£100 parking fine for this!!
Discussion
OP
Ignore bingybongy,
Get onto Pepipoo and/or MSE and post up the problem. they have a nigh on 100% sucess rate of nipping these in the bud at POPLA. DO NOT contact the PPC scrotes, and if you do always refer to the driver in the third person, never ever ever .I parked i didnt see etc,ALWAYS ALWAYS ' the driver did, the driver parked etc
Ignore bingybongy,
Get onto Pepipoo and/or MSE and post up the problem. they have a nigh on 100% sucess rate of nipping these in the bud at POPLA. DO NOT contact the PPC scrotes, and if you do always refer to the driver in the third person, never ever ever .I parked i didnt see etc,ALWAYS ALWAYS ' the driver did, the driver parked etc
bingybongy said:
Me me me, I hope someone parks on your drive and looks for a way to slime out of it when you get pissed off.
How is it any different to this?I own a shop. You walk in. "I'm sorry, you have failed to enter my shop using the correct walk which is displayed on the door, now you owe me 5 million quid. Pay up and don't slime your way out of it."
Edited by TankRizzo on Thursday 27th February 13:01
jimbop1 said:
bingybongy said:
Troll and bellend, if that's how you want to put it, fair enough.
No you aren't charging that but if you were I'm sure you wouldn't want people taking the piss.
Regardless of your protestations get yourself over to Pepipoo or MSE and find a way of squirming out of taking responsibility for your actions.
As an aside I would not have been able to leave my car parked that shoddily.
http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&a...
Can I add tosser in aswell?!No you aren't charging that but if you were I'm sure you wouldn't want people taking the piss.
Regardless of your protestations get yourself over to Pepipoo or MSE and find a way of squirming out of taking responsibility for your actions.
As an aside I would not have been able to leave my car parked that shoddily.
http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&a...
PurpleMoonlight said:
The car park operator has suffered no financial loss so the charge can only been deemed a penalty which they cannot lawfully impose.
I would be inclined to just ignore this one.
Yep. Agree. OP will probably get a few scary letters as I did, but it'll go quiet eventually. I wouldn't waste any time with them. I would be inclined to just ignore this one.
And ignore that billy bong t
t too. He probably works for a PPC. jswillia said:
If the Range Rover was parked there first, why was it so far over to the right side of the space? - Surely it would be parked more centrally than it appears to be?
From the picture alone, it looks more like the Z4 was parked piss-poorly and the Range Rover has just managed to squeeze in between the lines of it's space.
If it is the case that the Range Rover was already parked that far over though, then common sense would have told Me to reverse the Z4 into the space to leave more room to get out of the drivers door.
I guess some people simply can't park for $hit!
4rephill said:
jswillia said:
If the Range Rover was parked there first, why was it so far over to the right side of the space? - Surely it would be parked more centrally than it appears to be?
From the picture alone, it looks more like the Z4 was parked piss-poorly and the Range Rover has just managed to squeeze in between the lines of it's space.
If it is the case that the Range Rover was already parked that far over though, then common sense would have told Me to reverse the Z4 into the space to leave more room to get out of the drivers door.
I guess some people simply can't park for $hit!
If he had reversed in then the Saab driver would not have been able to open his door. This is what I would have done if the Saab was badly parked, however my car is more of the bangernomic variety and probably cared about much less.
4rephill said:
jswillia said:
If the Range Rover was parked there first, why was it so far over to the right side of the space? - Surely it would be parked more centrally than it appears to be?
From the picture alone, it looks more like the Z4 was parked piss-poorly and the Range Rover has just managed to squeeze in between the lines of it's space.
If it is the case that the Range Rover was already parked that far over though, then common sense would have told Me to reverse the Z4 into the space to leave more room to get out of the drivers door.
I guess some people simply can't park for $hit!
Even if he parked badly,and most of us done so occasionally, a £100 ticket would make most of us pissed off.
It is the desperate need nowadays to squeeze a bloke for every little mistake that I find very sad.
Have you guys that are giving him a hard time never made a mistake ?
Just ask them to send you a form to nominate the driver of vehicle at the time by recorded delivery.
I very much doubt you will ever hear anything else from them again.
If the OP had parked like that without good reason do you realy think he post on here about it?
Lets face it the keyboard police would rip into it no matter what - wkers
I very much doubt you will ever hear anything else from them again.
If the OP had parked like that without good reason do you realy think he post on here about it?
Lets face it the keyboard police would rip into it no matter what - w
kersavinalarf said:
Just a thought,is this the World we want to live in ?
It appears that because we have busy and complicated lives we do not have the time or strength so we suck it up.
I remember saner times,40 years ago, when people were allowed a little leeway.
To the OP if it makes you feel any better.
Last Monday Bank Holiday I parked my two cars outside my house to wash them.
I went and filled up a bucket and on my return found both had tickets on for £100 each.
I had wrongly presumed as it was a Bank Holiday that It was OK to park.
That's quite a kick in the nuts!It appears that because we have busy and complicated lives we do not have the time or strength so we suck it up.
I remember saner times,40 years ago, when people were allowed a little leeway.
To the OP if it makes you feel any better.
Last Monday Bank Holiday I parked my two cars outside my house to wash them.
I went and filled up a bucket and on my return found both had tickets on for £100 each.
I had wrongly presumed as it was a Bank Holiday that It was OK to park.
If you'd have been nipping back inside to get the 2x heavy suitcases (loading one in each car) you might have got away with it.
Observer2 said:
The essence of a parking contract is that the owner agrees to provide the parking space in consideration of you (the driver) paying the advertised charge for the length of time parked. If you fail to pay or display the ticket or overstay the allotted time for the amount paid, you agree to pay a higher charge or an additional charge of a specified amount. These are the terms of the contract that, if properly signed, can be enforced against the driver applying customary due process. Note that issues of penalties or damages do not come into play. There is no breach so the rule against penalties is irrelevant as is the question of damages for breach.
Nice post O2. There is an issue whether the "higher charges" are reasonable and/or fair given the OP is a consumer in this context.I'd be interested to know if the marked bay terms were presented to the OP online when he made his payment and contracted, or only when he was in the car park...
7db said:
Nice post O2. There is an issue whether the "higher charges" are reasonable and/or fair given the OP is a consumer in this context.
I'd be interested to know if the marked bay terms were presented to the OP online when he made his payment and contracted, or only when he was in the car park...
I assume you're thinking of Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regs.I'd be interested to know if the marked bay terms were presented to the OP online when he made his payment and contracted, or only when he was in the car park...
It's not one of the specific examples of unfair terms. The test of an unfair term in UTCCR Is "causes a significant imbalance in the parties' rights and obligations". That may apply here but I am not sure it does. The probability (whatever it is) of unenforceability under UTCCR doesn't really add anything anyway because, in the case of the OP, it is (imo) clearly a penalty so unenforceable under common law. Go for the easy argument first.
Regarding notice of the marked bay terms, I assume there must be something in the posted signs that make reference to the issue. This is guesswork but I imagine a short sentence along the lines of "..must park only within the lines of a parking bay" is probably what will be found. There's not enough space on a sign to do much more. That may be, probably is, good enough to create a performance obligation as a contractual term but the damages issue (there appears to be no loss) and the penalty barrier remain.
Edited to fix typos, improve clarity and add:
The way of making the 'penalty' charge stick for non-purchase of a ticket or overstaying the paid for time is a sign that reads (something on the lines of): "Parking charge £5 (or whatever) per hour if valid ticket displayed. If no valid ticket displayed an additional charge of £100 per day or part thereof applies, reduced to £60 if paid within 14 days". This creates the choice of alternative contracts from which the driver chooses and to which he can be bound. "Valid ticket, pay £x. No ticket/invalid ticket pay £y".
I don't see a practicable way of adjusting the contract terms to allow additional choices and higher charges for parking within a marked bay, or dealing with other infractions. So these must be dealt with as contract terms, which brings the issues of damages and penalties into play.
Edited by Observer2 on Saturday 1st March 10:58
4rephill said:
then common sense would have told Me to reverse the Z4 into the space to leave more room to get out of the drivers door.
I guess some people simply can't park for $hit!
Including me, then, because I would have done exactly what the OP did. Use the available space so that the maximum is available on the driver's side of the car (and the adjacent one if applicable). Because cars can't drive themselves but passengers can get out or in before or after the car is parked, see? I guess some people simply can't park for $hit!
Especially necessary with a 2-door car which has wider doors so needs to be opened more to allow any given space to enter or exit the car. Going very close to the adjacent car on the passenger side firmly discourages a careless passenger from attempting to squeeze in and possibly cause damage and causes minimal inconvenience.
Perhaps this is too cerebral for PHers?
Edited by Observer2 on Saturday 1st March 09:59
Observer2 said:
4rephill said:
then common sense would have told Me to reverse the Z4 into the space to leave more room to get out of the drivers door.
I guess some people simply can't park for $hit!
Including me, then, because I would have done exactly what the OP did. Use the available space so that the maximum is available on the driver's side of the car (and the adjacent one if applicable). Because cars can't drive themselves but passengers can get out or in before or after the car is parked, see? I guess some people simply can't park for $hit!
Especially necessary with a 2-door car which has wider doors so needs to be opened more to allow any given space to enter or exit the car. Going very close to the adjacent car on the passenger side firmly discourages a careless passenger from attempting to squeeze in and possibly cause damage and causes minimal inconvenience.
Perhaps this is too cerebral for PHers?
Edited by Observer2 on Saturday 1st March 09:59
As usual with these parking charge posts people make assumptions which may not be correct and which can be critical to the question of liability.
OP needs to know answers to, at least, the following:
Who is the purported contract made with for the £100 charge?
What are the terms of the purported contract?
Is the charge a charge for parking not entirely within the marked bay, ie, a service provided in addition to parking within the bay?
If so is the signage sufficiently clear that the charge would apply for parking a few inches over the line?
Is the charge for breach of contract?
If so, what is the principal purpose of the charge;
a) to deter or b) to compensate?
If it is to compensate then it is enforceable, if it is to deter, it is not.
OP needs to know answers to, at least, the following:
Who is the purported contract made with for the £100 charge?
What are the terms of the purported contract?
Is the charge a charge for parking not entirely within the marked bay, ie, a service provided in addition to parking within the bay?
If so is the signage sufficiently clear that the charge would apply for parking a few inches over the line?
Is the charge for breach of contract?
If so, what is the principal purpose of the charge;
a) to deter or b) to compensate?
If it is to compensate then it is enforceable, if it is to deter, it is not.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff