Bargepole spanks UKPC in court

catfunt

In addition to salmosalaris' valid points above...

EdGasket wrote: »

As per comments on parking prankster, the defendant was not very worthy in this case having parked in a staff-only area. Of course we like to see parking companies get 'spanked' but the motorist was not exactly squeaky-clean in this case either.

And how do you know that?

If he parked there knowing it was not permitted by the landowner, then you may have a point.

But you are making an assumption there, too often signage is inadequate and markings confusing, faint, missing, whatever. Innocent people get caught out, perhaps aided by PPCs who deliberately try to catch people out.
Perhaps their mind in hospital cases are on getting to an urgent appointment, or emergency, visiting a sick loved one, whatever, and not looking for possibly obscure parking signs and checking the terms and conditions.

I don't have much sympathy for whose who deliberately extract the urine, it is people like that who cause the perceived need for a PPC in the first place... but lets not jump to conclusions.

TDA

salmosalaris wrote: »

The rights and wrongs of the case are immaterial. It can never be the role of a private company to punish an individual at all let alone excessively when they have no legal right to do so.
Contract Law can be perverted to achieve a desired (for some) outcome but when there is no contract in the first place the perversion becomes impossible .

I'm not sure it can be had both ways Salmo. If rights and wrongs are immaterial what does it matter that you broke your leg on Mount Snowden

As for your comments catfunt, perhaps Bargepole can enlighten us but I suspect that the Defendant did have notice of the terms because for it to have got to court it's most likely a multiple ticket case.

nigelbb

As per the Prankster's report it was a multi-ticket case.

The defendant’s car had been issued with two windscreen parking charges, when parking without a permit outside a housing complex (staff accommodation) within the grounds of Colchester hospital.

The PPC is using a perversion of contract law in an attempt to enforce a private parking regime. This case simply shows that this approach is not appropriate or valid & for this situation the parking should be managed by other means e.g. by using a barrier & a swipe card like the parking at the staff accommodation at my local hospital.

salmosalaris

TDA wrote: »

I'm not sure it can be had both ways Salmo. If rights and wrongs are immaterial what does it matter that you broke your leg on Mount Snowden

As for your comments catfunt, perhaps Bargepole can enlighten us but I suspect that the Defendant did have notice of the terms because for it to have got to court it's most likely a multiple ticket case.

Well firstly in that case there was a proper contract . Just because the defendant in this case ( if he was driving ) may be perceived to be "in the wrong" it cannot vindicate extending the perversion and pretending there is a contract where there clearly is not .
In addition should an accident such as you describe, which could not have been foreseen,prevented the defendant abiding by the t@c then quite rightly they would have a defence of frustration.

salmosalaris

And after reading comments on the PP blog and certain comments here am I still happy about assisting those against the likes of UKPC ?
Does the Pope have a balcony ?

Coupon-mad

Well done to salmosalaris and bargepole, a real team effort to see off this notorious bunch:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-lincolnshire-34172701

They are not a firm one would want to give 1p to, let alone a three-figure 'fine' to fund their Christmas jolly.