PCN for Stopping at Zebra Crossing

Johno100

DAKOTA45 wrote: »

Would be interesting to hear back from the OP as something not quite right about this... nobody has broken any law by getting out of a car whist it's waiting at a pedestrian crossing...but the drivers are effectively being ambushed then made to pay extortionate fines.

It is not a zebra crossing it is white paint on the road on private land as I told you on your other thread, which again you should stick to.

DAKOTA45

The_Deep wrote: »

The agreement is with the driver, (and perhaps the keeper), and The PPC. The consideration is the use of the car park. By parking they are deemed to have accepted the T&C of the contract.

The signage does not mention who the ‘contract to park’ is with. The company's name may be mentioned on the bottom of the sign, but nowhere does it say they are the offeror of the contract and therefore it does not meet English Contact Law, making both the contract and the parking charge unenforceable. (?)

DAKOTA45

To the original OP...(if they are still watching)... My case went to arbitration and this is their reply... a standard reply...you will probably get something similar... I wouldn't bother as dismissal will add another £40 to the fine.

"It is important that the Appellant understands that the adjudicator is not in a position to give his legal advice. The adjudicator's role is to look at whether the parking charge has a basis in law and was properly issued in the circumstances of each particular case. The adjudicator's decision is not legally binding on the Appellant (it is intended to be a guide) and they are free to obtain independent legal advice if they so wish. However, the adjudicator is legally qualified (a barrister or solicitor) and decides the appeal according to their understanding of the law and legal principles.

The terms of this appeal are that I am only allowed to consider the charge being appealed and not the circumstances of other drivers or other parking events. The guidance to this appeal also makes it clear that I am bound by the law of contract and can only consider legal challenges not mistakes or extenuating circumstances. The Operator's signage (as well as the double red lines which the vehicle was parked on) which was on display throughout the site, makes it sufficiently clear that the terms and conditions are in force at all times and that a PCN will be issued to drivers who fail to comply with the terms and conditions, regardless of a driver's reasons for being on site or any mitigating factors. While noting their comments, it is clear from the evidence provided to this appeal that the Appellant did indeed stop otherwise than in accordance with the displayed terms.
I am satisfied that the Operator has proven their prima facie case. Whilst having some sympathy with the Appellant's circumstances, once liability has been established, only the Operator has the discretion to vary or cancel the parking charge based on mitigating circumstances. Accordingly this appeal is dismissed."

adamhd

Yes this was at Southend Airport.

I have no intention of paying them anything and look forward to them taking it to small claims court. I have documented all time spent and will be sending VCS a letter outlining my cost should they pursue this any further.

DAKOTA45

adamhd wrote: »

Yes this was at Southend Airport.

I have no intention of paying them anything and look forward to them taking it to small claims court. I have documented all time spent and will be sending VCS a letter outlining my cost should they pursue this any further.

Very good luck to you...I hope you win.
I was unable to risk further fines & possible court costs as I have only a small pension & no savings.
I will keep my fingers crossed for you... Please let us know how you get on, as what they are doing is seriously wrong- it's not unlawful for a passenger to leave a car which is stopped for any reason... I don't even think it's possible to call the road a 'clearway', when you have to stop for pedestrian crossings...
All the very best! x

Coupon-mad

I was unable to risk further fines & possible court costs as I have only a small pension & no savings.

But that would not have happened.

What on earth made you think there were 'further fines' & huge costs involved. Why do you think we tell people to defend?

We don't create any financial risk for them. There are not further fines or huge court costs at stake, at all.

If you paid them, you've just sponsored and funded the scam, pointlessly.

DAKOTA45

My sister paid on my behalf. I'm staying with her atm and she was not prepared to have debt collection letters to her address.
I probably would have brazened it out otherwise.
The company had already added £40 to the original £60 fine after I 'lost' my appeal/arbitration, and said another £60 would be added for adminisration purposes if I didn't pay immediately.
I really hope the OP is successful in his fight against these crooks.

Coupon-mad

Letters are just letters. It's scared and uninformed people like your sister, who actively support this scam, sorry to say. She doesn't seem to realise that's exactly what she has done - she has personally sponsored the next scam PCNs against more victims.

The company had already added £40 to the original £60 fine after I 'lost' my appeal/arbitration, and said another £60 would be added for administration purposes if I didn't pay immediately.

We know, and the sixty quid is not recoverable in law. The £100 is all it was about.

DAKOTA45

Yes, I know... but I don't want to fall out with my sister...especially over £100.
I didn't have much choice, really...

KeithP

DAKOTA45, why have you taken over this thread?

This is adamhd's thread.