''ONE SIZE FITS ALL'' template, doesn't quite fit - help!

Le_Kirk

jenpal66 wrote: »

thanks have done this but it won't accept my allocated password from the forum, have tried a few times case sensitive etc., might you be able to help if I tell you my issue???

Thanks

How are you able to post (albeit on someone else's thread) if your password doesn't work?

Fruitcake

jenpal66 wrote: »

thanks have done this but it won't accept my allocated password from the forum, have tried a few times case sensitive etc., might you be able to help if I tell you my issue???

Thanks

You are not making sense.

Once you have logged onto MSE, which you must have done to submit your post, you can view the NEWBIES ...

… or do you mean you are trying to post on the NEWBIES? If you are, you need to read all the way to the bottom which tells you not to post on it.
(You can't anyway at the moment because it is locked to stop people posting on it.)

If you need more help then you should start your own thread.

jenpal66

not sure is the answer to all of the above, not very savvy with forums, facebook etc so just trying everything, hadn't realised that I had to be logged in to post stuff!!!

I am a thicko really when it comes to tech.

Sorry

GetMoney

The_Deep wrote: »

Do not get too hung up on keeper/driver here. In most residential cases, if the lease gives one unfettered rights to park, it is better for the leaseholder to admit to being the driver if this is the case. Read this

What does your lease/AST/parking contract say about parking? Does it require you to display a permit and pay a charge (it is not a fine) to a third party if it it not on show. Nearly all residential PCNs issisued by these |PPCs are unlawful.

This is an entirely unregulated industry which is scamming the public with inflated claims for minor breaches of alleged contracts for alleged parking offences, aided and abetted by a handful of low-rent solicitors. Is has been suggested by an MP that some of these companies may have connections to organised crime.

Parking Eye, CPM, Smart, (especially Smart}, and others have already been named and shamed in the House of Commons as have Gladstones Solicitors, and BW Legal, (these two law firms take hundreds of these cases to court each week), hospital car parks and residential complex tickets have been especially mentioned. They lose most of them, and have been reported to the regulatory authority by an M.P. for unprofessional conduct

The problem become so widespread that MPs agreed to enact a Bill to regulate these scammers. It has cleared Parliament and hopefully, this will become law shortly.

So, you know what to do, complain like Friar Tuck to your MP.

Thanks this is very helpful!

I am actually renting an additional space in my block and the only thing I have signed is a single piece of paper that says I have to give 2 weeks notice if I wish to cancel.

I have not signed any convoluted contract with the parking company, the space is owned by another resident, then the property management company sub-lets it to me. I had to hand this in to receive the pass so will try and get a copy of it tomorrow to double check, hopefully this will work in my favour?!

The way I see it (and as highlighted in the article you have shared, so thanks for that as now I have case law references!), this is an unfair consumer charge as it is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss as there was no direct loss to the parking company because I have already paid for the pass. Hopefully that logic is sound!

Completely agree that this industry needs to be scrutinised and glad it's gaining momentum. Not surprised they've made the connection to organised crime, this is basically it.

Will definitely complain to my MP. They should open it up to appeal past claims like the PPI industry. Don't think there would be any tears shed watching the parking companies fold.

Coupon-mad

this is an unfair consumer charge as it is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss as there was no direct loss to the parking company because I have already paid for the pass. Hopefully that logic is sound!

No, it isn't, and that point (not the rest of your case, about primacy of contract, etc.!) is doomed as an argument so stop thinking about 'no loss'.

You need to read the BEAVIS case to understand why not, the Supreme Court rich, 'clueless-to-the-scam-industry' wrinkly Judges removed 'no GPEOL' as an argument which was ludicrous, stupid and badly thought out (IMHO) as a non-legal person.

GetMoney

Thanks very much for pointing that out!

That is outrageous that "no GPEOL" was removed as an argument, that should literally be the best defence for appealing a ticket in your own space, hope they bring it back in, or at least give it some strength when the MPs enact this bill!

Looks like I'm holding out to day 26!

waamo

GPEOL is unlikely to make a comeback in the near future. In fact it may well never make a comeback.

Coupon-mad

There is no 'bring it back in'. No GPEOL is not 'out' of contract law, per se.

GPEOL still exists, as does the penalty rule, but in parking cases the darn Supreme Court Judges swallowed P/Eye's line (delivered by the guy they preferred) hook line and sinker, sided with ParkingEye and killed off the 'no GPEOL' argument for no good reason whatsoever, IMHO.

And effectively made it very difficult to argue in any other parking case. A SCANDAL.

They should be ashamed.

Only one Judge was the voice of reason - he dissented with the others' decision.

The_Deep

No, it isn't, and that point us doomed … so stop thinking about 'no loss'.

There is no 'bring it back in'. No GPEOL is not 'out' of contract law, per se.

I strongly disagree, I think that you are misinterpreting Beavis to the disadvantage of the motorist CM.

IMO the Supreme Court decision has nothing to do with residential parking, (or double dipping), and I very much doubt if it can be properly used in court against a motorist where UTCCC apply, (leaving site, wrong VRN etc.), P&D machines out of action), disabled but no BB, fluttering ticket, etc., etc., etc.

The fact that PoPLA do not like it is neither here nor there, it is what a judge thinks that matters.

How can an "own space" ticket not not be a GPEOL, how can this not still be valid in Contract Law?

I have raised this several times recently but it seems no one wishes to contradict me.

GetMoney

Quick question, the parking company is a member of both the IPC (Accredited Operator) and BPA (just a member).

Guessing I just go down the IPC route instead of the BPA and wait for the NtK?