board assistance but I am now so inundated with requests that in order to do justice to those "already in the system" I am no longer accepting PM's and am unlikely to do so for the foreseeable future (August 2016). :(

    For those seeking more detailed advice and guidance regarding small claims cases arising from private parking issues I recommend that you visit the Private Parking forum on PePiPoo.com
  • zerog
    zerog Posts: 2,478 Forumite
    I'm not sure whether any of the parking stalwarts on this board are familiar with rail travel and penalty fares.

    Obviously, private parking is a contractual transaction whereas the consumer contract regulations etc do not apply to rail travel. However:

    Penalty fares are often called 'fines' in the same way that private parking invoices are called 'fines'.

    A penalty fare is a charge for making an honest mistake, where the rail operator does not suspect the traveller was trying to evade the fare. Because not having a ticket (when starting your journey at a station at which penalty fares apply) is a strict liability offence, it is correct to be charged a penalty fare even if you purchased a ticket (and have evidence of doing so), but merely dropped it.

    In London the penalty fare is £80 (£40 for early payment). Some train operating companies charge £20, or twice the fare to the next station. Penalty fares do not apply on Virgin Trains, but the National Rail Conditions of Carriage require you to buy a flexible undiscounted ticket if you misplace your actual ticket, hence reports of people being charged a £150 'fine' when they paid £10.

    If you are suspected of fare evasion, then you will be taken to court and fined £1000. For a first offence, Northern Rail will accept an out-of-court settlement of £80.


    The point of all this comparison is: the government thinks these penalties for honest mistakes are fair and justified, so naturally they would feel the same way about these private parking charges. The so-called 'independent' appeals board is run by SouthEastern Trains.
  • The_Deep
    The_Deep Posts: 16,830 Forumite
    Nor only are honest mistakes penalised, but also the easily confused, especially at unstaffed stations.

    We missed a flight once at Reading because the tickets machines would not accept my credit card, and the ticket offices had long queues. By the time I had purchased tickets the train had gone.

    The ridiculous part is that, had we boared the train at the next station, we could have bought tickets on board.
    You never know how far you can go until you go too far.
  • nigelbb
    nigelbb Posts: 3,819 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 1,000 Posts Name Dropper
    The_Deep wrote: »
    Nor only are honest mistakes penalised, but also the easily confused, especially at unstaffed stations.

    We missed a flight once at Reading because the tickets machines would not accept my credit card, and the ticket offices had long queues. By the time I had purchased tickets the train had gone.

    The ridiculous part is that, had we boared the train at the next station, we could have bought tickets on board.
    My local station has neither ticket office nor ticket machine so the only option is to purchase on board (or pre-purchase & have delivered by post or collect from another station that does have a ticket machine &/or ticket office).
  • Coupon-mad
    Coupon-mad Posts: 151,689 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Name Dropper Photogenic
    bumping this
    PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT (except N.Ireland).
    CLICK at the top or bottom of any page where it says:
    Home»Motoring»Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD
  • londonTiger
    londonTiger Posts: 4,903 Forumite
    bazster wrote: »
    If you believe that Beavis represented himself in the Supreme Court you really haven't been keeping up.

    And who were these "lot of people" "telling him not to take this on"? I don't suppose even you communicated your obviously-legally-qualified opinion to him.

    He represented himself initially, and messed up and had to take it up to the higher courts, then a solicitor realised what this idiot was in for and decided to represent him in the high courts.

    The high courts are not going to overturn the decision of the lower court unless there is a significant change in the documentation and evidence presented. They were basically making the same arguements in the higher courts so the judge had no choice but to uphold the original verdict.
  • He represented himself initially, and messed up and had to take it up to the higher courts, then a solicitor realised what this idiot was in for and decided to represent him in the high courts.

    The high courts are not going to overturn the decision of the lower court unless there is a significant change in the documentation and evidence presented. They were basically making the same arguements in the higher courts so the judge had no choice but to uphold the original verdict.

    It really is impossible to know where to start with this codswallop
    In fact I can't be bothered
  • ManxRed
    ManxRed Posts: 3,530 Forumite
    He represented himself initially, and messed up and had to take it up to the higher courts, then a solicitor realised what this idiot was in for and decided to represent him in the high courts.

    The high courts are not going to overturn the decision of the lower court unless there is a significant change in the documentation and evidence presented. They were basically making the same arguements in the higher courts so the judge had no choice but to uphold the original verdict.

    Not even remotely close.

    :rotfl:
    Je Suis Cecil.
  • bazster
    bazster Posts: 7,436 Forumite
    1,000 Posts Combo Breaker
    He represented himself initially

    At no hearing did he represent himself.
    then a solicitor realised what this idiot was in for and decided to represent him in the high courts.

    He wasn't represented by a solicitor in any court. In the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court he was actually represented by a QC. As you are clearly completely ignorant in such matters, allow me to explain that "QC" stands for "Queen's Counsel" and is in fact a (very superior) species of barrister which typically charges several thousand pounds per day.

    So rubbish was Barry's case that he actually had QC's queueing up to represent him pro bono (that means "for free"). QC's are not generally renowned for representing people pro bono and foregoing thousands in fees, they generally only do it when they think it's a great case which will be terrific for their careers.
    The high courts are not going to overturn the decision of the lower court unless there is a significant change in the documentation and evidence presented. They were basically making the same arguements in the higher courts so the judge had no choice but to uphold the original verdict.

    If you'd actually read the judgments from the County Court, Court of Appeal and Supreme Court you'd know that in fact they were all arrived at for completely different reasons.

    And if you knew the first thing about court proceedings you'd also know that presenting new documents or evidence is rarely permitted in appeals, which are almost always restricted to re-examining the legal arguments.

    And if you weren't so ignorant you might also have known that approximately 25% of appeals to the Court of Appeal are successful, and about one-third of appeals to the Supreme Court are successful. Not a bad hit rate when you consider that almost never is new evidence permitted, the higher court simply concludes that the lower court got it wrong.

    But hey, keep on digging if you want to make even more of a fool of yourself. Thanks to me your legal expertise now extends to at least knowing that a solicitor is not the same as a barrister.
    Je suis Charlie.
This discussion has been closed.
Meet your Ambassadors

🚀 Getting Started

Hi new member!

Our Getting Started Guide will help you get the most out of the Forum

Categories

  • All Categories
  • 350.9K Banking & Borrowing
  • 253.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
  • 453.5K Spending & Discounts
  • 243.9K Work, Benefits & Business
  • 598.8K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
  • 176.9K Life & Family
  • 257.2K Travel & Transport
  • 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
  • 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
  • 37.6K Read-Only Boards

Is this how you want to be seen?

We see you are using a default avatar. It takes only a few seconds to pick a picture.