IMPORTANT REMINDER: Please make sure your posts do not contain any personally identifiable information. If you are uploading images, please take extra care that you have redacted all personal information.
Energy Price Cap announcement: Watch Martin Lewis explain what it means for your electricity and gas bills this winter
CASE WON Student Accommodation with free parking
Latest MSE News and Guides
Replies
You actually don't want to give them a chance to add to their case even if you think it's nonsense.
You may be by the judge asked how many tickets were issued after a) the signs went up and b) the warden informed about the changes in parking management.
If b was before a, there may not have been a contract (no terms) but once the signs went up there may have been. But only a judge will decide.
- All land is owned. If you are not on yours, you are on someone else's
- When on someone else's be it a road, a pavement, a right of way or a property there are rules. Don't assume there are none.
- "Free parking" doesn't mean free of rules. Check the rules and if you don't like them, go elsewhere
- All land is owned. If you are not on yours, you are on someone else's and their rules apply.
Just visiting - back in 2025I don't understand the relevance of your "balance of probabilities" point to the possible answer. The sign (alleged contract) either had a secondary obligation or it did not. To the Claimant, "Where is that? point to it, read it out to me and then explain why you, the Claimant, have an interest in it". If it doesn't have a secondary obligation then what is the primary obligation? and what is being offered in return? and why do you, the Claimant, have an interest in that?
What I'm driving at is they have no contractual rights, there is no contract.
and for those of you going !!!!!!?
The primary obligation in Beavis was to leave within 2 hours
The secondary obligation was to pay £85 if you did not
The legitimate interest in this charge being the encouragment of parking turnover for the benefit of the retail outlets and
the £85 charge was reasonable to cover the cost of operating the scheme and return a profit.
7 Law Lords decided the penalty rule was in play but the £85 charge, in these circumstances (retail car park) was not a penalty when the Claimant had a reasonable legitimate interest in the secondary obligation.
My question is what legitimate interest does the claimant have in charging tenants who park in breach of their made up terms and conditions? What benefit flows to the landowner which justifies the Claimant doing so? Money flowing to the Claimant is not in itself a legitimate interest if that is the only benefit. The only party benefiting here is the rogure PPC.
BBC WatchDog “if you are struggling with an unfair parking charge do get in touch”
Mrs Mouse has volunteered to stand in for them
BBC WatchDog “if you are struggling with an unfair parking charge do get in touch”
So when does a variation of the contract (request to use a permit) become a breach of contract they are alleging? Usually when the signs go up. Or when there is a request from someone with the landowner's authority.
Was the request to use a permit "unreasonable" given there is a legitimate need to identify those with the benefit of free parking - the secondary obligation. In addition, has the variation to the contract (use of permit) been agreed and accepted as "reasonable" or is the driver refusing, quoting the AST, and collecting further one?
By all means press on with the idea that the AST is fixed in tablets of stone or alternatively see what they claim in their WS and see which of their claims might have some basis.
- All land is owned. If you are not on yours, you are on someone else's
- When on someone else's be it a road, a pavement, a right of way or a property there are rules. Don't assume there are none.
- "Free parking" doesn't mean free of rules. Check the rules and if you don't like them, go elsewhere
- All land is owned. If you are not on yours, you are on someone else's and their rules apply.
Just visiting - back in 2025BBC WatchDog “if you are struggling with an unfair parking charge do get in touch”
Landowner permission is an absolute must so best to check before one is produced at the hearing.
- All land is owned. If you are not on yours, you are on someone else's
- When on someone else's be it a road, a pavement, a right of way or a property there are rules. Don't assume there are none.
- "Free parking" doesn't mean free of rules. Check the rules and if you don't like them, go elsewhere
- All land is owned. If you are not on yours, you are on someone else's and their rules apply.
Just visiting - back in 2025They can cross examine you but because they are not a witness you cannot ask questions of them.
You address the Judge and only the Judge. Unless the actual witness or employee of the PPC turn up.
CLICK at the top of this/any page where it says:
Forum Home»Motoring»Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD
47. My AST identifies Bxxxxx Ltd as the landlord. (Exhibit 2)
48. The 31 August 2021 accounts filed at Companies House for Bxxxxx Limited (058XXXX) disclose investment properties held as assets. The 31 August 2021 accounts filed at Companies House for CSL (073XXXX) disclose that no freehold property is held by that company.
49. CSL do not own this or any other property or car parks. No evidence is given that they have any authority from the landlord over the land. It follows that they have no standing to grant any rights to any other third parties over the land.
63. I have identified the owner as Bxxxxx Limited at paragraph 46 above (Exhibit 13).
64. CSL were not an occupier of any part of the residential property which was let to students only. Accordingly CSL, being neither the owner nor an occupier, could not give authority to regulate parking.
65. As a tenant I was an occupier of the land and the Claimant did not have any authority from me to regulate parking.
66. The Claimant has not provided a copy of any Land Owner Agreement (as Ordered by District Judge Moore on 11 August 2022) giving authority to regulate parking on the land in question.
67. Neither have they provided any evidence that CSL is authorised by the Land Owner. Without this there is no link between PPS and the actual owner of the property with whom I had a contract.
BBC WatchDog “if you are struggling with an unfair parking charge do get in touch”
So if they can prove or convince the judge they have authority to be there (though para #99 of Beavis suggests that might not be necessary) what other defence is there?
- All land is owned. If you are not on yours, you are on someone else's
- When on someone else's be it a road, a pavement, a right of way or a property there are rules. Don't assume there are none.
- "Free parking" doesn't mean free of rules. Check the rules and if you don't like them, go elsewhere
- All land is owned. If you are not on yours, you are on someone else's and their rules apply.
Just visiting - back in 2025BBC WatchDog “if you are struggling with an unfair parking charge do get in touch”