Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@.

    • madamebonnie
    • By madamebonnie 17th Mar 17, 4:05 PM
    • 1Posts
    • 1Thanks
    Landowner proof
    • #1
    • 17th Mar 17, 4:05 PM
    Landowner proof 17th Mar 17 at 4:05 PM

    I received a parking charge notice for parking on a pavement that is apparently private land. Was in a rush for work so parked on different street than usual...Issued by CPMS manchester (IPC registered). Other than grounds of appeal which I've set out in brief below everything else seems to be legit:

    -Need to see evidence of written authority from landowner, they said their clients details are confidential.
    -No evidence sent with initial Notice to Keeper (provided now I pointed this fact out)
    -Genuine pre-estimation of loss, they are quoting "We do not have to justify our charge of 100,the Supreme Court 'Beavis v parking eye' 2015 made it clear the charge was reasonable." My argument is there are no actual businesses within that postcode so no commercial loss made. It's not even permit only so even the residents can't park there.

    They said next step to to take me to court and I have two questions:
    1. If the court finds it in their favour and I have to pay the charge, is the 100 all? If so it's worth sitting it out to see if it reaches this stage, I would be less keen if I get there and have to pay more!
    2. Presumably if they have no evidence for my first point of appeal it will rule in my favour otherwise they could stick signs and fines anywhere! On the other hand, if they have it will them bringing this evidence to court be enough?

    Thanks! Have tried to read through the forum as much as possible but can't find claims similar to mine.
Page 1
    • Fruitcake
    • By Fruitcake 17th Mar 17, 4:22 PM
    • 36,567 Posts
    • 82,829 Thanks
    • #2
    • 17th Mar 17, 4:22 PM
    • #2
    • 17th Mar 17, 4:22 PM
    It looks like you have already appealed as driver (not a good idea) and lost. Please confirm whether they know who the driver was. If they don't know, don't tell them, or us, or anyone else.

    There is no point in trying a second stage (IAS) appeal so you sit it out now unless you get real court papers.

    If you lose you would pay no more than about 175.

    The experts here will help if it does go to court. Come back if that happens. MSE has a very good track record of winning at court provided you follow the advice. It is however a lottery and we have seen some strange decisions from some judges.

    Landowner contract would have to be shown in court, but you have no right to see it at appeal stage. No contract with the landowner, or no standing to issue charges in their own name is usually a winning pint.
    Not a GPEOL is about 18 months out of date and no longer of any use except in very specific situations since the Beavis case was lost in the Supreme court in 2015.

    Non-POFA 2012 compliant NTK is normally a winner as well if the driver's identity isn't known.
    Last edited by Fruitcake; 17-03-2017 at 4:26 PM.
    I married my cousin. I had to...
    I don't have a sister.

    All my screwdrivers are cordless.
    "You're Safety Is My Primary Concern Dear" - Laks
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 17th Mar 17, 5:06 PM
    • 56,325 Posts
    • 69,936 Thanks
    • #3
    • 17th Mar 17, 5:06 PM
    • #3
    • 17th Mar 17, 5:06 PM
    My argument is there are no actual businesses within that postcode so no commercial loss made.
    Your argument is really NOT that.

    That's a hopeless, losing argument, not good, went out with the ParkingEye v Beavis case in 2015, as fruitcake rightly says. Very easy for any parking company to rebut.

    But I seem to recall this is a small firm who used to sometimes 'sell' their debts to MIL and are not known to litigate in their own name. I think IamEmanresu and HO87 know more about this firm. Maybe they will comment later.
    Last edited by Coupon-mad; 17-03-2017 at 5:17 PM.
    PRIVATE PCN? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT TWO Clicks needed for advice:
    Top of the page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    Advice to ignore is WRONG, unless in Scotland/NI.

Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

165Posts Today

1,330Users online

Martin's Twitter