UKPC Court claim

TDA

salmosalaris wrote: »

32......
The innocent party can have no proper interest in simply punishing the defaulter. His interest is in performance or in some appropriate alternative to performance.

How can a charge for failing to display a permit in your own bay where nobody else is entitled to park be anything but penal ?

See above (sorry I edited my post again after the fact!), though I might concede that point.

salmosalaris

The SC made plain that they saw no alternative to the "penalty charge " system in deterring overstayers .
In this scenario there is an obvious alternative , keep a note of VRN's allocated to each bay preventing the issue of fake fines to genuine drivers

TDA

salmosalaris wrote: »

The SC made plain that they saw no alternative to the "penalty charge " system in deterring overstayers .
In this scenario there is an obvious alternative , keep a note of VRN's allocated to each bay preventing the issue of fake fines to genuine drivers

A good argument.

salmosalaris

TDA wrote: »

I am not saying that I agree with it, just that I can see scope for making the argument. Who knows why judges have ruled against residents in own space cases. Is there any regular who has attended a case in person and heard a judges rationale for awarding judgment to the claimant in such a case?

I am aware of no such court cases being lost . The most recent case I dealt with involved failure to input the VRN in a terminal within the workplace by a genuine contractor .
PE took this right to the wire , even paying the hearing fee but discontinued days before the hearing . The defence was based on the fact the charge was penal because someone who was fully entitled to park otherwise simply forgot to enter their VRN , and that there was no legitimate interest in enforcing the charge
A similar scenario and obviously PE didn't fancy their chances

TommyG5

Wow, that's a lot to take in. In this case the penalty was for not parking in the lines of a bay.

From what i understand GEoPL part of my defense should be removed as they will argue they were "managing the area"?

Also I am not a resident, however a lease is a lease and not cannot be deviated from, so if parking management and charging is not stated in it, it is not allowed. Views?

salmosalaris

Sorry TDA and I ( who enjoy a bit of banter ) rather hijacked your thread

salmosalaris

TommyG5 wrote: »

Wow, that's a lot to take in. In this case the penalty was for not parking in the lines of a bay.

From what i understand GEoPL part of my defense should be removed as they will argue they were "managing the area"?

Also I am not a resident, however a lease is a lease and not cannot be deviated from, so if parking management and charging is not stated in it, it is not allowed. Views?

To put it simply . Is there a legitimate reason for deterring you from parking as you did ?

TDA

TommyG5 wrote: »

Wow, that's a lot to take in. In this case the penalty was for not parking in the lines of a bay.

From what i understand GEoPL part of my defense should be removed as they will argue they were "managing the area"?

Also I am not a resident, however a lease is a lease and not cannot be deviated from, so if parking management and charging is not stated in it, it is not allowed. Views?

This is one of the scenarios on an estate where there is more scope for arguing that a legitimate interest exists.

On the subject of your lease there may be no explicit mention of parking management but is there a clause which effectively permits the management company to bring in rules and regulations unilaterally? (This is often the case)

As Salmosalaris identifies above the key question is can they convincingly argue that there is a legitimate interest in preventing you (or others) from parking how you did on the estate? In layman's terms, is there good reason to prevent people parking how you did?

TommyG5

My main argument is about signage and markings. The area in which the penalty was received looks like a parking space, with no indication you are not to park there. If you were to park there, you would not be blocking access or be in the way.

I suppose they could argue that the vehicle was not parked in the markings of a bay correctly therefore they were managing the area (at 12pm in the night), however the area is not clearly marked as no parking and the signage is basically useless and not visable

?

salmosalaris

So if your main argument relates to signage let's see the sign