Private Parking Charge

SalveForOldSores

Redx said:

POFA is not mandatory and only applies if the land is private , not council owned , plus not where bylaws apply , so only relevant land !! I believe that it should be mandatory , as in your example above , but it's not. The letter is deemed to be delivered 2 days after the date of issue , other than Saturday , Sunday and bank holidays , so better for them to post it before Thursdays

Otherwise , where POFA is not or cannot be used , the parking company has 6 months to obtain keeper details and one month to get the PCN to that person ,CSO possibly in this case , if POFA is not applicable , like on council owned land , airports , railway stations and ports etc

Of course they are playing the system , and have done so for over a decade

The rules are oppressive and wrong , effectively deny justice and as a side dish aid and abet  near criminal  behaviour. As in my situation, I had less than a week to decide what to do i.e. pay the early bird or make some sort of appeal. Here you are, in the absence of a specialist parking solicitor's advice, its taken me 3 days, near continuously, posting and moaning on this site just to get some basic facts that I could understand . An envitably, even that has been drip-feed and as yet unverified.  And, I haven't even been able in that time to determine the status of the land, i.e. private or council owned, which I now understand is fundamental to the route to be taken on appeal. And one of the courts, isn't state-run, effectively its a kangaroo court dreampt-up by the P:arking companies to maximise their returns.

Corruption of process for private gain beyond belief.

SalveForOldSores

If the "Blue-wall" is built on this sort of toss no wonder its so shaky

Redx

Welcome to our world , something we have been fighting for many years , often on a daily basis , nobody said it was simple , it's a totally unregulated industry and not one MP or Lord objected to the new Parking Bill 2019 , many voiced similar opinions to your own !!

It is shameful

Also bear in mind that the vast majority of solicitors and lawyer's do not understand it either , we get many seeking assistance on here , I personally know 2 SRA registered solicitors who know little about it , but I have assisted them in winning cases due to my knowledge built up on here since 2013 !! A lot of the regulars on here have similar anecdotes and coupon mad has personally assisted people who were in court , plus a lot of behind the scenes activity too

Most of us know her name , who she is , what she has done , for free , every parking company and those 2 trade bodies know her reputation and skills

KeithP

SalveForOldSores said:

I haven't even been able in that time to determine the status of the land, i.e. private or council owned, which I now understand is fundamental to the route to be taken on appeal.

No, that's just part of it.
After you mentioned byelaws, it became clear that this land is 'under statutory control'.

As I said earlier, that means that the provisions of POFA cannot be used to transfer any driver's liability to the keeper.


As for the information given here being 'unverified', you only have to read the legislation yourself - I gave you a link to it earlier.

Coupon-mad

As above, no they don’t have to send it within 14 days and nor do they have to prove sending it.  Not great is it? That and the dodgy signs and other predatory tactics is why we come here for years/ a decade, to change things.

And we are succeeding. 

But these issues about postage are pointless rabbit holes compared to the explosive points you should be making and taking to the LGO.

SalveForOldSores

Points above taken. This is the first time I've encountered the "New" system - the last time I got a ticket for parking on private land, over 25 years ago was when teams of boys with cauliflower ears were clamping cars and demanding "Pay now or walk home" release fees.

My perception of the current situation is that it has moved up market, got a lot more intense and technical legal, so on first encounter there's a shed load more of information to absorb. And quite honestly, I'm 10 years retired now and significantly ill from two complaints, so I'm a bit slower, as far as having the ability and opportunity to absorb the info supplied and apply it.

When time is available I have  progressively informing myself by reading the various threads on this forum. And very good they are.

My line from here on out is to learn to avoid the "Risk" situations and make complaint to my MP.

With particular reference to the thread on Hurley and Davies, am I correct in thinking that these car park contractors are allowed to keep all the revenues from parking fees and  PCNs, with none of the revenue being passed back to the landowner ? If so, that's fundamentally wrong. No "Profit Sharing" ? My understanding, gained from 13 years in MOD contracts, was that a lot of contractors providing services to HMG, now had to sign-up to contracts which included profit sharing i.e. when the contractors profits exceeded the government deemed "Fair" rate of return on capital (Which in my era was a generous 6%, doubt if its as high as that now), then contractual provisions came into play that ensured that the contractor paid the excess profit  back to HMG.

Also, do I take it that car park  charging schemes that employ  ANPR systems and no barriers, rely a deeming provision obtained from prior legal authority (Statute or case law), which says that as soon as you enter some private land where a parking contractor is operating you are deemed to have entered into a contract with the Parking Contractor on their terms and conditions ? 'cause you haven't signed a contract or obtained consent from an on-site parking attendant. I'd like to know what that legal authority is ?

Would the exercise of that deeming right be undermined if the full and readable contractors terms and conditions of parking not be available  to view (As in my case). Would the contract be voided ?

Fruitcake

SalveForOldSores said:

Points above taken. This is the first time I've encountered the "New" system - the last time I got a ticket for parking on private land, over 25 years ago was when teams of boys with cauliflower ears were clamping cars and demanding "Pay now or walk home" release fees.

My perception of the current situation is that it has moved up market, got a lot more intense and technical legal, so on first encounter there's a shed load more of information to absorb. And quite honestly, I'm 10 years retired now and significantly ill from two complaints, so I'm a bit slower, as far as having the ability and opportunity to absorb the info supplied and apply it.

When time is available I have  progressively informing myself by reading the various threads on this forum. And very good they are.

My line from here on out is to learn to avoid the "Risk" situations and make complaint to my MP.

With particular reference to the thread on Hurley and Davies, am I correct in thinking that these car park contractors are allowed to keep all the revenues from parking fees and  PCNs, with none of the revenue being passed back to the landowner ? If so, that's fundamentally wrong. No "Profit Sharing" ? My understanding, gained from 13 years in MOD contracts, was that a lot of contractors providing services to HMG, now had to sign-up to contracts which included profit sharing i.e. when the contractors profits exceeded the government deemed "Fair" rate of return on capital (Which in my era was a generous 6%, doubt if its as high as that now), then contractual provisions came into play that ensured that the contractor paid the excess profit  back to HMG.

Also, do I take it that car park  charging schemes that employ  ANPR systems and no barriers, rely a deeming provision obtained from prior legal authority (Statute or case law), which says that as soon as you enter some private land you are deemed to have entered into a contract with the Parking Contractor on their terms and conditions ? 'cause you haven't signed a contract and obtained consent from an on-site parking official. I'd like to know what that legal authority is ?

Would the exercise of that deeming right be undermined if the full and readable contractors terms and conditions of parking not be available  to view (As in my case). Would the contract be voided ?

The UK Government prohibits the use of ANPR by councils and local authorities because they are deemed to be unfit for purpose.

The private parking industry is unregulated, so there are no statute or case laws prohibiting the use of ANPR by private companies. They can make up their own rules and start timing a vehicle from the moment it enters a site to the moment it leaves, irrespective of when, or even if, said vehicle parks.

The parking industry is desperately trying to persuade the government to allow the use of ANPR to continue, and even tried pressing the government to allow ANPR to be used in council car parks. Thankfully, the latter has so far failed, else it would immediately open the gates to legitimise the use of ANPR on private land.

ANPR records time on site, not time parked.
It cannot detect misuse of parking bays such as parking over a line, in a restricted area, blocking a fire exit, or misuse of disabled bays. It is cheap and easy to operate, and has deliberate flaws built in that could easily be rectified with a line of computer code. For example, it should not be possible for a motorist to enter a VRM on a keypad if it doesn't match the VRM captured by ANPR. Rectifying this would cost pence, but would chop off a huge chunk of the PPC's profits, so they won't do it.

As for a motorist forming a contract, this is provided by signage on site. The signs will usually say something like, "If you break the rules, you agree to pay £100.
By parking here you agree to these Ts and Cs."

Coupon-mad

Yes they usually keep all the money and sometimes even pay the landowner, protection racket stylee, for the right to ‘protect’ their land and fine their customers. Retailers and landowners alike are deluded if they think the ‘service’ is really free to them. 

I tend to think it’s time we advised people to start suing the landowners as principal, for the actions of their parking agents. That could prove useful to force retailers to realise what they are doing to their patrons. And I reckon a fair few would fail to defend and would wake up and smell the coffee when the successful Consumer claimants got default CCJs against the landowners/retailers and then sent in the bailiffs. 

Re your second question there is no enabling legislation needed, this is simply something that contract law allows, cemented by the Supreme Court in 2015 when they issued an anti-consumer judgment in ParkingEye v Beavis. 

And REALLY IMPORTANT PLEASE: 

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/78411172/#Comment_78411172

Please, please come back every week to check and make sure your voice - AND YOUR FRIENDS’ AND RELATIVES’ VOICES TOO -  is/are not missed from this final opportunity to take part in the Government Consultation, coming very soon!

SalveForOldSores

We were taught for a contract to exist there had to be:-

1.An intention to create legal relations.
2. An invitation to treat.
3. An Offer
4. Unqualified acceptance
5 Consideration

Its possible to understand points 1-3 being executed by implication by the act of driving into the car park and parking-up.
But how is point 4, unqualified acceptance,  ascertained ?
Hence as one previous poster has said, surely a notice placed in one of the car's windows or on the roof of the car, so that ANPR can capture it,  stating that you only accept on a qualified basis and you you state the qualification, e.g. that the offer is accepted on the basis that quantum meruit applies to all charges, then the Parking Control Company would have to respond else the formation of a contract would be defeated ? 

On another point, the British Vehicle Rental and Leasing Associations guide to Parking Offences and Charges, revised May 2017,  (Inserted Below, bottom of page 11 ) states that only British Parking Association members are accredited to receive vehicle details from DVLA. Is this still the case, 'cause, in my case District Enforcement Ltd are  currently only International Parking Community accredited ?

This is quite an easy-to-read guide is it already stickied .? .if not I can supply a PDF.

KeithP

That BVRLA document is wrong.

It is nothing more than carelessness by the BVRLA.

There have been two Accredited Trade Associations for several years now. The last two paragraphs on the previous page of that BVRLA document mentions them both.