Parking Charge

[Boomer54]

5 minutes ago, Malc1 said:

That’s brilliant ……. please make that widely known on this Forum ……. 

maybe a Mod can suggest a sub heading whatever to amplify this for ALL TO SEE 

Malc 

I once spent 3 years researching the finer points of some of the lesser known areas of the financial markets just to make sure I understood everything I needed to know before I played the game. I don't think it will take anywhere near that long to get to grips with this car parking issue and the associated data on it.

[Malc1]

9 minutes ago, Boomer54 said:

I once spent 3 years researching the finer points of some of the lesser known areas of the financial markets just to make sure I understood everything I needed to know before I played the game. I don't think it will take anywhere near that long to get to grips with this car parking issue and the associated data on it.

Well done ……. I’m still an advocate of blasting these miscreants and those individuals associated by way of directors, shareholders and their directors too where they can be identified ……. onto a widely embraced 

BLACKLIST 

Malc 

[Boomer54]

3 minutes ago, Malc1 said:

Well done ……. I’m still an advocate of blasting these miscreants and those individuals associated by way of directors, shareholders and their directors too where they can be identified ……. onto a widely embraced 

BLACKLIST 

Malc 

I'd rater shift them to a Black Site for some waterboarding (Mods it's a joke !)....maybe 

[wharfhouse]

25 minutes ago, Boomer54 said:

Surprising what you can learn just reading. If you get Parking Charge Notice from one of these cowboys it isn't the same as that issued by councils and they the companies don't have the same access to information. The likelihood is when you receive one of these it will be addressed to the keeper of the car. They will probably attached camera shots showing the car parked and no permit or parking ticket displayed. If there is no pictoral evidence of who was driving the car the best reply is just " I am the keeper of the car,but I am not the driver of the car, and the law does not require me to furnish you with said details, goodbye. Please address all future correspondence to A.N.Other, Address Unknown".

Be very careful what you believe on the Internet as the information is often out of date. Yes it's not the same as a council one (which is a fine and not a contract dispute) but Section 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 gives private parking companies the legal right to pursue the registered vehicle owner for the charge if they don't name the driver. This was all part of the "deal" the government did with private parking companies to stop them clamping cars. Of course they have to do this through the small claims court but precedence has again already been set. As I mentioned previously everything is stacked in favour of the parking companies and they have flushed all of these ideas in case law and so it's incredibly hard to find any loophole now unless you can prove something like the signage was inadequate / unreasonable. I went through a lot of ideas and Internet trawling when trying to decide whether to fight one of mine. 

I really hope that you do win if you have your day in court - I've heard that they often use "cheap" legal people who sometimes screw up in court - there's also a chance that the parking company will call it off close to the time. If you follow through then hope you can keep us all updated. Good luck. 

[Bluemarlin]

1 hour ago, Boomer54 said:

Surprising what you can learn just reading. If you get Parking Charge Notice from one of these cowboys it isn't the same as that issued by councils and they the companies don't have the same access to information. The likelihood is when you receive one of these it will be addressed to the keeper of the car. They will probably attached camera shots showing the car parked and no permit or parking ticket displayed. If there is no pictoral evidence of who was driving the car the best reply is just " I am the keeper of the car,but I am not the driver of the car, and the law does not require me to furnish you with said details, goodbye. Please address all future correspondence to A.N.Other, Address Unknown".

I've read that too. There's  site that specialises in parking tickets, can't remember what it's called, but worth checking out for the latest.

If you do pursue it as far as court, it's possible that the likely outcome is that they'll drop it at that point, as they'll probably prefer to lose the cost of one ticket over a legal ruling going against them and setting a precedent. Be  aware that if they do go to court it's possible that they're very confident in the outcome.

The big problem is that for the most part the legal T&Cs are in their favour. In which case you'll be asking the court to set aside the letter of the law, in favour of the spirit of it and a sense of reasonableness.

To these people a ticket is like a samurai sword. Once produced it has to draw blood. Let's hope you're a stone.

Good luck.

[Boomer54]

2 hours ago, wharfhouse said:

Be very careful what you believe on the Internet as the information is often out of date. Yes it's not the same as a council one (which is a fine and not a contract dispute) but Section 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 gives private parking companies the legal right to pursue the registered vehicle owner for the charge if they don't name the driver. This was all part of the "deal" the government did with private parking companies to stop them clamping cars. Of course they have to do this through the small claims court but precedence has again already been set. As I mentioned previously everything is stacked in favour of the parking companies and they have flushed all of these ideas in case law and so it's incredibly hard to find any loophole now unless you can prove something like the signage was inadequate / unreasonable. I went through a lot of ideas and Internet trawling when trying to decide whether to fight one of mine. 

I really hope that you do win if you have your day in court - I've heard that they often use "cheap" legal people who sometimes screw up in court - there's also a chance that the parking company will call it off close to the time. If you follow through then hope you can keep us all updated. Good luck. 

Yes, I have been reading and found the amendment to registered keeper. However, I also found that it is one of a number of ways of delaying the company and giving them more opportunity to screw up the strict time protocols that appertain to these issues. So still of use.

I am actually researching primacy of contract in this case. My daughter has a contract of employment and inclusive is that she is provided with free parking at her place of work. In recognition of that contract the employer issues a parking permit. The permit does ask that the "permit be displayed in the windscreen". It does not mention anything related to penalties for not doing so. I would argue that the contract of employment takes primacy over any contract with the parking company. Indeed, to such an extent that why should an employee even bother to read signage in the car park that they could reasonably assume was applicable to non permit holders. It helps I think that no other permit holder in the office has even read that signage. Point made I think.

Now need to find a bit of case law on the subject.

[wharfhouse]

31 minutes ago, Boomer54 said:

Yes, I have been reading and found the amendment to registered keeper. However, I also found that it is one of a number of ways of delaying the company and giving them more opportunity to screw up the strict time protocols that appertain to these issues. So still of use.

I am actually researching primacy of contract in this case. My daughter has a contract of employment and inclusive is that she is provided with free parking at her place of work. In recognition of that contract the employer issues a parking permit. The permit does ask that the "permit be displayed in the windscreen". It does not mention anything related to penalties for not doing so. I would argue that the contract of employment takes primacy over any contract with the parking company. Indeed, to such an extent that why should an employee even bother to read signage in the car park that they could reasonably assume was applicable to non permit holders. It helps I think that no other permit holder in the office has even read that signage. Point made I think.

Now need to find a bit of case law on the subject.

Finding something that the parking company think they may lose on may probably get them to drop the case as they certainly won't want to create case law against them as others can then use that to win in future. Their whole model seems to have been to spend money to get case law that plugs anything that the public could use and then just leverage that in the small claims court which at that point makes it relatively cheap for them as they can just employ cheap legal people in a case. Given what they actually can claim for winning it certainly doesn't pay for decent legal representation...! And why they sometimes do screw up. Hope you have something that will stick. 

[Boomer54]

On 1/11/2024 at 3:41 PM, Boomer54 said:

Yes, I have been reading and found the amendment to registered keeper. However, I also found that it is one of a number of ways of delaying the company and giving them more opportunity to screw up the strict time protocols that appertain to these issues. So still of use.

I am actually researching primacy of contract in this case. My daughter has a contract of employment and inclusive is that she is provided with free parking at her place of work. In recognition of that contract the employer issues a parking permit. The permit does ask that the "permit be displayed in the windscreen". It does not mention anything related to penalties for not doing so. I would argue that the contract of employment takes primacy over any contract with the parking company. Indeed, to such an extent that why should an employee even bother to read signage in the car park that they could reasonably assume was applicable to non permit holders. It helps I think that no other permit holder in the office has even read that signage. Point made I think.

Now need to find a bit of case law on the subject.

To update this car parking charge. Following my response to the claim made by Uk.... Ltd I have heard back from the* IAS on the appeal. Bit frustrating as in the event the car parking company have dropped the parking charge, but there are no grounds given and the *IAS has not ruled on the matter. Good result ,but as I say a little frustrating.

[wharfhouse]

1 hour ago, Boomer54 said:

To update this car parking charge. Following my response to the claim made by Uk.... Ltd I have heard back from the* IAS on the appeal. Bit frustrating as in the event the car parking company have dropped the parking charge, but there are no grounds given and the *IAS has not ruled on the matter. Good result ,but as I say a little frustrating.

Pleased to hear that the car parking company has dropped the charge - good result. If the car parking companies think there is any chance of a precedent being made that would work against them in the future then they wouldn't want to clarify on what grounds they dropped it (at best it's usually goodwill or something) and would want to keep it out of the appeals or small claims process in case others used the dame against them in the future. They rely almost totally on case law if they take the process forwards as that's there cheapest way of putting together their case and only needs the cheapest legal people...! 

[steve2006]

Excellent result finally, regarding the reason(s) for dropping the claim could you not obtain this information under the Freedom of Information Act?

I understood that if any company holds personal information about you then you are entitled to see such information on request?

[ALAW]

10 hours ago, steve2006 said:

Excellent result finally, regarding the reason(s) for dropping the claim could you not obtain this information under the Freedom of Information Act?

I understood that if any company holds personal information about you then you are entitled to see such information on request?

That's correct Steve it is known as a subject access request