Parking - the private enforcers got me!

[surveyor_101]

Ken Figenus said:

Interesting - is that why their 'offence' description is vaguely worded - 'On yellow lines'. They don't want to stay 'stopped' or 'parked'?

I have to say that I may not have the time/will to fight it, and I did do wrong, but in my normal world experience it would have been a tap on the glass 'oi - shift it mate' or at least a few reasonable few minutes grace. I'll need convincing!

If you pay you just encourage these types to issue more and more frivolous tickets!

A local authority civil enforcement officer wants to keep traffic flowing and the areas marked clear thats why they tap on the glass and ask you to move. A private enforcement company managing a car park may have no other revenue streams than the fines and will issue them for anything they can and in come cases make up stufff etc.

Its not much a of fight although I have never seen a PPC think they can enforce lines!! Just use a templated letter to tell them politely you are not a spineless little girl who has a basic understanding of the rules around private parking and your not easy meat for dodgy fines.

Then write to the retailer and if we can find it the landowner. Couple of letters or emails is all that is required.

[surveyor_101]

bad company said:

Also if the op just 'stopped on yellow lines' is it reasonable to assume that he would have had the opportunity to read the signs? I would say probably not.

No that straight forward with a fair size fleet we get loads of tickets when we weren't in the wrong.

Double dip anpr seems a favourite or not allowing any grace periods which all industry codes states you must have to have access to dvla data.

[Thermobaric]

There's an ANPR car park near me that hasn't quite got the hang of the whole ANPR thing. You go and put your reg in when you leave and it asks you to input your time of arrival before giving you the cost...Cheapest car park ever heh.

[Trabi601]

Thermobaric said:

There's an ANPR car park near me that hasn't quite got the hang of the whole ANPR thing. You go and put your reg in when you leave and it asks you to input your time of arrival before giving you the cost...Cheapest car park ever heh.

I thought those only did that to narrow down the options for 'your car' on the touch screen? - that's what happened in the one I used. Once you'd put the reg. in and the time, it showed you photos of cars to select yours.

[Thermobaric]

Not this one. After you put your reg in, you choose the day. Then it takes you to a screen where it asks for arrival time which you can adjust in 15 min intervals. No photos of the car. Only one I've ever seen like this. Oddly, there's another ANPR car park in the same town that does it properly with a photo of your car e.t.c.

[Ken Figenus]

I went back to have a look today at where I 'transgressed'...



One thing that absolutely cemented the reasoning behind my selfish 4 mins in being on the double yellow outside Sports Direct is the size of the parking bays.

The bays are snug even for small hatchbacks - I would never risk the big 2.2m wide car in one of these - even if I had the skills to actually reverse it in! I could barely get out of the F11 today having parked!





I'm not sure what the definition of 'tariff' is but this is what was said on the signage:


I'm still 50/50 on this as I did wait with the engine running on double yellows (without causing any inconvenience or obstruction) but if everyone did that then it would get messy and it could get obstructive. However I'm also very clear that it was impossible for me to contract with them on this 'yellow line tarrif' as it was impossible to read their very small print when driving in and the especially as I didn't actually get out of the car. No contract could possibly have been established...

I think they need to follow real world custom and practice in yellow line enforcement (signs on poles BY the yellow line rather than thousand word posters further away on buildings...). People don't expect such hyper punitive approaches with zero leeway. Is that reasonable or is £60 reasonable for a quiet life!?

[Trabi601]

Also impossible to understand the iconography?

[Ken Figenus]

I just blew up the 2nd pic:



That could easily have been my P&J - my schoolboy's dream 'pie in the sky' car - LOL

[nonsequitur]

Ken Figenus said:

I just blew up the 2nd pic:



That could easily have been my P&J - my schoolboy's dream 'pie in the sky' car - LOL

Why is that man wearing a pointy hat? Is he a wizard?

[majordad]

Witch man?

[bad company]

Ken Figenus said:

I went back to have a look today at where I 'transgressed'...



One thing that absolutely cemented the reasoning behind my selfish 4 mins in being on the double yellow outside Sports Direct is the size of the parking bays.

The bays are snug even for small hatchbacks - I would never risk the big 2.2m wide car in one of these - even if I had the skills to actually reverse it in! I could barely get out of the F11 today having parked!





I'm not sure what the definition of 'tariff' is but this is what was said on the signage:


I'm still 50/50 on this as I did wait with the engine running on double yellows (without causing any inconvenience or obstruction) but if everyone did that then it would get messy and it could get obstructive. However I'm also very clear that it was impossible for me to contract with them on this 'yellow line tarrif' as it was impossible to read their very small print when driving in and the especially as I didn't actually get out of the car. No contract could possibly have been established...

I think they need to follow real world custom and practice in yellow line enforcement (signs on poles BY the yellow line rather than thousand word posters further away on buildings...). People don't expect such hyper punitive approaches with zero leeway. Is that reasonable or is £60 reasonable for a quiet life!?

You would have to be mad to pay IMO. So you drove in and stopped on the yellow line for 4 minutes, you could presumably not see the parking notice from the car? That being the case how can they argue that you read and understood them?

[Trabi601]

I'm kind of hoping there's a photo of the OP in the bad parking discussion...

[S11Steve]

It's what knowns as a Forbidding contract. Can you can't be bound by the terms of it by transgression. A PH lawyer may be able to explain it more accurately though.

I've had a few wins at POPLA and court on this - anything that penalises you for not displaying a permit is the same.

[elanfan]

I don't suggest you try this because it would be admitting you knew the terms but who says your son didn't ask for a loading permit ehilst you were waiting but was told not to worry as it was on,y a couple of minutes until his goods were available.

There is no prove able 'loss' either as the car park is free for 3 hours. (I'll bet a lot of people get caught out by that, you can easily rack up that time mooching around multiple shoos then going for a coffee or burger).

[S11Steve]

elanfan said:

There is no prove able 'loss' either as the car park is free for 3 hours. (I'll bet a lot of people get caught out by that, you can easily rack up that time mooching around multiple shoos then going for a coffee or burger).

The Beavis judgement killed the "no loss" argument in "free for an hour" car parks. No loss can still be used for P&D car parks though.

[spikyone]

S11Steve said:

It's what knowns as a Forbidding contract. Can you can't be bound by the terms of it by transgression. A PH lawyer may be able to explain it more accurately though.

I've had a few wins at POPLA and court on this - anything that penalises you for not displaying a permit is the same.

Think you may be mistaken on that - there's an offer of paying £100 to park on yellow lines if you don't have a permit. A forbidding contract would say "no parking on yellow lines" - there is no offer. The wording isn't great, it should say "Parking or stopping on yellow lines without displaying a valid ... permit", but that term constitutes an offer.

Of course, that's entirely beside the point if OP didn't get out of the car and couldn't have seen the signs.

[bad company]

spikyone said:

Of course, that's entirely beside the point if OP didn't get out of the car and couldn't have seen the signs.

That's what I've been saying earlier in the thread. That's the best argument imo.

[Red Devil]

spikyone said:

S11Steve said:

It's what knowns as a Forbidding contract. Can you can't be bound by the terms of it by transgression. A PH lawyer may be able to explain it more accurately though.

I've had a few wins at POPLA and court on this - anything that penalises you for not displaying a permit is the same.

Think you may be mistaken on that - there's an offer of paying £100 to park on yellow lines if you don't have a permit. A forbidding contract would say "no parking on yellow lines" - there is no offer. The wording isn't great, it should say "Parking or stopping on yellow lines without displaying a valid ... permit", but that term constitutes an offer.

Of course, that's entirely beside the point if OP didn't get out of the car and couldn't have seen the signs.

Regarding the wording, the PPC has tried to box clever by offering a contract to park at at tariff (i.e. a core term) of £100.
It then tries to back track by offering 3 hours free parking but fails to specify which 3 hours.
One might infer that they mean the first 3 but the purported contract doesn't say so. Contract terms need to be clear.
The PPC will of course argue that it is implied.

In fact there are so many ambiguities/deficiencies in the T&Cs as displayed it's hard to know where to begin.

For s and giggles this item of information at the bottom is a a real gem

'This private land/car park is managed by New Generation Parking Management Limited (NGP)'

I will bet that this is news to the freeholder and all the retail stores who have leases on that site.
The freeholder's managing agent will have given NGPM Limited the right to operate a scheme of parking control.
Whether the contract has also given NGPM Limited the right to sue in its own name depends on the exact T&Cs.

If the agent has delegated any management rights over the land on that site I will donate £10 to charity.
It would not only create a conflict of interest but the freeholder would never allow it and would go ape if it found out.

ETA. A search comes up with some interesting info from the Land Registry. Several Units appear to be freehold.
Enter the postcode CF11 0JR here - https://eservices.landregistry.gov.uk/www/wps/port...
Which begs the question just who owns what? Furthermore, Google doesn't reveal any NGPM Limited signs.*
What it does show are CCTV signs. Jones La Salle are major player in the commercial property sector.

 * @ OP. You say you parked outside JD Sports but the shop in your pic is Sports Direct.
    Where is the sign you posted situated in relation to where you parked on the DYL (i.e. ground plan)?
    Did you drive past any other one/s to get there?

[surveyor_101]

I would suggest a judge would laugh the wording of that agreement out the door!

[spikyone]

Agreed Red Devil. There is an argument that the sign could be construed as "3 hours of free parking, and then the tariff below applies" - in which case you could park on the DYLs free for three hours and would only then be subject to the tariff. That sign does not say what NGPM think it says. I won't do their job for them here, but it's not exactly difficult to write a sign that cleary lays out the conditions of free parking with a penalty attached for breaching those conditions.
And if they were really interested in discouraging people from parking on the DYLs they could have popped some signs on the adjacent bollards at drivers'-eye level with a suitable statement about the charge for parking there.

* I will say I'm not entirely persuaded by arguments of "I was still in the car so I wasn't parked" - because a) most people would say that they were parked whilst stopped at the side of the road using a mobile phone, and b) there has to be some point at which being "stopped in a car park" becomes being "parked", and there is (in theory at least) a grace period allowed for stopping.