Reasons for challenging tickets

Redx

funinabox said:

D_P_Dance said:

Do you think that these charges should be more than council fines.  Does the PPC have a valid contract.  Are their signs OK, their paperwork?    In nearly every case you would be right to challenge.  Look how many get thrown out of court. 

How would I check out the contract? Unfortunately I don’t live in the area so can’t judge on signs and due to circumstances beyond our control at the moment my child isn’t currently able to go and take photos. Paperwork seems okay.
As for what I think about the charges I think £30 a ticket is bad enough but £60 is ridiculous! 

You won't be able to see the contract between Tito and the landowner until just before a hearing

The Beavis case established a figure of £85 as not necessarily unreasonable with £100 being the maximum over the last 10 years , even the new government CoP could make the figure £60 or more , perhaps in line with council Penalties

You may not agree with it , you had your chance recently to comment about it to the BSI and Mhclg departments in the public consultation , but it is what it is , so I doubt that any judge would agree in Court

No CCJ will happen as long as you pay up promptly , in full , if you lost in Court , say within one month

TPS have 6 years to issue a court claim pack from the CCBC in Northampton

I think the deciding factor for Tito would be the number of PCN,s involved, the higher the number the more likely that he would chance his arm in Court

funinabox

Snakes_Belly said:

The college/university may be able to get the claim cancelled.    

I considered that but the advice is that this can be effective if you make a strong argument and we really don’t have one.

Coupon-mad

TPS signs are not the clearest and the company owner, Tito, has not had huge success in the few court claims we've seen from them.  Not a big player and litigation is not a normal, automatic part of their business model but you can't assume.

funinabox

Coupon-mad said:

funinabox said:

Coupon-mad said:

The answer is, it depends if the signs were clear and depends who the PPC sis, was it F1rst Parking LLP?

Thanks for the speedy reply. It is Total Parking Solutions.

Not very litigious and IMHO I would wait and see. You can't just get a CCJ, as long as they have your correct address and you don't miss or ignore a claim form, if one ever materialises.

Thanks. Just for my own clarity, do you mean you would do nothing at all for now or challenge it with the standard wording?

Coupon-mad

Nothing changes from the NEWBIES thread and I don't tell people to ignore!  There is no need to do anything other than what the sticky thread tells you to try, including PLAN A first (which is not 'appeal first').

Snakes_Belly

funinabox said:

Snakes_Belly said:

The college/university may be able to get the claim cancelled.    

I considered that but the advice is that this can be effective if you make a strong argument and we really don’t have one.

It's still worth a try. The inconspicuous signage is an argument. If this went as far as court you will need arguments and this would be a far easier route to get the charge cancelled. 

  

Snakes_Belly

Incidentally I did comment on the consultation of the new CoP that the driving test should include parking on private land, terms and conditions etc.   

Coupon-mad

I agree about that. 

People need to know where they can and can't park, including for goodness sake people,  just pull over on a double yellow (where you are allowed to stop) not driving into a scammers paradise car park.  Why do people not know this?

D_P_Dance

How would I check out the contract?

You obtain it from the PPC or the landowner.  If they start court proceedings demand an unredacted copy

MistyZ

funinabox said:

Snakes_Belly said:

The college/university may be able to get the claim cancelled.    

I considered that but the advice is that this can be effective if you make a strong argument and we really don’t have one.

Was your child attending the college / university? And was the period of parking appropriate to their reason for being there? If so, they could argue that although this was a foolish oversight, they were using the car park as it was intended to be used.  The main reason for employing PPCs is to deter motorists who are not visiting the premises or who may leave the car there much longer than they need to.

Big dose of contrition + earnest plea for cancellation.