Private car park penalties

[Roger Mills]

I often park in a small private car park in Hampshire, which serves a
row of shops - Lidl, Argos, etc. Parking is free for 90 minutes, but you
have to get a (free) ticket from a machine, and display it - with dire
warnings about what will happen if you don't!

The last time I parked there, I got a ticket as usual but before I had
displayed it on the car, my wife discovered that she had lost her
handbag, having probably left it it one of our previous stops. In the
confusion which followed - making phone calls to previous stops to try
to locate the handbag (which, fortunately, we did) - I put the ticket in
my pocket instead of on the car. We carried on doing some shopping and
when we got back to the car - you've guessed it - there was a "Parking
Notice" attached - demanding a fee of £100, or *only* £75 if paid within
7 days.

On the back of the notice, it told you how to appeal - by contacting the
car park management company in Devon. I duly appealed - explaining what
had happened and sending a scan of the Pay & Display ticket to prove
that we *did* have a valid ticket at the time when the notice was issued
and that the only 'transgression' was failing to display it.

My appeal was rejected on the basis that I wasn't displaying a valid
ticket. No allowance whatsoever for the extenuating circumstances.
Bastards! They've extended the deadline for qualifying for the 'reduced'
fee - but that expires on Wednesday (13th).

So what do I do next? Anyone been in this situation? Some internet
research suggests that they're on very dodgy legal grounds for several
reasons:

1. Since it's a private park, this is purely a civil matter. By parking
there, you are deemed to enter into a contract with them. If you break
the terms of the contract, they may be entitled to compensation for
*actual* losses - but NOT to impose grossly disproportionate penalties.
In this case, their losses were NIL!

2. Since you have no option but to accept their terms if you park there,
the terms may be deemed unreasonable under the Unfair Contracts Act.

3. They may actually be committing a criminal offence by using undue
threats and coercion to get you to pay.

So, what do I do? Some of the options would seem to be:

1. Just pay up and put it down to experience

2. Ignore their notices and see what happens. [They already have my name
and address. Will they *actually* get a court order, add costs, seize my
assets, etc. if I don't pay?]

3. Reply to them, pointing out why their demands are unlawful (if they
are) and hoping that they drop it.

4. Pay under duress, and then take out a County Court summons to recover
my money. [Is this feasible?]

Any constructive advice will be greatly appreciated.
--
Cheers,
Roger
____________
Please reply to Newsgroup. Whilst email address is valid, it is seldom
checked.

[Tim Richards]

They issued you with an invoice.

You should have thrown it in the bin and ignored them.

By contacting them (and admitting liability) you've blown it.

Pay up I'm afraid.

[Paul Cummins]

We were about to embark at Dover, when watt....@gmail.com (Roger Mills)
came up to me and whispered:

>
> I often park in a small private car park in Hampshire, which
> serves a row of shops - Lidl, Argos, etc. Parking is free for
> 90 minutes, but you have to get a (free) ticket from a machine,
> and display it - with dire warnings about what will happen if
> you don't!

See
http://timkevan.blogspot.co.uk/2012/03/challenge-to-private-parking-charge
.html

I would reply similarly.

Also, a recent tribunal judgment has determined that the parking company,
unless they own the land, do not have enough standing to enforce the
parking regulations in court. Can;t find a link immediately, let me keep
looking.

Is the company "Creative PArking Solutions" of Barnstaple, Devon? If so,
I would ignore them completely - they are the catfish of Parking
Enforcement.

--
Paul Cummins - Always a NetHead
Wasting Bandwidth since 1981
IF you think this http://bit.ly/u5EP3p is cruel
please sign this http://bit.ly/sKkzEx

---- If it's below this line, I didn't write it ----

[ARWadsworth]

Are you going to park there again? Can the firm in charge of the parking
rules clamp or tow cars?

--
Adam

[Steve Firth]

Roger Mills <watt....@gmail.com> wrote:

> My appeal was rejected on the basis that I wasn't displaying a valid
> ticket.

By your own admission you were not. They probably have photographic
evidence to confirm what you have said and what the parking attendant
noticed.

> No allowance whatsoever for the extenuating circumstances.

There were none that qualify. Your wife wibbling about a handbag is a
distraction, not an extenuating circumstance. We all have things on our
mind and complying with contracts etc is something that we still have to
do even when our minds are otherwise occupied.

Your choices to me are 1) Pay and 2) Don't Pay.

2) Carries a risk that they may pursue you for payment.

The third option that you wish for does not exist. Their demand is not
unlawful, neither does it seem unfair. Your chances of getting a county
court judgement that states that a contract that you entered into by
parking somewhere was unfair seems a loser.

You admit that you are a frequent user of that car park.
You admit that you know the conditions that pertain at that car park.
You confirmed your knowledge by taking a parking ticket.
You failed to display the parking ticket.
You admitted these facts in writing to the car park operator and
helpfully provided a scan to show that you knew that you were required
to take and display a ticket.

I believe that your view that the terms were unfair or that the penalty
is disproportionate are incorrect. An element of your contract is that
if you break the terms of the contract you agree to pay the fees
stipulated. I would hazard a guess that the fees are also on display on
the notice at the car park.

Many post here that they do not pay these fines and face no penalty in
consequence. You may wish to try that option, although if you do there
is a risk that you will, eventually, have to pay the fine at the rate of
£100 and any costs that ae incurred in recovering the £100 from you.

In the words of Mr C. Eastwood, "do you feel lucky?"

[Mel Rowing]

On Jun 10, 3:28 pm, Roger Mills <watt.ty...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I often park in a small private car park in Hampshire, which serves a
> row of shops - Lidl, Argos, etc. Parking is free for 90 minutes, but you
> have to get a (free) ticket from a machine, and display it - with dire
> warnings about what will happen if you don't!
>
> The last time I parked there, I got a ticket as usual but before I had
> displayed it on the car, my wife discovered that she had lost her
> handbag, having probably left it it one of our previous stops. In the
> confusion which followed - making phone calls to previous stops to try
> to locate the handbag (which, fortunately, we did) - I put the ticket in
> my pocket instead of on the car. We carried on doing some shopping and
> when we got back to the car - you've guessed it - there was a "Parking
> Notice" attached - demanding a fee of £100, or *only* £75 if paid within
> 7 days.

I had a similar experience years ago in Carlisle where we had been
"summoned" to look after two grandkids (now grown up) We took them to
the public park to play on the swings etc. The park had a pay n'
display car park. Apparently and certainly inadvertantly what with the
excitement of the kids etc. the pay n' display ticket was forgotten
and the car left without. Nobody noticed when we got back and
eventually we went home. It was some weeks later that a letter marked
Carlisle Council came through the box. It transpired that a parking
warden had affixed a fixed penalty onto the vehicle becuase it was not
displaying a valid ticket - fair enough!

However, neither of us had seen sight of the ticket and sicnce they
are affixed to the winscreen they are very difficult to miss. The net
result was I ended up with a surcharge and a bill for £65 ? or
thereabouts. I can only summise that some idiot had seen my ticket on
the windscreen and had removed it (perhaps to play a joke on
somebody) There can be no other explanation.

Anyway a very contrite Mel rang Carlisle Council to tell his tale of
woe. No good! The lady who dealt with me was polite, understanding,
but firm. I had to pay up!

[Tim Richards]

On Jun 10, 4:33 pm, Mel Rowing <mel.row...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
> Anyway a very contrite Mel rang Carlisle Council to tell his tale of
> woe. No good! The lady who dealt with me was polite, understanding,
> but firm. I had to pay up!

The mistake is contacting them.

They will have obtained the **Registered Keeper's** details from DVLA
(or whatever fancy name they're using these days).

There is no obligation for the Registered Keeper to provide details of
who was driving at the time of the alleged parking "infraction".

Ergo, chuck their invoice (for that's all it is) in the bin.

[Mrcheerful]

"Tim Richards" <t1m.r1...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:7c829f6a-eacb-441b...@v9g2000vbc.googlegroups.com...

the OP has already admitted the 'offence'

[Tim Richards]

On Jun 10, 5:11 pm, "Mrcheerful" <g.odonnel...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
> the OP has already admitted the 'offence'

Indeed, see my earlier post to pay up.

I was replying to Mel.

[Mel Rowing]

Road Traffic Act 1991 Section 66 (2) ( and appropriate attached
annotation) clearly makes the owner of the vehicle responsible for the
payment of parking penalty charges.

"For the purposes of this Part of this Act, a penalty charge is
payable with respect to a vehicle, by the owner of the vehicle"

On the basis of this this "invoice" forms the basis of a civil debt
owed to the parking authority by such a driver.


"

[Tim Richards]

On Sun, 10 Jun 2012 09:50:37 -0700 (PDT), Mel Rowing
<mel.r...@btinternet.com> wrote:

>Road Traffic Act 1991 Section 66 (2)

Why have you quoted something that has no relevance to anything
outside of London?

[NM]

On Jun 10, 5:11 pm, "Mrcheerful" <g.odonnel...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

> "Tim Richards" <t1m.r1ch4...@gmail.com> wrote in message

So what, it's still an invoice, ignore it.

[NM]

On Jun 10, 5:11 pm, "Mrcheerful" <g.odonnel...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

> "Tim Richards" <t1m.r1ch4...@gmail.com> wrote in message

private property, so none of that applies.

[Mel Rowing]

On Jun 10, 6:13 pm, Tim Richards <t1m.r1ch4...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 10 Jun 2012 09:50:37 -0700 (PDT), Mel Rowing
>

> <mel.row...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> >Road Traffic Act 1991 Section 66 (2)
>
> Why have you quoted something that has no relevance to anything
> outside of London?

Click the annotations that extend Section 66 to just about everywhere
in the country (without alteration to the text)

[Graham.]

He also uses the words "owner" and "driver" as if they were
interchangeable.

AFAIK no one employed by the leasing company that owns the car that I
drive has ever driven it.

--
Graham.
%Profound_observation%

[Zapp Brannigan]

"Mel Rowing" <mel.r...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:6ad4d8bf-49ab-40ca...@fr28g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...

> Road Traffic Act 1991 Section 66 (2) ( and appropriate attached
> annotation) clearly makes the owner of the vehicle responsible for the
> payment of parking penalty charges.
>
> "For the purposes of this Part of this Act, a penalty charge is
> payable with respect to a vehicle, by the owner of the vehicle"
>
> On the basis of this this "invoice" forms the basis of a civil debt
> owed to the parking authority by such a driver.

That clause doesn't apply to NCP carparks etc, only for penalty charges
issued by statutory bodies.

But.... the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 has just been enacted, and
includes provision for the introduction of recovery of private parking
charges from Registered Keepers
(www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2012/9/schedule/4/enacted).

[Mel Rowing]

On Jun 10, 7:23 pm, Graham. <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
> On Sun, 10 Jun 2012 18:13:20 +0100, Tim Richards
>

> <t1m.r1ch4...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Sun, 10 Jun 2012 09:50:37 -0700 (PDT), Mel Rowing
> ><mel.row...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
> >>Road Traffic Act 1991 Section 66 (2)
>
> >Why have you quoted something that has no relevance to anything
> >outside of London?
>
> He also uses the words "owner" and "driver" as if they were
> interchangeable.
>
> AFAIK no one employed by the leasing company that owns the car that I
> drive has ever driven it.

Perhaps not but I would bet that the terms of the lease require the
leaser to imdemnify the lessor from all fixed penalty charges
associated with the use of the vehicle. Just like a self drive hire
vehicle agreement requires the hirer to grant the hiring company
similar indemnity.

[Roger Mills]

On 10/06/2012 15:51, Paul Cummins wrote:
> We were about to embark at Dover, when watt....@gmail.com (Roger Mills)
> came up to me and whispered:
>
>>
>> I often park in a small private car park in Hampshire, which
>> serves a row of shops - Lidl, Argos, etc. Parking is free for
>> 90 minutes, but you have to get a (free) ticket from a machine,
>> and display it - with dire warnings about what will happen if
>> you don't!
>
> See
> http://timkevan.blogspot.co.uk/2012/03/challenge-to-private-parking-charge
> .html
>
> I would reply similarly.
>

> Also, a recent tribunal judgement has determined that the parking company,

> unless they own the land, do not have enough standing to enforce the
> parking regulations in court. Can;t find a link immediately, let me keep
> looking.
>

Yes, please!

> Is the company "Creative Parking Solutions" of Barnstaple, Devon? If so,

> I would ignore them completely - they are the catfish of Parking
> Enforcement.
>

No, it's Premier Parking Solutions of Newton Abbot, Registered Company#
06659134. According to dellam.com, they were founded in 2008 with their
registered office in London, moving to Exeter later in 2008 and to
Newton Abbot in 2010. Their directors include Richard Fredrick Cox and
Clifford Hall. They have a fairly impressive website
http://www.pps.uk.com/ whose 'news' section contains lots of claims
about County Court judgements in their favour in which 'frivolous'
defences such as those quoted in the blog which you cite have been
dismissed. I've no idea whether they've made all of that up! Anyone know
a free online way of verifying details of County Court judgements?

The tribunal judgement which you mention would be very useful!

[Roger Mills]

On 10/06/2012 16:29, ARWadsworth wrote:

>
>
> Are you going to park there again?

Probably.

Can the firm in charge of the parking rules clamp or tow cars?
>

Dunno. I'm currently 100 miles away, so I can't check the notices - but
I don't think that this particular mob goes in for clamping.

Having said that, I did park in a motorway service area on the M6 the
other day, and there were notices there about the use of ANPR and a
statement that returning vehicles whose owners had not paid previous
fines would be clamped.

[Andy Burns]

Roger Mills wrote:

> I did park in a motorway service area on the M6 the
> other day, and there were notices there about the use of ANPR and a
> statement that returning vehicles whose owners had not paid previous
> fines would be clamped.

But not after 1st October

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2012/9/section/54/enacted

[Deux]

On Sun, 10 Jun 2012 20:03:50 +0100, Zapp Brannigan wrote:

> But.... the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 has just been enacted, and
> includes provision for the introduction of recovery of private parking
> charges from Registered Keepers

I'm sure if there was a list of reasons that parking companies are never
able to enforce parking charges, that not being able to prove who was
driving would be just one of about a dozen reasons.

Perhaps the law will give the parking companies something new to add to
their letter to scare people into paying but I don't think we'll be
seeing any court action.

[Paul Cummins]

We were about to embark at Dover, when watt....@gmail.com (Roger Mills)
came up to me and whispered:

> The tribunal judgement which you mention would be very useful!

Parking company comes a cropper in court
Back in February 2011, a First Tier Tax Tribunal ruled that Vehicle
Control Services, a private parking company which did not have an
interest in a car park which it was only managing on behalf of a
landowner, was not entitled to sue trespassers as principal.

VCS and their parent company Excel happily continued to issue court
claims while they appealed to the Upper Tribunal.

However, in March 2012, the Upper Tier Tribunal agreed with the First
Tier Tribunal that VCS had insufficient interest in the car parks to
pursue a trespass claim and decided that there was no contract between
the motorists and VCS.

This was confirmed on 16th May 2012 when VCS lost their case (VCS v
Ronald Ibbotson) at Scunthorpe County Court.

The Judge ruled that only the landowner can take the matter to court and
not people acting as their agents (VCS) and that the landowner then has
to prove damages.

VCS have also been ordered by the court to explain why they issued a
claim when they had no lawful contractual assignment of authority to do
so.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/money/news/article-2150607/Landmark-parking-cas
e-means-thousands-overturn-fines.html

> 'news' section contains lots of claims about County Court
> judgements in their favour in which 'frivolous' defences such as
> those quoted in the blog which you cite have been dismissed.

None of the quoted references are County Court claim numbers. the guy
that wrote that post is a Barrister.

[Paul Cummins]

We were about to embark at Dover, when watt....@gmail.com (Roger Mills)
came up to me and whispered:

> returning vehicles whose owners had not paid previous
> fines would be clamped.

If it said "fines" then they are breaking the law.

[Graham.]

Yes I am sure that is right.

I got an email from the leasing company informing me that I had
overstayed in supermarket car-park and the parking firm had sent them
a charge notification which the forwarded to me.
Interestingly their interpretation of data protection is such that
their policy was not to divulge my details to them.

I immediately challenged the charge and furnished the car parking firm
with my details. Not to have done that would have been foolish on my
part, as you said, if the leasing firm had paid it I would have been
contractually bound to reimburse them.

The challenge? Pretty cast iron IMHO

Car park land owned by supermarket (AFAIK)

Was there by invitation of supermarket to carry out work in the store.

I gave the name and contact details of the store manager and those of
an executive at the store's HO who would confirm my story.

Big sign on the dashboard informing any attendants that I was working
on site, however that had no effect in this instance because there was
no attendant, I was snapped going in and out by ANPR cameras.

That was 3 weeks ago, No acknowledgment yet received.


--
Graham.
%Profound_observation%

[Steve O]

On 10/06/2012 15:28, Roger Mills wrote:
> I often park in a small private car park in Hampshire, which serves a
> row of shops - Lidl, Argos, etc. Parking is free for 90 minutes, but you
> have to get a (free) ticket from a machine, and display it - with dire
> warnings about what will happen if you don't!

Yes,they are very good at warnings.
Many people fall for them

>
> The last time I parked there, I got a ticket as usual but before I had
> displayed it on the car, my wife discovered that she had lost her
> handbag, having probably left it it one of our previous stops. In the
> confusion which followed - making phone calls to previous stops to try
> to locate the handbag (which, fortunately, we did) - I put the ticket in
> my pocket instead of on the car.

Fairly understandable, and fairly reasonable, given the circumstances.

> We carried on doing some shopping and
> when we got back to the car - you've guessed it - there was a "Parking
> Notice" attached - demanding a fee of £100, or *only* £75 if paid within
> 7 days.
>

What would you have done if they demanded a fee of £20,000, or advised
you that your car had become forfeit?

> On the back of the notice, it told you how to appeal - by contacting the
> car park management company in Devon.

There is no appeal process.
They do not want to consider your appeal at all- they simply want you to
give them money

>I duly appealed - explaining what
> had happened and sending a scan of the Pay & Display ticket to prove
> that we *did* have a valid ticket at the time when the notice was issued
> and that the only 'transgression' was failing to display it.

That isn't a transgression.
It isn't anything, really- there is no law which states that you must
display a parking ticket in a private car park

>
> My appeal was rejected on the basis that I wasn't displaying a valid
> ticket. No allowance whatsoever for the extenuating circumstances.

I'm not sure why you expected any.
The "appeals" process is simply a way of confirming your details further
so they can make more threats and ask you for more money.

> Bastards! They've extended the deadline for qualifying for the 'reduced'
> fee - but that expires on Wednesday (13th).

Ignore the deadline.
You owe these people nothing.

>
> So what do I do next?

Completely and utterly any further letters you receive from these people.
Eventually, they will give up, go away and will pester someone else for
money instead.

>Anyone been in this situation?

I got a parking notice in a B and Q car park over a year ago.
I put it in a bin.
I read their threatening letters with complete anusement but did not
respond in any way.
Their demands went from £90, right up to £250, then a final desparate
letter more or less saying "OK, if you pay the original £90 we'll forget
about it "
Haven't heard anything since.

Some internet
> research suggests that they're on very dodgy legal grounds for several
> reasons:
>
> 1. Since it's a private park, this is purely a civil matter. By parking
> there, you are deemed to enter into a contract with them. If you break
> the terms of the contract, they may be entitled to compensation for
> *actual* losses - but NOT to impose grossly disproportionate penalties.
> In this case, their losses were NIL!
>
> 2. Since you have no option but to accept their terms if you park there,
> the terms may be deemed unreasonable under the Unfair Contracts Act.
>
> 3. They may actually be committing a criminal offence by using undue
> threats and coercion to get you to pay.

Nice to see you've been doing your homework!

>
> So, what do I do?

1.Completely ignore any further lettes from them and they will go away
2.Retain proof of your original compliance with their "request" (keep
the ticket you misplaced in your pocket.

Some of the options would seem to be:
>
> 1. Just pay up and put it down to experience

While you're at it, there's a nice man from Nigeria who wants to use
your bank account.

>
> 2. Ignore their notices and see what happens. [They already have my name
> and address. Will they *actually* get a court order, add costs, seize my
> assets, etc. if I don't pay?]

Once again.
You do not owe them anything.
They have no losses to claim.

>
> 3. Reply to them, pointing out why their demands are unlawful (if they
> are) and hoping that they drop it.
>

Please don't.
You will simply be confirming to them that you are "a live one" and they
will keep pestering you.

> 4. Pay under duress, and then take out a County Court summons to recover
> my money. [Is this feasible?]

Why bother when you don't need to pay them in the first place?

>
> Any constructive advice will be greatly appreciated.

Repeat after me...
These people are crooks.
You do not owe them a single penny.
They will never seek payment from a court because there is no payment
for them to claim, and they do not want to risk losing anyway.
If you respond to them they will pester you more.
Do not get worried by their escalating letters- treat them as amusing
articles then place them in the bin.
Forget about the appeal process- it doesn't exist.
Do not,under any circumstances, send them money.
Do not admit a single thing to them, and do not submit to their request
for details of any driver.
Please be aware that thousands of other motorists in your position
followed the above advice, and haven't heard anything since.

[Steve O]

On 10/06/2012 15:57, Tim Richards wrote:
> On Jun 10, 3:28 pm, Roger Mills<watt.ty...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I often park in a small private car park in Hampshire, which serves a
>> row of shops - Lidl, Argos, etc. Parking is free for 90 minutes, but you
>> have to get a (free) ticket from a machine, and display it - with dire
>> warnings about what will happen if you don't!
>>
>> The last time I parked there, I got a ticket as usual but before I had
>> displayed it on the car, my wife discovered that she had lost her
>> handbag, having probably left it it one of our previous stops. In the
>> confusion which followed - making phone calls to previous stops to try
>> to locate the handbag (which, fortunately, we did) - I put the ticket in
>> my pocket instead of on the car. We carried on doing some shopping and
>> when we got back to the car - you've guessed it - there was a "Parking
>> Notice" attached - demanding a fee of £100, or *only* £75 if paid within
>> 7 days.
>>
>> On the back of the notice, it told you how to appeal - by contacting the
>> car park management company in Devon. I duly appealed - explaining what

>> had happened and sending a scan of the Pay& Display ticket to prove

He still has the option of ignoring them.
In his case, no parking charges were incurred- he simply forgot to put
the free ticket in his car.They can certainly enforce an invoice for
parking charges but they cannot fine him for failing to display a free
parking ticket.

[Lieutenant Scott]

Does this then apply to all parking infringements, such as parking on double yellow lines, in a reserved spot, etc?

--
http://petersparrots.com
http://petersphotos.com

FOR SALE BY OWNER. Complete set of Encyclopedia Britannica , 45 volumes.
Excellent condition, £200 or best offer.
No longer needed, got married, wife knows everything.

[Steve O]

On 10/06/2012 16:18, Steve Firth wrote:
> Roger Mills<watt....@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> My appeal was rejected on the basis that I wasn't displaying a valid
>> ticket.
>
> By your own admission you were not. They probably have photographic
> evidence to confirm what you have said and what the parking attendant
> noticed.
>
>> No allowance whatsoever for the extenuating circumstances.
>
> There were none that qualify. Your wife wibbling about a handbag is a
> distraction, not an extenuating circumstance. We all have things on our
> mind and complying with contracts etc is something that we still have to
> do even when our minds are otherwise occupied.
>
> Your choices to me are 1) Pay and 2) Don't Pay.
>
> 2) Carries a risk that they may pursue you for payment.
>
> The third option that you wish for does not exist. Their demand is not
> unlawful, neither does it seem unfair. Your chances of getting a county
> court judgement that states that a contract that you entered into by
> parking somewhere was unfair seems a loser.
>

He is not under a contract to display a parking ticket.
In his case, he wasn't even incurring parking charges- the first 90
minutes are free.

> You admit that you are a frequent user of that car park.
> You admit that you know the conditions that pertain at that car park.
> You confirmed your knowledge by taking a parking ticket.
> You failed to display the parking ticket.

If they tried to levy a charge on him for failing to display a parking
ticket, they are breaking the law by trying to levy an unlawful penalty.

> You admitted these facts in writing to the car park operator and
> helpfully provided a scan to show that you knew that you were required
> to take and display a ticket.

There is no requirement to take a ticket or display it under any law.
There is only a requirement to pay for parking charges when you have
complicitly entered into a contract to pay.
They aren't asking him for money to cover parking costs- the parking is
free for the first 90 minutes.
They are simply asking him to pay for failing to display a parking ticket.
That is an unlawful fine.

>
> I believe that your view that the terms were unfair or that the penalty
> is disproportionate are incorrect. An element of your contract is that
> if you break the terms of the contract you agree to pay the fees
> stipulated. I would hazard a guess that the fees are also on display on
> the notice at the car park.
>
> Many post here that they do not pay these fines and face no penalty in
> consequence. You may wish to try that option, although if you do there
> is a risk that you will, eventually, have to pay the fine at the rate of
> £100 and any costs that ae incurred in recovering the £100 from you.

Almost non existent

[Norman Wells]

Why on earth not? It gives the parking companies a positive cause of
action against the registered keeper who can be identified and sued if
he doesn't pay up. Denying that the person being sued was not the
driver is therefore no longer an option whereas before it was the best
defence.

[Steve O]

The OP has not been issued with a council parking ticket.
He has been issued with an invoice- in this case, not even for parking
fees but for simply failing to put a piece of paper in his car window.
It is excessive and unlawful.
They can certainly charge you for reasonable parking fees, proportional
to the amount of their loss, but they have no right to impose a levy on
you for failing to do what in other circumstances would amount to a
lawful parking offence, because they have no right to impose a levy for
a parking offence.

[Steve O]

Thee is no offence of failing to display a parking ticket in a private
car park, which is what they are charging him for.

[Steve O]

On 10/06/2012 17:50, Mel Rowing wrote:
> On Jun 10, 4:59 pm, Tim Richards<t1m.r1ch4...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Jun 10, 4:33 pm, Mel Rowing<mel.row...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> Anyway a very contrite Mel rang Carlisle Council to tell his tale of
>>> woe. No good! The lady who dealt with me was polite, understanding,
>>> but firm. I had to pay up!
>>
>> The mistake is contacting them.
>>
>> They will have obtained the **Registered Keeper's** details from DVLA
>> (or whatever fancy name they're using these days).
>>
>> There is no obligation for the Registered Keeper to provide details of
>> who was driving at the time of the alleged parking "infraction".
>>
>> Ergo, chuck their invoice (for that's all it is) in the bin.
>
> Road Traffic Act 1991 Section 66 (2) ( and appropriate attached
> annotation) clearly makes the owner of the vehicle responsible for the
> payment of parking penalty charges.
>
> "For the purposes of this Part of this Act, a penalty charge is
> payable with respect to a vehicle, by the owner of the vehicle"

He hasn't received a penalty charge- he has received a parking notice.
It would be illegal for them to send him a penalty charge, as they have
no right to do so.
At one time, private parking tickets used to contain the words "penalty
charge" which were quickly removed when they realised they were breaking
the law.

>
> On the basis of this this "invoice" forms the basis of a civil debt
> owed to the parking authority by such a driver.
>
>
> "

What "parking authority"?
And what do these circumstances have to do with the Road Traffic Act?

[Deux]

On Sun, 10 Jun 2012 22:24:17 +0100, Norman Wells wrote:

> Deux wrote:
>> On Sun, 10 Jun 2012 20:03:50 +0100, Zapp Brannigan wrote:
>>
>>> But.... the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 has just been enacted,
>>> and includes provision for the introduction of recovery of private
>>> parking charges from Registered Keepers
>>
>> I'm sure if there was a list of reasons that parking companies are
>> never able to enforce parking charges, that not being able to prove who
>> was driving would be just one of about a dozen reasons.
>>
>> Perhaps the law will give the parking companies something new to add to
>> their letter to scare people into paying but I don't think we'll be
>> seeing any court action.
>
> Why on earth not?

The answer is in the first paragraph of the post you replied to.

[Roger Mills]

Thanks - useful. But presumably, if PPS (the mob with whom I'm dealing)
DO have authority from the landowners - whoever they are - to pursue
claims, that defence wouldn't work?

>> 'news' section contains lots of claims about County Court
>> judgements in their favour in which 'frivolous' defences such as
>> those quoted in the blog which you cite have been dismissed.
>
> None of the quoted references are County Court claim numbers. the guy
> that wrote that post is a Barrister.
>

I don't think we're quite understanding each other. The PPS site
contains lists of County Court claims numbers which it claims to have
won. It says it won them because claimants used arguments similar to
those in the Barrister's blog, but the judge ruled them to be invalid.

[Norman Wells]

Steve O wrote:
> The OP has not been issued with a council parking ticket.
> He has been issued with an invoice- in this case, not even for parking
> fees but for simply failing to put a piece of paper in his car window.
> It is excessive and unlawful.
> They can certainly charge you for reasonable parking fees,
> proportional to the amount of their loss, but they have no right to
> impose a levy on you for failing to do what in other circumstances
> would amount to a lawful parking offence, because they have no right
> to impose a levy for a parking offence.

What do you think the words 'and display' mean in the expression 'Pay
and Display' which is the term normally used?

It will be made clear that a condition of the contract to park in the
car park is not only that you pay the necessary fee, but that you also
display the ticket. Not displaying the ticket is a breach of that
contract, in respect of which the parking company can sue.

If you did actually pay the parking fee, that cannot be claimed by the
parking company, but any additional charges stated for failure to
display certainly can be, as can the cost of any legal action
precipitated by the breach of contract resulting from the failure to
display.

[Alex Heney]

On Sun, 10 Jun 2012 08:59:12 -0700 (PDT), Tim Richards
<t1m.r1...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Jun 10, 4:33 pm, Mel Rowing <mel.row...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>
>> Anyway a very contrite Mel rang Carlisle Council to tell his tale of
>> woe. No good! The lady who dealt with me was polite, understanding,
>> but firm. I had to pay up!
>
>The mistake is contacting them.
>
>They will have obtained the **Registered Keeper's** details from DVLA
>(or whatever fancy name they're using these days).
>
>There is no obligation for the Registered Keeper to provide details of
>who was driving at the time of the alleged parking "infraction".
>
>Ergo, chuck their invoice (for that's all it is) in the bin.

Not in the case of a council run car park.

Or in fact any pay and display car park where you fail to "pay and
display".


The grey area is car parks which are free for a certain period, with
large fees for overstays.

--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Want a taste of religion? Bite a minister.
To reply by email, my address is alexDOTheneyATgmailDOTcom

[Norman Wells]

No it isn't, because it's the main loophole that is exploited. And now
it's been closed.

[Zapp Brannigan]

"Alex Heney" <m...@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:8f5at75nncsh92kt5...@4ax.com...

> On Sun, 10 Jun 2012 08:59:12 -0700 (PDT), Tim Richards
> <t1m.r1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Jun 10, 4:33 pm, Mel Rowing <mel.row...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Anyway a very contrite Mel rang Carlisle Council to tell his tale of
>>> woe. No good! The lady who dealt with me was polite, understanding,
>>> but firm. I had to pay up!
>>
>>The mistake is contacting them.
>>
>>They will have obtained the **Registered Keeper's** details from DVLA
>>(or whatever fancy name they're using these days).
>>
>>There is no obligation for the Registered Keeper to provide details of
>>who was driving at the time of the alleged parking "infraction".
>>
>>Ergo, chuck their invoice (for that's all it is) in the bin.
>
> Not in the case of a council run car park.
>
> Or in fact any pay and display car park where you fail to "pay and
> display".

If it's a privately operated car park, it cannot issue PCN's against the
Registered Keeper. Only state bodies can do that.

[Paul Cummins]

We were about to embark at Dover, when watt....@gmail.com (Roger Mills)
came up to me and whispered:

> Thanks - useful. But presumably, if PPS (the mob with whom I'm
> dealing) DO have authority from the landowners - whoever they
> are - to pursue claims, that defence wouldn't work?

The agent can't pursue the landowners rights. The landowner must.

Given that the car park is probably not owned by the shops...

> The PPS site
> contains lists of County Court claims numbers which it claims
> to have won.

And none of them are actually County Claim numbers.

The website can claim anything - doesn't make it true.

[Steve O]

On 10/06/2012 22:17, Lieutenant Scott wrote:
> On Sun, 10 Jun 2012 16:59:12 +0100, Tim Richards
> <t1m.r1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Jun 10, 4:33 pm, Mel Rowing <mel.row...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Anyway a very contrite Mel rang Carlisle Council to tell his tale of
>>> woe. No good! The lady who dealt with me was polite, understanding,
>>> but firm. I had to pay up!
>>
>> The mistake is contacting them.
>>
>> They will have obtained the **Registered Keeper's** details from DVLA
>> (or whatever fancy name they're using these days).
>>
>> There is no obligation for the Registered Keeper to provide details of
>> who was driving at the time of the alleged parking "infraction".
>>
>> Ergo, chuck their invoice (for that's all it is) in the bin.
>
> Does this then apply to all parking infringements, such as parking on
> double yellow lines, in a reserved spot, etc?

They're not legally enforceable in a private car park as they are not
authorised by the Highways Authority.
Remember, they are just charging you for parking fees.
I suppose the only fee they could try to enforce and reclaim is the one
where you are parked across two bays.
I suppose they could effectively say that you are using the service of
two parking bays and are liable to pay for both.

>

[Steve O]

On 10/06/2012 22:48, Norman Wells wrote:
> Steve O wrote:
>> The OP has not been issued with a council parking ticket.
>> He has been issued with an invoice- in this case, not even for parking
>> fees but for simply failing to put a piece of paper in his car window.
>> It is excessive and unlawful.
>> They can certainly charge you for reasonable parking fees,
>> proportional to the amount of their loss, but they have no right to
>> impose a levy on you for failing to do what in other circumstances
>> would amount to a lawful parking offence, because they have no right
>> to impose a levy for a parking offence.
>
> What do you think the words 'and display' mean in the expression 'Pay
> and Display' which is the term normally used?

I think it means that they would like you to display a ticket, as it
makes it easier for them to see who has paid and who hasn't.
While you are legally responsible for paying for your parking fees you
are under no obligation to do anything else, and cannot be imposed with
a "fine" or penalty if you don't.
If you went into a car park which said "Pay and Scratch in Large Letters
On Your Bonnet, "It's OK - I've Paid" then would you comply with that
request , or expect to pay a heavy penalty if you didn't?

Don't confuse the request "Please display your ticket" with the
liability, "Please pay for parking"

>
> It will be made clear that a condition of the contract to park in the
> car park is not only that you pay the necessary fee, but that you also
> display the ticket.

The contract is in relation to payment for parking.
They cannot force you to do anything other than pay for the services you
have received, and it must be proportional to their actual loss.
They have lost nothing by your failure to stick a piece of paper in your
car.

> Not displaying the ticket is a breach of that
> contract, in respect of which the parking company can sue.
>

Yes- but for the amount of revenue lost by them for providing parking
services to you.
Not for anything else.
Are you suggesting that they can impose any terms that they like and
then sue you for it if you don't comply?
What if part of the terms of their "contract" stipulated "To identify
yourself as a paying customer, you must dye your hair bright green
before returning to your car"
Are you suggesting that they could sue (and win) for your failure to do
this?
Remember, a ticket is simply part of the means to identify yourself as
having paid.

Can you imagine being issued with a ticket in a cinema, going in and
watching the movie, losing your ticket and being asked by the cinema
manager to pay a charge of �150 for not displaying your ticket upon exit
or while you were watching the film?
What makes you think that a private parking company is entitled to do
the same?
Of course not- all they can do is sue you for the money you owe them.

> If you did actually pay the parking fee, that cannot be claimed by the
> parking company, but any additional charges stated for failure to
> display certainly can be, as can the cost of any legal action
> precipitated by the breach of contract resulting from the failure to
> display.

What do you think is a reasonable charge for not putting a piece of
paper on your car?
How does that amount to a provided service from a parking company, and
why should they be entitled to ask for money for that service?
>
>

[Mrcheerful]

which is why I put offence in quote marks.

[Norman Wells]

It's all a question of the terms of the contract you have entered into.
If you agree to display the ticket, which you have if that's a term
stated on the information signs, then that's what you have to do. It's
your choice. You don't have to park there if you don't like the
conditions. If you accept them by parking there, you have to comply
with them whatever they are, unless they are in breach of some other
legislation.

If you breach the terms of the contract you have entered into, you are
liable for any loss the other party suffers, which in this case includes
the reasonable legal costs of pursuing you either for the parking
charges you have not paid or for establishing that you have in fact
paid.

[Norman Wells]

Kim Bolton wrote:

> Steve O wrote:
>
>> Repeat after me...
>> These people are crooks.
>> You do not owe them a single penny.
>> They will never seek payment from a court because there is no payment
>> for them to claim, and they do not want to risk losing anyway.
>> If you respond to them they will pester you more.
>> Do not get worried by their escalating letters- treat them as amusing
>> articles then place them in the bin.
>> Forget about the appeal process- it doesn't exist.
>> Do not,under any circumstances, send them money.
>> Do not admit a single thing to them, and do not submit to their
>> request for details of any driver.
>> Please be aware that thousands of other motorists in your position
>> followed the above advice, and haven't heard anything since.
>

> I've been following this thread with some interest, as a main-line
> station I sometimes use has recently converted its free
> stop-for-20-minutes-only drop-off/pick-up car park to a similar scheme
> but with a free ticket for the first 20 minutes then �1:50 after that.
> There's a larger car park separate from this one where longer parking
> periods are available, such as �6:95 a day, but my interest is in the
> smaller one.
>
> if one is under no legal obligation to show a ticket either in the
> windscreen or to a parking attendant, what's the point of getting one
> at all? The parking company can't prove you didn't pay, and so will
> have no demonstrable losses.

What contractual terms did you accept by parking there?

[Richard Bingham]

On 10/06/2012 15:28, Roger Mills wrote:
> I often park in a small private car park in Hampshire, which serves a
> row of shops - Lidl, Argos, etc. Parking is free for 90 minutes, but you
> have to get a (free) ticket from a machine, and display it - with dire
> warnings about what will happen if you don't!
>
> The last time I parked there, I got a ticket as usual but before I had
> displayed it on the car, my wife discovered that she had lost her
> handbag, having probably left it it one of our previous stops.

How is it anyone else fault if your dozy missus leaves things behind?

[Paul Cummins]

We were about to embark at Dover, when h...@unseen.ac.am (Norman Wells)

came up to me and whispered:

> What contractual terms did you accept by parking there?

Contractual terms are irrelevant if you don;t accept the contract.

Merely parking somewhere (without knowing the terms) is not acceptance,
and inertia selling of that type is unlawful.

Moreover, the terms of the contract do not entitle the company to break
the law to try to recover their putative costs.

[Norman Wells]

Kim Bolton wrote:
> Norman Wells wrote:

>> Kim Bolton wrote:
>
>>> if one is under no legal obligation to show a ticket either in the
>>> windscreen or to a parking attendant, what's the point of getting
>>> one at all? The parking company can't prove you didn't pay, and so
>>> will have no demonstrable losses.
>>
>> What contractual terms did you accept by parking there?
>

> Who knows?

Well, you should. If you enter into a contract, it's as well to know
the terms.

> I'm fairly sure the only notice says 'get a ticket for the
> free 20 minutes, or pay and get a ticket for longer periods'.

If it says nothing about displaying it, producing it or giving it up,
then you don't have to do any of those. If it does, then you do. Best
to check.

[Norman Wells]

Paul Cummins wrote:
> We were about to embark at Dover, when h...@unseen.ac.am (Norman Wells)
> came up to me and whispered:
>
>> What contractual terms did you accept by parking there?
>
> Contractual terms are irrelevant if you don;t accept the contract.
>
> Merely parking somewhere (without knowing the terms) is not
> acceptance, and inertia selling of that type is unlawful.

It's a mainline railway station where he clearly knows at least some of
the terms so must have read an information sign. Parking where there is
adequate information about the terms of parking there is acceptance of
the terms and hence the formation of a contract.

> Moreover, the terms of the contract do not entitle the company to
> break the law to try to recover their putative costs.

Is anyone suggesting they are?

[Jethro_uk]

On Sun, 10 Jun 2012 23:23:00 +0100, Paul Cummins wrote:

> The agent can't pursue the landowners rights. The landowner must.

but can't the landowner appoint an agent to pursue his rights ?

[Paul Cummins]

We were about to embark at Dover, when jeth...@hotmailbin.com
(Jethro_uk) came up to me and whispered:

> > The agent can't pursue the landowners rights. The landowner
> > must.
>
> but can't the landowner appoint an agent to pursue his rights ?

Apparently not, unless the agent is a solicitor or had other legal
standing.

[Paul Cummins]

We were about to embark at Dover, when h...@unseen.ac.am (Norman Wells)
came up to me and whispered:

> Parking where there is
> adequate information about the terms of parking there is
> acceptance of the terms and hence the formation of a contract.

that sounds like an Unfair Term to me. You know the contract exists
because you know the contract exists?

> > Moreover, the terms of the contract do not entitle the
> company to
> > break the law to try to recover their putative costs.
>
> Is anyone suggesting they are?

Yes. By claiming to issue a PCN, by claiming that they have won in court
many times and by putting up false claim details that cannot be checked.

[Norman Wells]

Paul Cummins wrote:
> We were about to embark at Dover, when h...@unseen.ac.am (Norman Wells)
> came up to me and whispered:
>
>> Parking where there is
>> adequate information about the terms of parking there is
>> acceptance of the terms and hence the formation of a contract.
>
> that sounds like an Unfair Term to me. You know the contract exists
> because you know the contract exists?

The legal position is that a contract does exist if you decide to park
there knowing the conditions of parking there. It's only the terms that
are set out on the signs you can read.

[Paul Cummins]

We were about to embark at Dover, when h...@unseen.ac.am (Norman Wells)
came up to me and whispered:

> The legal position is that a contract does exist if you decide
> to park there knowing the conditions of parking there.

So therefore I know there's a contract because I should know there's a
contract?

[Norman Wells]

Paul Cummins wrote:
> We were about to embark at Dover, when h...@unseen.ac.am (Norman Wells)
> came up to me and whispered:
>
>> The legal position is that a contract does exist if you decide
>> to park there knowing the conditions of parking there.
>
> So therefore I know there's a contract because I should know there's a
> contract?

No, you know there's a contract because there are terms associated with
your parking there, and because it's the law, and ignorance of it is no
excuse.

[Steve O]

It doesn't matter if they have the consent of the landowner- the
judgement strictly states that only the landowner can sue you- and as
they are not involved in the management of the land and have not lost
anything they probably wouldn't bother.
They landowner would only be interested in getting revenue off the car
parking company- not you.

>
>>> 'news' section contains lots of claims about County Court
>>> judgements in their favour in which 'frivolous' defences such as
>>> those quoted in the blog which you cite have been dismissed.
>>
>> None of the quoted references are County Court claim numbers. the guy
>> that wrote that post is a Barrister.
>>
> I don't think we're quite understanding each other. The PPS site
> contains lists of County Court claims numbers which it claims to have
> won. It says it won them because claimants used arguments similar to
> those in the Barrister's blog, but the judge ruled them to be invalid.

The case that most private parking companies use is the one where the
driver advised them he did not know who was driving the car at the time
it was parked, but then went on to say in a web forum that he did park
there but was looking for ways to get off it.
Those posts were produced in evidence by the parking company and the
judge ruled that he was liable for the charges.
I have seen suggestions that the driver had cooperated with the parking
company in order to secure a succesful judgement, but I couldn't
possibly say whether that was true or not.

[Mel Rowing]

On Jun 10, 10:31 pm, Steve O <nos...@here.thanks> wrote:
> On 10/06/2012 17:50, Mel Rowing wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 10, 4:59 pm, Tim Richards<t1m.r1ch4...@gmail.com>  wrote:

> >> On Jun 10, 4:33 pm, Mel Rowing<mel.row...@btinternet.com>  wrote:
>
> >>> Anyway a very contrite Mel rang Carlisle Council to tell his tale of
> >>> woe. No good! The lady who dealt with me was polite, understanding,
> >>> but firm. I had to pay up!
>
> >> The mistake is contacting them.
>
> >> They will have obtained the **Registered Keeper's** details from DVLA
> >> (or whatever fancy name they're using these days).
>
> >> There is no obligation for the Registered Keeper to provide details of
> >> who was driving at the time of the alleged parking "infraction".
>
> >> Ergo, chuck their invoice (for that's all it is) in the bin.
>

> > Road Traffic Act 1991 Section 66 (2)  ( and  appropriate attached
> > annotation) clearly makes the owner of the vehicle responsible for the
> > payment of  parking penalty charges.
>
> > "For the purposes of this Part of this Act, a penalty charge is
> > payable with respect to a vehicle, by the owner of the vehicle"
>
> He hasn't received a penalty charge- he has received a parking notice.
> It would be illegal for them to send him a penalty charge, as they have
> no right to do so.

He might not have we are talking of the ticket I received fro
illegally parking in a council owned pay n' display facility.

I was given to understand it was Carlisle City Council though it might
have been an imposter I suppose!

[Paul Cummins]

We were about to embark at Dover, when h...@unseen.ac.am (Norman Wells)
came up to me and whispered:

> No, you know there's a contract because there are terms
> associated with your parking there, and because it's the law,
> and ignorance of it is no excuse.

Ignorance of the LAW is no defence. Ignorance of a contract that you
don;t know exists clearly is.

Where is the meeting of minds? Where is the consideration? Where is the
genuine intention to create legal relations?

Without these things, you cannot simply say "there is a contract between
us"

[Steve O]

And they appear to bhe penalising him for failing to put a piece of
paper in his car window rather than for any parking fees incurred.

[Steve O]

Maybe this will help to put things into perspective for the OP.

Imagine that you walked into a cinema, and they gave you a free ticket,
advising you that the first 90 minutes of the movie was free, after that
a charge was payable.
You go in, watch the movie for about half an hour and then leave.
Six weeks later, you get a letter from the manager of the cinema
advising you that you need to pay �100 because you were seen at the
cinema without wearing the ticket on your jacket.
When you protest, advising him that you had the ticket in your pocket,
he tells you that you still have to pay, because the small print on
entry clearly states that you must visibly wear the ticket.
You explain that unfortunately, you either didn't see that or forgot
about it, but he still wants �100, and tells you that it goes up to �150
if you don't pay up within seven days, with further threats of court
action if you don't pay that.
Are you going to pay up or ignore him?

[Steve O]

On 11/06/2012 08:38, Norman Wells wrote:
> Steve O wrote:

>>
>> What do you think is a reasonable charge for not putting a piece of
>> paper on your car?
>> How does that amount to a provided service from a parking company, and
>> why should they be entitled to ask for money for that service?
>
> It's all a question of the terms of the contract you have entered into.
> If you agree to display the ticket, which you have if that's a term
> stated on the information signs, then that's what you have to do.

Okay, so you haven't displayed a ticket.
You've broken the contract.
Now what are they going to do?
Declare the contract void?
As I said, don't confuse the liability for payment with conditional
requests for use of the service.
They can only charge you for the service provided.
And only then can it be a reasonable charge, and it has already been
held that paying �150 for 5 minutes parking is not reasonable.

>It's
> your choice. You don't have to park there if you don't like the
> conditions. If you accept them by parking there, you have to comply with
> them whatever they are, unless they are in breach of some other
> legislation.

Once again, please don't confuse "breaking the conditions of the service
provided" with "failing to pay a fee for parking"
The company cannot fine you for breaching any of their conditions, all
they can do is charge you for parking, and enforce that payment through
a court in some circumstances if you don't pay up and can be proven to
be the debtor.

>
> If you breach the terms of the contract you have entered into, you are
> liable for any loss the other party suffers, which in this case includes
> the reasonable legal costs of pursuing you either for the parking
> charges you have not paid or for establishing that you have in fact paid.

Yes- they can recover their costs for legal charges incurred in pursuing
payment of the parking fee, but they cannot claim to have lost anything
simply because you failed to put a piece of paper in a car window.
In the case of this OP, the parking was free of charge anyway, and he
left before parking charges were incurred.
As for any costs incurred in establishing whether yoiu have paid, how
much isn that supposed to be?
Surely they know immediately if you have paid or not depending on
whether you are displaying a ticket?
How can they claim any cost for establishing that?
>

[Steve O]

On 11/06/2012 09:15, Kim Bolton wrote:
>
> Steve O wrote:
>
>> Repeat after me...
>> These people are crooks.
>> You do not owe them a single penny.
>> They will never seek payment from a court because there is no payment
>> for them to claim, and they do not want to risk losing anyway.
>> If you respond to them they will pester you more.
>> Do not get worried by their escalating letters- treat them as amusing
>> articles then place them in the bin.
>> Forget about the appeal process- it doesn't exist.
>> Do not,under any circumstances, send them money.
>> Do not admit a single thing to them, and do not submit to their request
>> for details of any driver.
>> Please be aware that thousands of other motorists in your position
>> followed the above advice, and haven't heard anything since.
>
> I've been following this thread with some interest, as a main-line
> station I sometimes use has recently converted its free
> stop-for-20-minutes-only drop-off/pick-up car park to a similar scheme
> but with a free ticket for the first 20 minutes then �1:50 after that.
> There's a larger car park separate from this one where longer parking
> periods are available, such as �6:95 a day, but my interest is in the
> smaller one.
>

> if one is under no legal obligation to show a ticket either in the
> windscreen or to a parking attendant, what's the point of getting one
> at all?

Because if you do incur a charge and do not pay, the car parking company
will pursue you for that debt just like any other debtor.
The reason they can do this is because generally, they can identify you
from the car registration number.
I'm wondering whether it is worth registering a car in your name at all-
the fine for not doing so is less than a speeding fine or a private
parking notice- in fact, I have hardly ever heard of anyone being
prosecuted for failing to register a vehicle at all. The police aren't
ususally bothered if your name doesn't match the keeper details as long
as they can establish who you are and whether the vehicle is stolen.
However, with online insurance and VEL applications I suppose that is
getting more and more difficuklt to do.

The parking company can't prove you didn't pay, and so

> have no demonstrable losses.
>
That is probably why they haven't taken a free 30 mins/pay after case to
court yet.
They're probably just happy at letting most people pay up.
It's too expensive for them to go after non payers anyway, so they
normally do little more than send a few silly "official" looking letters.
I got six in total for them last time, ranging from requests from �90
right up to �250 then back down to �90 again.

[Steve O]

The obligation of the parking company under the contract is to provide a
parking service and the obligation of the driver under the contract is
to pay for it where appropriate, and abide by the normal terms and
conditions of that use.
It doesn't matter what the company insist on in relation to how you
display a ticket, whether you display a ticket, or any other ciondition
of use that they dream up.
If you break the conditions of use, they should simply ask you to leave
and pay for your parking charges incurred, not dreaming up some penalty
for one thing or another that you have done or haven't done.

Say for example, you walked into a swimming pool which required payment
on exit for the length of time you had spent in there and you must wear
red shorts while using the facilities, but you either forgot or were not
aware of this.
However, the rules strictly state that red shorts must be worn for the
first 90 minutes.
As you were leaving, and about to pay your swimming fee, would you
expect to be charged �100 for not wearing red shorts?
Of course not, and you would be foolish if you did.
It might be a condition of use of the pool but it is certainly not part
of the contract in which they provide a service and you pay for it.
You would certainly be liable under the contract to pay for the swimming
but they could not impose a �100 fee on you under any circumstances for
that reason.

[Steve O]

Ignorance of the law is not an excuse in a criminal case, but ignorance
of the convoluted and arbitrary conditions of a private parking company
is irrelevant.

[Norman Wells]

Paul Cummins wrote:
> We were about to embark at Dover, when h...@unseen.ac.am (Norman Wells)
> came up to me and whispered:
>
>> No, you know there's a contract because there are terms
>> associated with your parking there, and because it's the law,
>> and ignorance of it is no excuse.
>
> Ignorance of the LAW is no defence.

Which is what I said.

> Ignorance of a contract that you don;t know exists clearly is.

You may not have legal knowledge, but you know that you have to pay for
your parking in a Pay and Display car park. If you park, you accept
that condition, and any others clearly displayed, and a contract is
formed whether you like it, know it, or not.

> Where is the meeting of minds?

Entering a car park, being told that it costs you to park there, and
accepting that by parking in it.

> Where is the consideration?

They provide the parking, you pay.

> Where is
> the genuine intention to create legal relations?

It's inherent when you accept the conditions of parking clearly
displayed where you should see them by parking there.

> Without these things, you cannot simply say "there is a contract
> between us"

All the elements for the formation of a contract exist, including offer
and acceptance.

[Norman Wells]

Steve O wrote:
> On 11/06/2012 08:38, Norman Wells wrote:
>> Steve O wrote:
>>>
>>> What do you think is a reasonable charge for not putting a piece of
>>> paper on your car?
>>> How does that amount to a provided service from a parking company,
>>> and why should they be entitled to ask for money for that service?
>>
>> It's all a question of the terms of the contract you have entered
>> into. If you agree to display the ticket, which you have if that's a
>> term stated on the information signs, then that's what you have to
>> do.
>
> Okay, so you haven't displayed a ticket.
> You've broken the contract.
> Now what are they going to do?
> Declare the contract void?

No, sue you for payment of the parking charge and for any charge set out
for failing to display a valid ticket.

> As I said, don't confuse the liability for payment with conditional
> requests for use of the service.

_All_ the conditions on the sign boards are conditions of the contract
you
enter into. If you don't want to accept them, you park elsewhere. If
you park there regardless, you will be deemed to have accepted those
terms. Including any that say how much you'll have to pay if you don't
display a valid ticket.

> They can only charge you for the service provided.
> And only then can it be a reasonable charge, and it has already been
> held that paying �150 for 5 minutes parking is not reasonable.

They can charge you for whatever is on the signs that you should have
seen, read and understood.

> >It's
>> your choice. You don't have to park there if you don't like the
>> conditions. If you accept them by parking there, you have to comply
>> with them whatever they are, unless they are in breach of some other
>> legislation.
>
> Once again, please don't confuse "breaking the conditions of the
> service provided" with "failing to pay a fee for parking"
> The company cannot fine you for breaching any of their conditions, all
> they can do is charge you for parking, and enforce that payment
> through a court in some circumstances if you don't pay up and can be
> proven to be the debtor.

If you don't display a valid ticket, you will be sued for the parking
fee and any fee for failing to display. If you can prove in your
defence that you had paid the parking fee, that still leaves you being
sued for the fee for failing to display, and liable for the costs of the
action, which you will lose.

>> If you breach the terms of the contract you have entered into, you
>> are liable for any loss the other party suffers, which in this case
>> includes the reasonable legal costs of pursuing you either for the
>> parking charges you have not paid or for establishing that you have
>> in fact paid.
>
> Yes- they can recover their costs for legal charges incurred in
> pursuing payment of the parking fee, but they cannot claim to have
> lost anything simply because you failed to put a piece of paper in a
> car window.

If there's a fee for failure to display, it's a term of the contract and
must be honoured.

> In the case of this OP, the parking was free of charge anyway, and he
> left before parking charges were incurred.

He doesn't actually say that.

[Norman Wells]

Steve O wrote:
> On 11/06/2012 16:57, Norman Wells wrote:
>> Paul Cummins wrote:
>>> We were about to embark at Dover, when h...@unseen.ac.am (Norman
>>> Wells) came up to me and whispered:
>>>
>>>> Parking where there is
>>>> adequate information about the terms of parking there is
>>>> acceptance of the terms and hence the formation of a contract.
>>>
>>> that sounds like an Unfair Term to me. You know the contract exists
>>> because you know the contract exists?
>>
>> The legal position is that a contract does exist if you decide to
>> park there knowing the conditions of parking there. It's only the
>> terms that are set out on the signs you can read.
>>
> The obligation of the parking company under the contract is to
> provide a parking service and the obligation of the driver under the
> contract is to pay for it where appropriate, and abide by the normal
> terms and conditions of that use.
> It doesn't matter what the company insist on in relation to how you
> display a ticket, whether you display a ticket, or any other
> ciondition of use that they dream up.
> If you break the conditions of use, they should simply ask you to
> leave and pay for your parking charges incurred, not dreaming up some
> penalty for one thing or another that you have done or haven't done.

You've made a contract, not just to park, but to display a valid ticket.

> Say for example, you walked into a swimming pool which required
> payment on exit for the length of time you had spent in there and you
> must wear red shorts while using the facilities, but you either
> forgot or were not aware of this.
> However, the rules strictly state that red shorts must be worn for the
> first 90 minutes.
> As you were leaving, and about to pay your swimming fee, would you
> expect to be charged �100 for not wearing red shorts?
> Of course not, and you would be foolish if you did.
> It might be a condition of use of the pool but it is certainly not
> part of the contract in which they provide a service and you pay for
> it.

It is if it's made a condition of your using the pool and you're made
aware of that before you use it.

> You would certainly be liable under the contract to pay for the
> swimming but they could not impose a �100 fee on you under any
> circumstances for that reason.

You would. You accepted the terms of your own free will and voluntarily
entered into the contract.

[Norman Wells]

They're on huge signs, normally both at the entrance to any car park,
and at all the payment machines. It's highly unlikely you would not
have ample opportunity to acquaint yourself with any terms that apply
before you decide to park.

[steve robinson]

Norman Wells wrote:

> Steve O wrote:
> > On 11/06/2012 08:38, Norman Wells wrote:
> > > Steve O wrote:
> > > >
> > > > What do you think is a reasonable charge for not putting a
> > > > piece of paper on your car?
> > > > How does that amount to a provided service from a parking
> > > > company, and why should they be entitled to ask for money for
> > > > that service?
> > >
> > > It's all a question of the terms of the contract you have entered
> > > into. If you agree to display the ticket, which you have if
> > > that's a term stated on the information signs, then that's what
> > > you have to do.
> >
> > Okay, so you haven't displayed a ticket.
> > You've broken the contract.
> > Now what are they going to do?
> > Declare the contract void?
>
> No, sue you for payment of the parking charge and for any charge set
> out for failing to display a valid ticket.
>
> > As I said, don't confuse the liability for payment with conditional
> > requests for use of the service.
>

> All the conditions on the sign boards are conditions of the contract

All subject of course to the fact that the contract terms must be fair.

[Paul Cummins]

We were about to embark at Dover, when h...@unseen.ac.am (Norman Wells)
came up to me and whispered:

>

> They can charge you for whatever is on the signs that you
> should have
> seen, read and understood.

Nem ertek angolul.

[Paul Cummins]

We were about to embark at Dover, when h...@unseen.ac.am (Norman Wells)
came up to me and whispered:

> You may not have legal knowledge, but you know that you have to
> pay for your parking in a Pay and Display car park.

I have never had to pay for parking in a pay and display" car park in my
life.

So no, I do not know that as a matter of fact or law.

[Mr Pounder]

"Tim Richards" <t1m.r1...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:ocl9t7h0sgd6n10qm...@4ax.com...

> On Sun, 10 Jun 2012 09:50:37 -0700 (PDT), Mel Rowing
> <mel.r...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
>>Road Traffic Act 1991 Section 66 (2)
>

> Why have you quoted something that has no relevance to anything
> outside of London?

There is life outside of the great shithole of the south.

[Norman Wells]

No, only that they don't fall foul of any legislation making certain
contract terms unfair. If you think car parks fall foul of such
legislation, perhaps you'd say how and why with reference to the Act
concerned.

[Norman Wells]

Paul Cummins wrote:
> We were about to embark at Dover, when h...@unseen.ac.am (Norman Wells)
> came up to me and whispered:
>
>> You may not have legal knowledge, but you know that you have to
>> pay for your parking in a Pay and Display car park.
>
> I have never had to pay for parking in a pay and display" car park in
> my life.

You would have if you had a car and parked in one.

>
> So no, I do not know that as a matter of fact or law.

That's a non sequitur. You can know something without having done it
yourself.

[Alex Heney]

On Sun, 10 Jun 2012 21:44 +0100 (BST), uset...@stedtelephone.invalid
(Paul Cummins) wrote:

>We were about to embark at Dover, when watt....@gmail.com (Roger Mills)

>came up to me and whispered:
>

>> returning vehicles whose owners had not paid previous
>> fines would be clamped.
>
>If it said "fines" then they are breaking the law.

Why do you wrongly believe that?

Which law do you believe they would be breaking?
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Oxymoron: Rap Music.
To reply by email, my address is alexDOTheneyATgmailDOTcom

[Alex Heney]

On Sun, 10 Jun 2012 22:27:03 +0100, Steve O <nos...@here.thanks>
wrote:

>On 10/06/2012 17:11, Mrcheerful wrote:
>> "Tim Richards"<t1m.r1...@gmail.com> wrote in message

>> news:7c829f6a-eacb-441b...@v9g2000vbc.googlegroups.com...

>> On Jun 10, 4:33 pm, Mel Rowing<mel.row...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Anyway a very contrite Mel rang Carlisle Council to tell his tale of
>>> woe. No good! The lady who dealt with me was polite, understanding,
>>> but firm. I had to pay up!
>>
>> The mistake is contacting them.
>>
>> They will have obtained the **Registered Keeper's** details from DVLA
>> (or whatever fancy name they're using these days).
>>
>> There is no obligation for the Registered Keeper to provide details of
>> who was driving at the time of the alleged parking "infraction".
>>
>> Ergo, chuck their invoice (for that's all it is) in the bin.
>>
>>

>> the OP has already admitted the 'offence'
>>
>>
>Thee is no offence of failing to display a parking ticket in a private
>car park, which is what they are charging him for.

No they aren't.

It is a county council car park, which is different, assuming it is in
a civil enforcement area.

--
Alex Heney, Global Villager

A procrastinator's work is never done.

[Alex Heney]

On Sun, 10 Jun 2012 22:31:36 +0100, Steve O <nos...@here.thanks>
wrote:

>On 10/06/2012 17:50, Mel Rowing wrote:
>> On Jun 10, 4:59 pm, Tim Richards<t1m.r1ch4...@gmail.com> wrote:

>>> On Jun 10, 4:33 pm, Mel Rowing<mel.row...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Anyway a very contrite Mel rang Carlisle Council to tell his tale of
>>>> woe. No good! The lady who dealt with me was polite, understanding,
>>>> but firm. I had to pay up!
>>>
>>> The mistake is contacting them.
>>>
>>> They will have obtained the **Registered Keeper's** details from DVLA
>>> (or whatever fancy name they're using these days).
>>>
>>> There is no obligation for the Registered Keeper to provide details of
>>> who was driving at the time of the alleged parking "infraction".
>>>
>>> Ergo, chuck their invoice (for that's all it is) in the bin.
>>

>> Road Traffic Act 1991 Section 66 (2) ( and appropriate attached
>> annotation) clearly makes the owner of the vehicle responsible for the
>> payment of parking penalty charges.
>>
>> "For the purposes of this Part of this Act, a penalty charge is
>> payable with respect to a vehicle, by the owner of the vehicle"
>
>He hasn't received a penalty charge- he has received a parking notice.
>It would be illegal for them to send him a penalty charge, as they have
>no right to do so.

They have every right to do so.


>At one time, private parking tickets used to contain the words "penalty
>charge" which were quickly removed when they realised they were breaking
>the law.

But this is not such a notice.

You appear to have missed the words "Carlisle Council" above.


>>
>> On the basis of this this "invoice" forms the basis of a civil debt
>> owed to the parking authority by such a driver.
>>
>>
>> "
>What "parking authority"?

Carlisle Council

>And what do these circumstances have to do with the Road Traffic Act?

It allows for civil enforcement areas, of which Carlisle Council is
one, and details enforcement measures - which include penalty charge
notices.

--
Alex Heney, Global Villager

Same to you and whatever you meant by that!

[Alex Heney]

On Sun, 10 Jun 2012 22:17:57 +0100, "Lieutenant Scott" <n...@spam.com>
wrote:

>On Sun, 10 Jun 2012 16:59:12 +0100, Tim Richards <t1m.r1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Jun 10, 4:33 pm, Mel Rowing <mel.row...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Anyway a very contrite Mel rang Carlisle Council to tell his tale of
>>> woe. No good! The lady who dealt with me was polite, understanding,
>>> but firm. I had to pay up!
>>
>> The mistake is contacting them.
>>
>> They will have obtained the **Registered Keeper's** details from DVLA
>> (or whatever fancy name they're using these days).
>>
>> There is no obligation for the Registered Keeper to provide details of
>> who was driving at the time of the alleged parking "infraction".
>>
>> Ergo, chuck their invoice (for that's all it is) in the bin.
>

>Does this then apply to all parking infringements, such as parking on double yellow lines, in a reserved spot, etc?

No.

But then it doesn't apply in this case, or any other involving council
regulated parking in civil enforcement areas.

[Alex Heney]

On Sun, 10 Jun 2012 23:20:52 +0100, "Zapp Brannigan" <ZBr...@DOOP.com>

wrote:

>
>"Alex Heney" <m...@privacy.net> wrote in message
>news:8f5at75nncsh92kt5...@4ax.com...

>> On Sun, 10 Jun 2012 08:59:12 -0700 (PDT), Tim Richards

>> <t1m.r1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Jun 10, 4:33 pm, Mel Rowing <mel.row...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Anyway a very contrite Mel rang Carlisle Council to tell his tale of
>>>> woe. No good! The lady who dealt with me was polite, understanding,
>>>> but firm. I had to pay up!
>>>
>>>The mistake is contacting them.
>>>
>>>They will have obtained the **Registered Keeper's** details from DVLA
>>>(or whatever fancy name they're using these days).
>>>
>>>There is no obligation for the Registered Keeper to provide details of
>>>who was driving at the time of the alleged parking "infraction".
>>>
>>>Ergo, chuck their invoice (for that's all it is) in the bin.
>>

>> Not in the case of a council run car park.
>>
>> Or in fact any pay and display car park where you fail to "pay and
>> display".
>
>If it's a privately operated car park, it cannot issue PCN's against the
>Registered Keeper. Only state bodies can do that.

Agreed.

This is not a privately operated car park.

Perhaps you (like many others in this thread) missed the "Carlisle
Council" above.

Carlisle council operate a civil enforcement scheme, so can (and do)
issue PCN's.

--
Alex Heney, Global Villager

When I tried to take an ego trip I got stopped at the border

[Alex Heney]

On Mon, 11 Jun 2012 11:05 +0100 (BST), uset...@stedtelephone.invalid
(Paul Cummins) wrote:

>We were about to embark at Dover, when h...@unseen.ac.am (Norman Wells)

>came up to me and whispered:
>

>> What contractual terms did you accept by parking there?
>
>Contractual terms are irrelevant if you don;t accept the contract.
>

If the signs with the relevant terms are clearly visible, then by
parking there, you will certainly be deemed to have accepted the
contract.

>Merely parking somewhere (without knowing the terms) is not acceptance,
>and inertia selling of that type is unlawful.
>

That is not inertia selling of the type which is unlawful.

Unlawful inertia selling is where you are presented with unrequested
goods or services, and asked to pay for them if you don't return or
cancel them.


>Moreover, the terms of the contract do not entitle the company to break
>the law to try to recover their putative costs.

There is no indication they are doing so.,

--
Alex Heney, Global Villager

Boy: A noise with dirt on it.

[Alex Heney]

On Mon, 11 Jun 2012 16:31 +0100 (BST), uset...@stedtelephone.invalid

(Paul Cummins) wrote:

>We were about to embark at Dover, when h...@unseen.ac.am (Norman Wells)
>came up to me and whispered:
>

>> Parking where there is
>> adequate information about the terms of parking there is
>> acceptance of the terms and hence the formation of a contract.
>
>that sounds like an Unfair Term to me.

That makes it look like you have no idea what an unfair term might be.

> You know the contract exists
>because you know the contract exists?

Because it is made clear to you what the terms are for you to park
there.

You have the choice - park there and accept those terms, or don't park
there.

>
>> > Moreover, the terms of the contract do not entitle the
>> company to
>> > break the law to try to recover their putative costs.
>>

>> Is anyone suggesting they are?
>
>Yes. By claiming to issue a PCN,

No indication they have done that.

> by claiming that they have won in court
>many times and by putting up false claim details that cannot be checked.

Do you have any evidence that those details might be false?

--
Alex Heney, Global Villager

Beware of programmers who carry screwdrivers.

[Alex Heney]

On Mon, 11 Jun 2012 17:13 +0100 (BST), uset...@stedtelephone.invalid

(Paul Cummins) wrote:

>We were about to embark at Dover, when h...@unseen.ac.am (Norman Wells)
>came up to me and whispered:
>

>> The legal position is that a contract does exist if you decide
>> to park there knowing the conditions of parking there.
>
>So therefore I know there's a contract because I should know there's a
>contract?

If that is the way you wish to phrase it.

But then that much is true of every single contract you have ever
entered into, so it is a rather silly way to phrase it.

--
Alex Heney, Global Villager

... Some days you're the dog, some days you're the hydrant

[Alex Heney]

On Mon, 11 Jun 2012 20:20 +0100 (BST), uset...@stedtelephone.invalid
(Paul Cummins) wrote:

>We were about to embark at Dover, when h...@unseen.ac.am (Norman Wells)
>came up to me and whispered:
>
>> You may not have legal knowledge, but you know that you have to
>> pay for your parking in a Pay and Display car park.
>
>I have never had to pay for parking in a pay and display" car park in my
>life.
>
>So no, I do not know that as a matter of fact or law.

So your whole "argument" in this thread has been from a position of
profound ignorance, since you have never used such a car park (or are
exempt due to something such as a blue badge).

--
Alex Heney, Global Villager

How do you get holy water?... Boil the hell out of it!

[steve robinson]

I said only that the terms must be fair the op hasnt posted these .

[Paul Cummins]

We were about to embark at Dover, when h...@unseen.ac.am (Norman Wells)
came up to me and whispered:

> > I have never had to pay for parking in a pay and display" car
> > park in
> > my life.
>
> You would have if you had a car and parked in one.

I do have a car, and have parked in them, both private and council.

[Paul Cummins]

We were about to embark at Dover, when m...@privacy.net (Alex Heney) came

up to me and whispered:

> So your whole "argument" in this thread has been from a
> position of profound ignorance,

Of course not - but we are not talking of a Council car park in Carlisle
here, we are talking of a private one in Hampshire.

[Paul Cummins]

We were about to embark at Dover, when m...@privacy.net (Alex Heney) came

up to me and whispered:

>

> Do you have any evidence that those details might be false?

Yes. I have checked the Registry of County Court Judgements for the case
numbers listed. None of them are present.

[Norman Wells]

Paul Cummins wrote:
> We were about to embark at Dover, when h...@unseen.ac.am (Norman Wells)
> came up to me and whispered:
>
>>> I have never had to pay for parking in a pay and display" car
>>> park in
>>> my life.
>>
>> You would have if you had a car and parked in one.
>
> I do have a car, and have parked in them, both private and council.

Is there a point you're struggling to make?

[Roger Mills]

I didn't actually say that - but I did actually leave before the 90
minutes were up- so you're both right!
--
Cheers,
Roger
____________
Please reply to Newsgroup. Whilst email address is valid, it is seldom
checked.

[Roger Mills]

On 11/06/2012 21:05, Alex Heney wrote:

>
> This is not a privately operated car park.
>
> Perhaps you (like many others in this thread) missed the "Carlisle
> Council" above.
>
> Carlisle council operate a civil enforcement scheme, so can (and do)
> issue PCN's.

I'm afraid that you're the one who is confused. I am the OP, and I
referred to a private car park in Hampshire - which is the one where I
got the ticket. Somebody else may have mentioned Carlisle Council
part-way down the thread.

[Roger Mills]

On 11/06/2012 22:16, Paul Cummins wrote:
> We were about to embark at Dover, when m...@privacy.net (Alex Heney) came
> up to me and whispered:
>
>>
>> Do you have any evidence that those details might be false?
>
> Yes. I have checked the Registry of County Court Judgements for the case
> numbers listed. None of them are present.
>

Now you're talking! Where can I look up County Court judgements?

[Steve O]

On 11/06/2012 19:34, Norman Wells wrote:
> Steve O wrote:

>> On 11/06/2012 08:38, Norman Wells wrote:
>>> Steve O wrote:
>>>>

>>>> What do you think is a reasonable charge for not putting a piece of
>>>> paper on your car?
>>>> How does that amount to a provided service from a parking company,
>>>> and why should they be entitled to ask for money for that service?
>>>
>>> It's all a question of the terms of the contract you have entered
>>> into. If you agree to display the ticket, which you have if that's a
>>> term stated on the information signs, then that's what you have to
>>> do.
>>
>> Okay, so you haven't displayed a ticket.
>> You've broken the contract.
>> Now what are they going to do?
>> Declare the contract void?
>
> No, sue you for payment of the parking charge and for any charge set out
> for failing to display a valid ticket.

The parking charge, yes, because they are providing a service for
that-(in this case, a free one for the first 90 minutes) but what
service are they providing when you don't display a ticket, and what
would you consider a fair charge for that?
In this case, the car parking company are claiming it is �100.
Why are they charging for you for NOT doing something.(ie displaying the
ticket) rather than charging you for something they have provided?

>
>> As I said, don't confuse the liability for payment with conditional
>> requests for use of the service.
>

> _All_ the conditions on the sign boards are conditions of the contract you

> enter into. If you don't want to accept them, you park elsewhere. If
> you park there regardless, you will be deemed to have accepted those
> terms. Including any that say how much you'll have to pay if you don't
> display a valid ticket.
>
>> They can only charge you for the service provided.
>> And only then can it be a reasonable charge, and it has already been
>> held that paying �150 for 5 minutes parking is not reasonable.
>
> They can charge you for whatever is on the signs that you should have
> seen, read and understood.
>
>> >It's
>>> your choice. You don't have to park there if you don't like the
>>> conditions. If you accept them by parking there, you have to comply
>>> with them whatever they are, unless they are in breach of some other
>>> legislation.
>>
>> Once again, please don't confuse "breaking the conditions of the
>> service provided" with "failing to pay a fee for parking"
>> The company cannot fine you for breaching any of their conditions, all
>> they can do is charge you for parking, and enforce that payment
>> through a court in some circumstances if you don't pay up and can be
>> proven to be the debtor.
>
> If you don't display a valid ticket, you will be sued for the parking
> fee and any fee for failing to display.

Are you seriously suggesting that they can charge a fee for you not
putting a piece of paper in your own car?
I can understand it if they said"In order to park here for free, you
must first use our ticketing service- an assistant will place the ticket
on your dashboard for you- the charge for this service is �100"- except
in this case, they're not doing that- you're doing it yourself and they
are charging you for it.
It's a ridiculous concept, and it has nothing to do with what the
original contract was about- ie- them providing a parking space and you
paying for it.

> If you can prove in your defence
> that you had paid the parking fee, that still leaves you being sued for
> the fee for failing to display, and liable for the costs of the action,
> which you will lose.

You're using the words "failing to display" as if it was some kind of
legal term here, just like the car companies do.
It is a legal term, but only in relation to VEL's- it carries no weight
when it comes to conditional requests by a parking company.

>
>>> If you breach the terms of the contract you have entered into, you
>>> are liable for any loss the other party suffers, which in this case
>>> includes the reasonable legal costs of pursuing you either for the
>>> parking charges you have not paid or for establishing that you have
>>> in fact paid.
>>
>> Yes- they can recover their costs for legal charges incurred in
>> pursuing payment of the parking fee, but they cannot claim to have
>> lost anything simply because you failed to put a piece of paper in a
>> car window.
>
> If there's a fee for failure to display, it's a term of the contract and
> must be honoured.

Therefore the whole question hinges on whether it is reasonable to
charge a fee for not displaying a ticket.
Previous court cases have shown that the courts did not consider this
acceptable, and in some cases, criminal, as it was seen as a levied fine
rather than a fee.

>
>> In the case of this OP, the parking was free of charge anyway, and he
>> left before parking charges were incurred.
>
> He doesn't actually say that.

I recall him saying that the first 90 minutes parking was free (it was
outside a shopping centre), but he forgot to put the ticket in his car
becasue his wife lost her handbag and he left it in his pocket.
Correct me if I'm wrong.
>
>

[Steve O]

On 11/06/2012 20:20, Paul Cummins wrote:
> We were about to embark at Dover, when h...@unseen.ac.am (Norman Wells)
> came up to me and whispered:
>
>>
>> They can charge you for whatever is on the signs that you
>> should have
>> seen, read and understood.
>
> Nem ertek angolul.

Exactly, me neither.
>
So, you are entering a car park.
There is a massive sign on entrance which says"FREE PARKING" in big red
letters.
Underneath that is a whole list of conditions and rules while using the
service, and in tiny, almost illegible print at the bottom it says,
"Free Parking for first 30 seconds only, chargeable at �10 per minute
after that" and it is written in Latin.
You do not see this as you drive past.
You stay for 90 minutes.
So, according to you, you'd be happy to pay nearly a thousand pounds
because "They can charge you for whatever is on the signs that you
should have seen, read and understood"?

[Steve O]

On 11/06/2012 19:39, Norman Wells wrote:
> Steve O wrote:

>> On 11/06/2012 16:57, Norman Wells wrote:
>>> Paul Cummins wrote:
>>>> We were about to embark at Dover, when h...@unseen.ac.am (Norman
>>>> Wells) came up to me and whispered:
>>>>

>>>>> Parking where there is
>>>>> adequate information about the terms of parking there is
>>>>> acceptance of the terms and hence the formation of a contract.
>>>>

>>>> that sounds like an Unfair Term to me. You know the contract exists

>>>> because you know the contract exists?
>>>

>>> The legal position is that a contract does exist if you decide to

>>> park there knowing the conditions of parking there. It's only the
>>> terms that are set out on the signs you can read.
>>>
>> The obligation of the parking company under the contract is to
>> provide a parking service and the obligation of the driver under the
>> contract is to pay for it where appropriate, and abide by the normal
>> terms and conditions of that use.
>> It doesn't matter what the company insist on in relation to how you
>> display a ticket, whether you display a ticket, or any other
>> ciondition of use that they dream up.
>> If you break the conditions of use, they should simply ask you to
>> leave and pay for your parking charges incurred, not dreaming up some
>> penalty for one thing or another that you have done or haven't done.
>
> You've made a contract, not just to park, but to display a valid ticket.

YEe- and by not doing so, you have broken the contract.
Like I said, in that case they should simply ask you to leave because
you have failed to abide by the rules and have broken the contract.
What they cannot do is fine you for breaking those rules.
This is what they appear to be doing, rather than simply charging you
for parking, which I wouldn't have a problem with, if the charge was
reasonable.
>
>> Say for example, you walked into a swimming pool which required
>> payment on exit for the length of time you had spent in there and you
>> must wear red shorts while using the facilities, but you either
>> forgot or were not aware of this.
>> However, the rules strictly state that red shorts must be worn for the
>> first 90 minutes.
>> As you were leaving, and about to pay your swimming fee, would you
>> expect to be charged �100 for not wearing red shorts?
>> Of course not, and you would be foolish if you did.
>> It might be a condition of use of the pool but it is certainly not
>> part of the contract in which they provide a service and you pay for
>> it.
>
> It is if it's made a condition of your using the pool and you're made
> aware of that before you use it.
>
So you've broken that condition- so what?
How does that give them the right to impose an unlawful penalty on you?

>> You would certainly be liable under the contract to pay for the
>> swimming but they could not impose a �100 fee on you under any
>> circumstances for that reason.
>
> You would. You accepted the terms of your own free will and voluntarily
> entered into the contract.

I'm not arguing whether you have entered into the contract or not- that
is an entirely different matter, and subject to much debate when it
comes to whether you can be considered to have accepted a contract
simply by driving past a sign which says you are under contract- what I
am saying is that there can be many terms and conditions of use of that
service and you could break one or all of them- but it certainly does
not mean that the company can levy a charge for that- especially such a
high charge- all it means is that you have broken the contract, and the
company can withdraw from it.It does not give them any right to impose a
huge fine or penalty on you for failing to observe those conditions

[Steve O]

On 11/06/2012 19:15, Norman Wells wrote:
> Paul Cummins wrote:
>> We were about to embark at Dover, when h...@unseen.ac.am (Norman Wells)
>> came up to me and whispered:
>>

>>> No, you know there's a contract because there are terms
>>> associated with your parking there, and because it's the law,
>>> and ignorance of it is no excuse.
>>
>> Ignorance of the LAW is no defence.
>
> Which is what I said.


>> Ignorance of a contract that you don;t know exists clearly is.

>
> You may not have legal knowledge, but you know that you have to pay for
> your parking in a Pay and Display car park.

Only if you know it's a pay and display car park.

If you park, you accept that
> condition, and any others clearly displayed, and a contract is formed
> whether you like it, know it, or not.

But those conditions must be fair, otherwise it is invalid.
I do not believe it is fair to impose a fine of �100 for not complying
with a condition of use, in this case, forgetting to put your ticket in
the window and neither would a court, as has been shown in previous cases.

[Steve O]

On 11/06/2012 19:41, Norman Wells wrote:
> Steve O wrote:

>> On 11/06/2012 17:50, Norman Wells wrote:
>>> Paul Cummins wrote:
>>>> We were about to embark at Dover, when h...@unseen.ac.am (Norman
>>>> Wells) came up to me and whispered:
>>>>

>>>>> The legal position is that a contract does exist if you decide
>>>>> to park there knowing the conditions of parking there.
>>>>

>>>> So therefore I know there's a contract because I should know
>>>> there's a contract?
>>>

>>> No, you know there's a contract because there are terms associated
>>> with your parking there, and because it's the law, and ignorance of
>>> it is no excuse.
>>

>> Ignorance of the law is not an excuse in a criminal case, but
>> ignorance of the convoluted and arbitrary conditions of a private
>> parking company is irrelevant.
>
> They're on huge signs, normally both at the entrance to any car park,
> and at all the payment machines.

But they're not the law.
They are simply a list of conditions of use written up by the parking
company.
They do not quote the law on those signs.

It's highly unlikely you would not have
> ample opportunity to acquaint yourself with any terms that apply before
> you decide to park.

Do you understand the difference between the law and terms of use of a
private car park?
Why are you claiming that ignorance of terms of use is equivalent to
ignorance of the law?

[Norman Wells]

Steve O wrote:
> On 11/06/2012 19:41, Norman Wells wrote:

>>>>>> The legal position is that a contract does exist if you decide
>>>>>> to park there knowing the conditions of parking there.
>>>>>
>>>>> So therefore I know there's a contract because I should know
>>>>> there's a contract?
>>>>
>>>> No, you know there's a contract because there are terms associated
>>>> with your parking there, and because it's the law, and ignorance of
>>>> it is no excuse.
>>>
>>> Ignorance of the law is not an excuse in a criminal case, but
>>> ignorance of the convoluted and arbitrary conditions of a private
>>> parking company is irrelevant.
>>
>> They're on huge signs, normally both at the entrance to any car park,
>> and at all the payment machines.
>
> But they're not the law.
> They are simply a list of conditions of use written up by the parking
> company.
> They do not quote the law on those signs.

They're the conditions of parking which you've accepted by parking
there. They're the basis of your contract with the parking company.
You have to abide by them. You can be sued and be made to if you don't.
It's all very simple.

> It's highly unlikely you would not have
>> ample opportunity to acquaint yourself with any terms that apply
>> before you decide to park.
>
> Do you understand the difference between the law and terms of use of a
> private car park?
> Why are you claiming that ignorance of terms of use is equivalent to
> ignorance of the law?

You are _not_ ignorant of the terms. They're on huge signs which you
can hardly avoid. They're perfectly clear.

The ignorance of the law you have is in not understanding that the law
establishes that a contract exists between you and the parking company
by your parking there knowing what the conditions are.

[The Todal]

On 11/6/12 23:45, Roger Mills wrote:
> On 11/06/2012 22:16, Paul Cummins wrote:
>> We were about to embark at Dover, when m...@privacy.net (Alex Heney) came
>> up to me and whispered:
>>
>>>
>>> Do you have any evidence that those details might be false?
>>
>> Yes. I have checked the Registry of County Court Judgements for the case
>> numbers listed. None of them are present.
>>
>
> Now you're talking! Where can I look up County Court judgements?

You can't. Even if you visit http://www.trustonline.org.uk/ it won't be
a comprehensive archive of judgments.

It is likely that most people who are sued by the parking company will
fail to take any action as a result of which a default judgment will be
entered. The parking company can claim this as a glorious victory.

If you have decided not to pay up, you had better give some thought to
what you will do if you are sued. You are at liberty to file a Defence,
and you have to consider what you will say in that document. By saying
nothing, you end up with a default judgment against you.

I suppose an arguable (but weak) defence could be: the defendant
obtained the ticket, did not display it because he was dealing with an
emergency, and has already shown the ticket to the claimant. The sum
claimed is disproportionate and unreasonable.

If you file such a defence my recommendation would be to make a without
prejudice offer of (say) half the sum that is being claimed. Or you
could of course make such an offer at any time, including before the
proceedings are commenced.

[The Todal]

On 11/6/12 18:22, Steve O wrote:
> Maybe this will help to put things into perspective for the OP.
>
> Imagine that you walked into a cinema, and they gave you a free ticket,
> advising you that the first 90 minutes of the movie was free, after that
> a charge was payable.
> You go in, watch the movie for about half an hour and then leave.
> Six weeks later, you get a letter from the manager of the cinema
> advising you that you need to pay �100 because you were seen at the
> cinema without wearing the ticket on your jacket.
> When you protest, advising him that you had the ticket in your pocket,
> he tells you that you still have to pay, because the small print on
> entry clearly states that you must visibly wear the ticket.
> You explain that unfortunately, you either didn't see that or forgot
> about it, but he still wants �100, and tells you that it goes up to �150
> if you don't pay up within seven days, with further threats of court
> action if you don't pay that.
> Are you going to pay up or ignore him?
>

Failure to display a tax disc is of course an offence that will attract
a fine, regardless of whether you have an up to date tax disc or not.
That of course is pursuant to a statute and is a criminal rather than
civil offence.

In the scenario described by the OP there can be little doubt that if
the company does sue, the court is likely to find the defendant liable
to pay the charge. The issue is whether they have the determination to
pursue it. It may be that they have hundreds of such cases and pick only
a third or a half to take to court.