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@.

Search
  • FIRST POST
    • Nicksy1
    • By Nicksy1 5th Feb 18, 2:42 PM
    • 32Posts
    • 9Thanks
    Nicksy1
    Reasonably unfair?
    • #1
    • 5th Feb 18, 2:42 PM
    Reasonably unfair? 5th Feb 18 at 2:42 PM
    To all those experienced people out there, personally we think the ticketing of my vehicle was unfair, but would a 'reasonable'person think it is unfair...?

    We have no qualms with the parking company Total Parking Solutions, the attendant did their job as instructed, we have a problem with the fairness of the ticket as instructed by the landowner.

    The driver works on an NHS health campus with 2 trusts and a couple of other health companies, in the middle of countryside. The main Trust owns most of the land and charges both staff and patients for parking. The Trust for which the driver works rents some land from them for parking and also charges staff to pay for the car park lease and for repairs/upkeep.

    So about 9 months ago the onsite nursery closed down. It had a couple of permit staff parking bays and a demarcated on-road drop off area. The premises is vacant and actually starting to become dilapidated (the fences used to keep the playground secure are disappearing one-by-one). Since the word got out about the closure non-nursery staff have been parking there every day without recourse.

    Recently the staff car parks for the smaller (renting) Trust are over full with people parking dangerously within car parks and outside of them on double yellows etc. One day the driver came to work and one car park was showing full with obvious spaces inside and the car park without a barrier limit had cars outside of bays. As the driver passed the vacant nursery there were a few empty parking spaces, so they parked there.

    When the driver finished work there was a windscreen ticket for failure to display permit and being parked for at least an hour.

    The ticket cost is >3 months the cost of the staff permit. There are no rightful permit holders, apparently for the 2 weeks before this ticket the staff that usually park there were warned to stop parking else face fine but they didn't email the whole trust to say stop parking there so the driver didn't know that the signs were being enforced otherwise would have gone to see security or tried a patient pay and display. Noone has been put out by the driver parking there.

    What is the concensus, should we ignore, pay or fight. We would be happy to offer the patient pay and display amount!
    Last edited by Nicksy1; 27-03-2018 at 8:38 PM.
Page 3
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 23rd Apr 18, 11:34 PM
    • 59,410 Posts
    • 72,559 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    1. Does your charge represent damages for breach of contract? Answer yes or no. Answer: Yes
    LOL...they fell for it. But will POPLA understand why the Beavis case means this charge is unrecoverable?!

    Is it normal practice for parking firms to reject saying that their signage conforms to the BPA code of practice
    Yes. Template stuff.

    However there have been a couple of NTKs sent out now.
    You only get one NTK per PCN. Does it comply with the POFA para 8 (assuming it followed a windscreen PCN).

    I so wish you had appealed at day 26, there was a good reason to play it that way.
    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.

    • Nicksy1
    • By Nicksy1 24th Apr 18, 8:24 PM
    • 32 Posts
    • 9 Thanks
    Nicksy1
    You only get one NTK per PCN. Does it comply with the POFA para 8 (assuming it followed a windscreen PCN).
    Originally posted by Coupon-mad
    Hi Coupon-mad. The multiple NTKs was referring to myself and several colleagues of the driver. Despite persuasion otherwise one colleague has decided to ignore the letters, stating that another had and nothing has happened yet ....

    The NTK was indeed fully compliant.

    I so wish you had appealed at day 26, there was a good reason to play it that way.
    Originally posted by Coupon-mad
    Yes, with hindsight wish I had done so to, but at the time thought I would chance them not applying to DVLA and didn't want to give them my details if they didn't.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 24th Apr 18, 8:51 PM
    • 59,410 Posts
    • 72,559 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    1. Does your charge represent damages for breach of contract? Answer yes or no. Answer: Yes
    LOL...they fell for it. But will POPLA understand why the Beavis case means this charge is unrecoverable?!
    Do you know what the Judges in Beavis said about damages, and whether PE could recover them?
    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.

    • Nicksy1
    • By Nicksy1 25th Apr 18, 7:58 PM
    • 32 Posts
    • 9 Thanks
    Nicksy1
    Do you know what the Judges in Beavis said about damages, and whether PE could recover them?
    Originally posted by Coupon-mad
    Hi Coupon-mad. I'm not sure. I thought I had read that there had been rulings that anything up to ~£100 was reasonable and normal practice for 'breach of contract' and that it didn't matter whether this was a genuine pre-estimate of loss, but this was back in Jan when preparing to fight this thing...
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 25th Apr 18, 8:00 PM
    • 59,410 Posts
    • 72,559 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Search the Supreme Court decision for the word 'damages'. The thing that PE could not recover...
    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.

    • Nicksy1
    • By Nicksy1 7th May 18, 12:57 PM
    • 32 Posts
    • 9 Thanks
    Nicksy1
    OMG: From the start I had believed the driver was ticketed for parking in a permit holders only bay without displaying a valid permit, as this is what had been presented on the parking charge notice. “recorded by a Parking Attendant as having breached the below site terms and conditions: Parked in a permit holders only parking area.”

    However re-reading the terms and conditions on the sign it says “Nursery Parking Only, Private Property. [then there is a Blank yellow box bordered with red??? followed by] By failing to comply with the above terms of use you agree to pay a Parking Charge Notice of £70”

    I don’t see any terms and conditions? WTF????

    http://i66.tinypic.com/8wax5w.jpg
    • Nicksy1
    • By Nicksy1 7th May 18, 1:20 PM
    • 32 Posts
    • 9 Thanks
    Nicksy1
    Urgh can't edit the above post from phone, forgotten password link not working so can't access from computer....

    Does the lack of terms mean there is "no breach of contract" as nothing to breach?
    Or does it mean pcn issued incorrectly?
    Should I try writing back to TPS even though they said end of internal appeal to try to get them to cancel as well as sending appeal to popla based on this?
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 7th May 18, 4:50 PM
    • 59,410 Posts
    • 72,559 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Does the lack of terms mean there is "no breach of contract"
    Yes, but that sign is no different than pretty much all the PPC scams we fight. Unreadable terms, etc. No contract. It's one of the usual POPLA arguments.

    Template POPLA appeal points are in the NEWBIES thread, right there waiting for you to use them, including 'unclear signs' (a long & detailed template).

    Should I try writing back to TPS even though they said end of internal appeal to try to get them to cancel
    No, why on earth would anyone waste time on that, when it's POPLA time?

    TPS aren't going to say ''ooh sorry, we see what you are saying, our signs are crap''!

    PPC signs are often deliberately obscure and sparse, with hidden terms. It suits their ilk, it's how they catch people out. It's sadly normal for this scam industry.
    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.

    • Nicksy1
    • By Nicksy1 7th May 18, 10:43 PM
    • 32 Posts
    • 9 Thanks
    Nicksy1
    POPLA outline of points for draft
    Key points I think should be included/can win at POPLA? Paragraphs numbered for ease of reply.
    1. Did the parking company have authority to issue tickets on the land in question? I have requested evidence of TPS’s authority at the time of the alleged “offence” but TPS has refused to provide me with it.
    2. Are first time offenders to be issued with a parking charge notice, or only repeat offenders? (can heresay be used) after getting the pcn I have heard that repeat offenders were given a warning on the windscreen about charges if they continued to park there before this ticket was issued.

    3. Inadequate signage: BPA code of practice regarding signage: 18.2 Entrances signs must be in place at entrance to parking area, unless the car park is very small, there is no clearly defined entrance or where general parking is not permitted. This is a one-way street with a ~6-car on street drop-off bay along the right edge of road with a terms and conditions sign at start, middle and end of bay, and opposite, off the left side of the road are 6 marked bays perpendicular to the road with only a single sign in the middle. Does this sound like a scenario where entrance signs are/are not necessary?
    4. Further to this point the Government’s guidance for hospital parking is to have a sign at the entrance to all parking areas …
    5. 18.9 So that disabled motorists can decide whether they want to use the site, there must be at least one sign containing the terms and conditions for parking that can be viewed without needing to leave the vehicle. Ideally this sign must be close to any parking bays set aside for disabled motorists. This is NOT the case. The terms and conditions of the single sign CANNOT be read from any vehicle.
    6. Signage is illegible and does not conform to the Beavis case. The penalty charge notice for breach of terms is in small print. The print was so small that TPS were unable to provide a legible photograph of the sign in question as provided by their Parking Attendant.
    7. 5. The following reason was given for the issue of the pcn: “recorded by a Parking Attendant as having breached the below site terms and conditions: Parked in a permit holders only parking area.” However the signage does not state that the area is for permit holders only. Perhaps the print is so small that the Parking Attendant could not read it and therefore incorrectly issued this ticket!
    8. Furthermore the signage states that a pcn will be issued for “failing to comply with the above terms”, however there are no parking terms apparent on the sign.
    9. List of items breaching the Consumer Contract Regulations 2013 and private parking e.g. https://www.parkingcowboys.co.uk/consumer-contract-regulations-2013/
    10. Planning permission for signage – will check tomorrow – website not working.
    11. I don’t think “forbidding signage” applies here given that it the sign is sparse and does not actually say that cannot park there.
    12. Extra points that had not been adhered to from the BPA hospital charter and government guidelines that I wrote when creating my first appeal.

    13. No breach of contract – the car park is for ‘Nursery Parking Only - private [hospital] property’ but the nursery is closed down so therefore the signage is out-of-date and there are no legitimate persons who can park there who may have been displaced by the driver parking there?

    14. No legitimate interest in enforcing a charge: there were no legitimate business users that could have been prevented from parking in this car-park by the vehicle having been present, therefore there is no legitimate interest in controlling parking at this site. To provide further evidence of this the landowner has cordoned-off this car park to prevent permit holders parking there and receiving charges, whilst the renting trust is allowing permit holders to park in contravention of the terms and conditions INSIDE the barriered car parks whilst 40 new spaces are created for the permit holders. This suggests the landowner does not wish to enforce the parking charge notice.

    15. True pre-estimate of loss (So I believe after Beavis that the true pre-estimate of loss is now viewed in terms of whether the charge is extravagant and unconscionable: in most cases where not paying/overstaying a free period will result in loss of revenue to the landowner/car park operator/nearby shops by not allowing other customers the chance to park the ruling goes against the driver as the charge is a deterrent to loss of revenue.) In this situation I believe the charge is to deter cars parking without legitimate business therefore displacing a rightful person from their allocated space, and given that the premises is defunct it may be reasonable that this is extended to deterring persons from trying to avoid using a barrier-controlled car-park (e.g. either staff avoiding paying for swipe-access or visitors avoiding paying). In this instance the driver was a frequent user that had paid for a permit that allowed access to 4 car parks, all of which were full (they stop allowing entry when full) and was not allowed to park in the pay-per-visit car parks due to displacing visitors and resulting in a loss of revenue for the hospital. As the driver had no available options for parking at this site (and it’s in the middle of countryside so cannot park nearby and walk) they chose to park outside the disused premises as they had seen other cars with the same permit do for the previous months. Given the subsequent actions of the 2 trusts (above) would this be a case where the charge is considered extravagant and unconscionable?
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 7th May 18, 11:02 PM
    • 59,410 Posts
    • 72,559 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    #2 has no legs, don't bother with it, a PCN was issued. End of!

    #10 planning permission has no legs at POPLA, so save yourself wasting time!

    #1 and #3 and #6 (which basically repeats #3 and needs amalgamating) are already covered by using the usual POPLA templates in post #3 of the NEWBIES thread. No need to write your own wording except to explain any additional signage photos you are adding.

    Does this sound like a scenario where entrance signs are/are not necessary?
    No. Always allege they ARE required. Let POPLA decide based on the evidence.

    #5 is only relevant if you are saying a disabled person was in the car/a disabled bay was used.

    #7 and #8 are good, specific additions to the usual templates and maybe should be amalgamated to become your first point, so POPLA read that first.

    Re #9, don't even bother to even look at the ParkingCowboys website, it's unhelpful IMHO. No links are given to that website here, for good reasons. The Consumer Contract Regulations 2013 mean nothing to POPLA.

    #13 & #14 are good as a stand alone, amalgamated point near the start, because the Nursery has closed down, there can be no 'legitimate interest' (as there was in Beavis) to support and prop up an otherwise punitive charge. Penalty rule therefore remains engaged, unlike in Beavis.

    pre-estimate of loss
    Don't even go there with that phrase. Do use words like:
    extravagant and unconscionable
    Also, have a point saying to POPLA that in your first appeal you asked:
    Does your charge represent damages for breach of contract? Answer yes or no.
    This operator answered: 'Yes' in the rejection letter, which is the exact basis for a charge that cannot be claimed by a private parking firm (quote the Supreme Court decision on 'damages' where they said PE could not seek damages because they were not in possession). As such, the PCN - deemed by TPS to represent 'damages' cannot have been properly given.

    As you had a windscreen PCN at first, remind us when the NTK arrived, if any?
    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.

    • Nicksy1
    • By Nicksy1 8th May 18, 7:51 AM
    • 32 Posts
    • 9 Thanks
    Nicksy1
    Thanks coupon_mad. Will get photos today from drivers approach to car park and start writing tonight.

    Windscreen ticket was 24 Jan. Ntk issued 6 March, arrived 13th i think. All above board, except the ntk didn't specify the period of stay like the windscreen did.... Although I think it is mute given they are claiming it was a permit car park
    • Nicksy1
    • By Nicksy1 8th May 18, 7:04 PM
    • 32 Posts
    • 9 Thanks
    Nicksy1
    Re #9, don't even bother to even look at the ParkingCowboys website, it's unhelpful IMHO. No links are given to that website here, for good reasons. The Consumer Contract Regulations 2013 mean nothing to POPLA.
    Originally posted by Coupon-mad
    Hi I realise what you are saying here as POPLA usually reject this point where a payment has been made for parking, however, the BPA CoP Jan2018 states "Important: you may have to give other information on signs and notices under companies and consumer protection law and other legislation." so it might be worth including anyway?
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 8th May 18, 7:15 PM
    • 59,410 Posts
    • 72,559 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    No, we've tried it before and it doesn't have legs.

    The ParkingCowboys website has too much old info, and some diabolical links that this forums strongly advises, no-one should follow.
    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.

    • Nicksy1
    • By Nicksy1 8th May 18, 10:29 PM
    • 32 Posts
    • 9 Thanks
    Nicksy1
    In the template for inadequate signage the onus is put onto the parking company to prove the legibility of the signs from a drivers Point of view, however I have taken such photos myself, so should I rewrite this paragraph and add them as evidence AGAINST the legibility of these signs.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 8th May 18, 10:34 PM
    • 59,410 Posts
    • 72,559 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Yes, by all means write your own, like this person did (albeit we don't suggest you only go with signage as a single appeal point but this shows what that point can look like when personally illustrated with good, damning photos):

    https://www.dropbox.com/s/9wccq5zonz4whcp/redacted.pdf?dl=0

    And remove the template link to the eBay 'signs table' as I've been told it's now a dead link.
    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.

    • Nicksy1
    • By Nicksy1 12th Jun 18, 9:28 PM
    • 32 Posts
    • 9 Thanks
    Nicksy1
    Would appreciate advice ASAP, missed popla deadline
    Hi everyone, I've apparently missed an email from POPLA on 30th May telling me I have 7 days to respond to operator's comments. Will I've missed this... !!!128547;

    I logged in and i can't see everything the operator wrote, some if which is plain BS:

    They say signage clearly says permits must be displayed and that my car didn't display one. In my appeal I sent clear photo of sign not saying anything about permits being required to park.

    They admit that business is closed but say hospital want to retain the spaces for this building (by the way signage has now been changed to staff parking only, but still nothing about permits). They also that pcn on private land to deter beach is contact is commercially justified by Beavis. But surely this can't be commercially justified as per Beavis as there is nothing to protect eg spaces for legitimate business users, or am I wrong there? They state they also included the contract.

    Anyway what do I do now? Last time I logged into Popla there was nothing from operator, and I few days ago I checked email as had been a month since I submitted, but seems I missed the email in amongst all the junk from Popla on 30th.

    Popla also state that if I cannot see everything contact them ASAP, so do I just email them now (ie ASAP after seeing it).

    HELP !!!128549;
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 12th Jun 18, 11:13 PM
    • 59,410 Posts
    • 72,559 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Just put some comments in about what their evidence has missed. e.g. if you had the standard template for 'no landowner authority' have they supplied the landowner contract, is it in date, or what.

    Don't tell us, tell POPLA, and by email if the Portal is closed.

    In the time it took you to reply to us here and lose yet another day, you could have done that tonight on the POPLA portal or by email if the Portal window is closed.
    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.

    • Nicksy1
    • By Nicksy1 18th Jun 18, 1:47 PM
    • 32 Posts
    • 9 Thanks
    Nicksy1
    My email apparently got attached to the file, and it seems just in time...
    My appeal has been ruled successful, but from what I can see not based upon any of my appeal points or evidence submitted by me. Seems they overruled the operator based on a technicality that the operator didn't provide a specific piece of evidence to POPLA!
    • Nicksy1
    • By Nicksy1 18th Jun 18, 1:50 PM
    • 32 Posts
    • 9 Thanks
    Nicksy1
    Thank you Coupon-mad for all your help with this appeal. (oh and yes I had found that the ebay sign table was dead).
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 18th Jun 18, 2:00 PM
    • 18,341 Posts
    • 29,024 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    Well done on your win. Can you copy the POPLA transcript into the POPLA Decisions sticky with a link back to this thread. Might help others who will tread a similar path in the weeks and months to come.
    We cannot provide you with a silver bullet to get you out of this. You have to be in for the long run, and need to involve yourself in research and work for you to get rid of this. It is not simple. We will help, but can't do it for you.

    Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day; show him how to catch fish, and you feed him for a lifetime.
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

58Posts Today

2,117Users online

Martin's Twitter
  • RT @bbcthehour: "Mental health and debt is a marriage made in hell" @MartinSLewis told the Senedd when people are more vulnerable they're m?

  • RT @justindeaville: @MartinSLewis I looked it up when we last went. It's ball speed. And it's about O.3 seconds to cross the court. @Martin?

  • Amazing how empty the #Wimbledon court is for the mixed doubles even though there's a Brit playing. The bars outside are rammed though

  • Follow Martin