Parking ticket in residential space

Coupon-mad

Unless I am looking at this overly simplistically, could the basis of my defence not be that a £160 fine for not displaying my permit, when I am in fact the only holder of that permit and thus entitled to the space, is extremely disproportionate?

I understand the case will be evidence based, but common sense cannot be completely ignored... surely

You can try but we think, no-go.

IMO the Beavis case appears very different from a residential permit case,

Agreed, that's why some have been won since:

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2016/04/pcm-uk-signage-does-not-create-contract.html

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2016/05/bargepole-spanks-ukpc-in-court-no.html

Is yours PCM or UKPC?

Guys_Dad

Oxy333 wrote: »

Unless I am looking at this overly simplistically, could the basis of my defence not be that a £160 fine for not displaying my permit, when I am in fact the only holder of that permit and thus entitled to the space, is extremely disproportionate?

I understand the case will be evidence based, but common sense cannot be completely ignored... surely

IMO the Beavis case appears very different from a residential permit case, but I will look into this further along with defences.

I think whether or not Beavis applied to your different circumstances, I can not see why an initial charge of the same amount (plus their costs) could be acceptable if Beavis applied or not. Why would a charge under Beavis not be disproportionate yet the same amount in your case be disproportionate?

Oxy333

Mine is UKPC, Coupon-Mad.

Guys_Dad wrote: »

I think whether or not Beavis applied to your different circumstances, I can not see why an initial charge of the same amount (plus their costs) could be acceptable if Beavis applied or not. Why would a charge under Beavis not be disproportionate yet the same amount in your case be disproportionate?

Personally I think both are disproportionate of course. But one point I gathered is that the judge saw it acceptable as there was a commercial justification for it? That although it was a free car park there was a need to maintain the flow of cars.... where as my case is a residential car park

Oxy333

beamerguy wrote: »

You said "UKPC have asked for a copy of the lease agreement"

If they have a genuine contract with the owner, they would know that already, More so, has the owner agreed that UKPC can issue tickets to legitimate residents ?

You need a copy of that if it exists.

UKPC are the low life that gives the private parking industry a bad name

I doubt the landowner of the carpark gave them permission, unless this can be given through the managing agent for the location?

Coupon-mad

The managing agent can indeed grant authority and most of UKPC's contracts are with agents. It is a defence point too, though, to put them to strict proof of a line of authority flowing from the actual landowner. Main point will be signage IMHO.

Oxy333 wrote: »

Mine is UKPC. Personally I think both are disproportionate of course. But one point I gathered is that the judge saw it acceptable as there was a commercial justification for it? That although it was a free car park there was a need to maintain the flow of cars.... where as my case is a residential car park

THat's more like it, arguing 'no commercial justification' is better because it is important to steer it well away to an easy argument about 'no loss' that UKPC can pull the Beavis 'card' out for! Not many judges would see any difference, as Guy's Dad pointed out. These particular charges are generally seen as 'not disproportionate', thanks to the Judges in the Supreme Court in their infinite wisdom...

Oxy333

With the doctoring of images and the scandal around UKPC with this, can this be incorporated into my defence? It'll be difficult for me to show that the images have been doctored but on the reverse, how can they prove they haven't? Or does the fact it just damages their credibility (as if it could be much lower, surely) help me out in court?

Umkomaas

how can they prove they haven't?

Build it in and, given their recent failings in this regard, get them to provide absolute proof and reassurance that this fraud did not happen in your case. Seems a fair enough point to me to raise. No smoke without fire ... and all that.

Print relevant press reports, Parking Prankster and other forum references to the cases from the autumn of last year.

beamerguy

Oxy333 wrote: »

With the doctoring of images and the scandal around UKPC with this, can this be incorporated into my defence? It'll be difficult for me to show that the images have been doctored but on the reverse, how can they prove they haven't? Or does the fact it just damages their credibility (as if it could be much lower, surely) help me out in court?

Please do listen to coupon-mad, she is the authority on this forum

Coupon-mad

Oxy333 wrote: »

With the doctoring of images and the scandal around UKPC with this, can this be incorporated into my defence? It'll be difficult for me to show that the images have been doctored but on the reverse, how can they prove they haven't? Or does the fact it just damages their credibility (as if it could be much lower, surely) help me out in court?

Yes, you will find plenty of other UKPC defences which do mention in passing, the altered photo issue. Search and find the ones from March, easy to find a UKPC defence on here with a couple of very obvious keywords popped into 'search this forum' - click 'show POSTS' (NOT the default 'show threads').

Oxy333

In theory though, several of the tickets could be completely doctored, no? It'd be hard to distinguish between them or for me to prove anything.

The only 'evidence' is the photo's they take, if these can be edited then one set of pictures where a permit isn't being displayed could be duplicated to make it look like the same happened on several other days...