parking invoice & now court summons
Discussion
LarsG said:
Go to court and argue your case, take any evidence you have with you. Chances are the court might be sympathetic to you. If you don't go they will find against you. If you win ask for compensation for your time, £100 should suffice. Make sure you have all the information with you. It's not intimidating and usually very informal.
Do not do this you will likely lose and look rather stupid. Post on one of the sites already mentioned with all the details and they will assist with a defence. Almost all parking invoices are unenforceable because parking companies cannot be bothered to make them enforceable.A defence in court will highlight those problems. Going to court and hoping to talk them into letting you off does not work.
Mrr T said:
LarsG said:
Go to court and argue your case, take any evidence you have with you. Chances are the court might be sympathetic to you. If you don't go they will find against you. If you win ask for compensation for your time, £100 should suffice. Make sure you have all the information with you. It's not intimidating and usually very informal.
Do not do this you will likely lose and look rather stupid. Post on one of the sites already mentioned with all the details and they will assist with a defence. Almost all parking invoices are unenforceable because parking companies cannot be bothered to make them enforceable.A defence in court will highlight those problems. Going to court and hoping to talk them into letting you off does not work.
Ever been to Court or know the procedure MrrT?
Thought not. You’re an idiot.
I gave very good advice to the OP yesterday but as always, idiots like you go off on their own tangent.
Can’t be bothered anymore.
What i cannot see is
Did the OP appeal?
Did they send a :POPLA code?
If they didn't they are not conforming to POFA2012 section 9 ( and subsections)
Whilst is it a long way down the raod o would say to the OP
get onto pepipoo at once and put up the whole story chapter and verse DO NOT fudge at all
Get picturwas of the car park and post them up with every bit of paperwork with details of you and any identifying refrence numbers redacted
See what they say. If hyou haven't had a POPLA code or did SWFA when you did tell them they are there to help, you need to do some work ,they dont write it out for you
AND listen to them. They are guys on your side not the santimonious buggeras on here hwo rip you a new one.
I am with Xj I dont like t
t parking ,but If the PPC want to play this game then the rules,WHICH they have to obey to the letter are in POFA 2012 ,one words wrong on a letter usually wins at popla
Did the OP appeal?
Did they send a :POPLA code?
If they didn't they are not conforming to POFA2012 section 9 ( and subsections)
Whilst is it a long way down the raod o would say to the OP
get onto pepipoo at once and put up the whole story chapter and verse DO NOT fudge at all
Get picturwas of the car park and post them up with every bit of paperwork with details of you and any identifying refrence numbers redacted
See what they say. If hyou haven't had a POPLA code or did SWFA when you did tell them they are there to help, you need to do some work ,they dont write it out for you
AND listen to them. They are guys on your side not the santimonious buggeras on here hwo rip you a new one.
I am with Xj I dont like t
t parking ,but If the PPC want to play this game then the rules,WHICH they have to obey to the letter are in POFA 2012 ,one words wrong on a letter usually wins at poplaStoofa said:
Andy20vt said:
Mandalore said:
Most GENUINELY innocent people like myself who make a mistake, get their tickets overturned
You are talking absolute cobblers - try telling that to the millions of people who have been put through the mill despite having made a genuine mistake. These parking companies hound (bully) people to such an extent that most people dare not even appeal and just pay up out of fear or wanting it to go away. These companies make their money through fear and intimidation regardless of whether you parked correctly or not.Those who think that law is sorcery and that legal arguments are won and lost by the use or omission of magic words are very keen on terms such as cease and desist letters.
That term is an Americanism, and refers to the sometimes rather pompous letters sent by excessively aggressive American law firms, often in contexts such as alleged infringement of intellectual property. It is not a term of art. Writing a letter does not have the effect of a magic spell.
That term is an Americanism, and refers to the sometimes rather pompous letters sent by excessively aggressive American law firms, often in contexts such as alleged infringement of intellectual property. It is not a term of art. Writing a letter does not have the effect of a magic spell.
TVR1 said:
Mrr T said:
LarsG said:
Go to court and argue your case, take any evidence you have with you. Chances are the court might be sympathetic to you. If you don't go they will find against you. If you win ask for compensation for your time, £100 should suffice. Make sure you have all the information with you. It's not intimidating and usually very informal.
Do not do this you will likely lose and look rather stupid. Post on one of the sites already mentioned with all the details and they will assist with a defence. Almost all parking invoices are unenforceable because parking companies cannot be bothered to make them enforceable.A defence in court will highlight those problems. Going to court and hoping to talk them into letting you off does not work.
Ever been to Court or know the procedure MrrT?
Thought not. You’re an idiot.
I gave very good advice to the OP yesterday but as always, idiots like you go off on their own tangent.
Can’t be bothered anymore.
Yes I know he going to court that why I suggests he needs a proper defence. You know that's what you do if you want to defend a case in court. You enter a defence.
Breadvan72 said:
Those who think that law is sorcery and that legal arguments are won and lost by the use or omission of magic words are very keen on terms such as cease and desist letters.
That term is an Americanism, and refers to the sometimes rather pompous letters sent by excessively aggressive American law firms, often in contexts such as alleged infringement of intellectual property. It is not a term of art. Writing a letter does not have the effect of a magic spell.
So are you saying that a cease and desist letter in the context of parking companies processing your personal data in breach of the data protection act is not an appropriate response to said breach? And if not, why not? Why is the onus on me to respond to their failure to carry out appropriate checks and ensure that the systems they have in place are robust? That term is an Americanism, and refers to the sometimes rather pompous letters sent by excessively aggressive American law firms, often in contexts such as alleged infringement of intellectual property. It is not a term of art. Writing a letter does not have the effect of a magic spell.
jm doc said:
So are you saying that a cease and desist letter in the context of parking companies processing your personal data in breach of the data protection act is not an appropriate response to said breach? And if not, why not? Why is the onus on me to respond to their failure to carry out appropriate checks and ensure that the systems they have in place are robust?
I believe he’s saying that a cease and desist letter is the province of those who’ve watched too much LA Law / Ally McBeal / Suits (depending on age). 
jm doc said:
So are you saying that a cease and desist letter in the context of parking companies processing your personal data in breach of the data protection act is not an appropriate response to said breach? And if not, why not? Why is the onus on me to respond to their failure to carry out appropriate checks and ensure that the systems they have in place are robust?
Sending such letters makes the person who sends them look like a knob. The letters probably go straight into the bin, which is where they belong. PA: “said breach”? What century are you writing in? Knock off the pseudo legalese and use plain modern English!
Breadvan72 said:
jm doc said:
So are you saying that a cease and desist letter in the context of parking companies processing your personal data in breach of the data protection act is not an appropriate response to said breach? And if not, why not? Why is the onus on me to respond to their failure to carry out appropriate checks and ensure that the systems they have in place are robust?
Sending such letters makes the person who sends them look like a knob. The letters probably go straight into the bin, which is where they belong. PA: “said breach”? What century are you writing in? Knock off the pseudo legalese and use plain modern English!
Maybe then you wouldn't come across as such a sneering supercilious pr**k
Ooooh, your feels! I sometimes wonder what the people here who are reduced to yelling at the computer screen when they see something they don't like would do if someone upset them in the real world.
Some people perhaps hang out with the wrong lawyers, as sensible modern lawyers use plain English. Use of antiquated language persists amongst some lawyers, but they tend to be the duff ones.
Some people perhaps hang out with the wrong lawyers, as sensible modern lawyers use plain English. Use of antiquated language persists amongst some lawyers, but they tend to be the duff ones.
Breadvan72 said:
Ooooh, your feels! I sometimes wonder what the people here who are reduced to yelling at the computer screen when they see something they don't like would do if someone upset them in the real world.
Some people perhaps hang out with the wrong lawyers, as sensible modern lawyers use plain English. Use of antiquated language persists amongst some lawyers, but they tend to be the duff ones.
Fortunately I don't "hang out" with any lawyers which is probably my good fortune if your attitude is a true reflection of the legal profession. I suspect it is not. Some people perhaps hang out with the wrong lawyers, as sensible modern lawyers use plain English. Use of antiquated language persists amongst some lawyers, but they tend to be the duff ones.
However, my experience of legal documents on a regular basis, over several decades, both professionally and personally and from a wide range of legal sources is completely at odds with your description. So much so that I really don't think you are serious.
Lastly, I cannot recall ever yelling at a computer screen, and in the real world when someone tries to upset me with comments that seem to be put downs, I let them know how those comments can make them appear to others.
I think the modern English for this approach is "simples"?
Ah yes, hurling sweary insults at some possibly made up person on the internet is of course the reaction of the calm and reflective net citizen!
The use of antiquated language by some lawyers persists in some fields (land law, for example), but commercial lawyers in developed Anglophone countries have been using plain English since the 1980s, although more so in litigation than in transactional work. Transactional documents are often still far too long, and use too many synonyms, but these are neither essential not desirable features of legal drafting. The use of boilerplate and cut and pasted recycled language can be hazardous, as it isn't a substitute for clarity of thought and expression. Sometimes you see antiquated and unclear language used by organisations that have not taken recent legal advice on their documents.
Internet wannabe lawyers love to use archaic language, thinking that this makes them sound like real lawyers (some even become grumpy when teased by real lawyers for doing so). FOTL loons and others of the barrack room persuasion may adopt phrases which have little application in the relevant context. "Cease and desist letter" is one such phrase.
I think that some of this may derive from a suspicion that law is a sort of Harry Potter system in which the speaking of a spell, using specified words in a specified order, produces results. Bad legal systems can look like that (have a look at English law before about 1875, for example), but sensible legal systems don't rely on going to Hogwarts.
The use of antiquated language by some lawyers persists in some fields (land law, for example), but commercial lawyers in developed Anglophone countries have been using plain English since the 1980s, although more so in litigation than in transactional work. Transactional documents are often still far too long, and use too many synonyms, but these are neither essential not desirable features of legal drafting. The use of boilerplate and cut and pasted recycled language can be hazardous, as it isn't a substitute for clarity of thought and expression. Sometimes you see antiquated and unclear language used by organisations that have not taken recent legal advice on their documents.
Internet wannabe lawyers love to use archaic language, thinking that this makes them sound like real lawyers (some even become grumpy when teased by real lawyers for doing so). FOTL loons and others of the barrack room persuasion may adopt phrases which have little application in the relevant context. "Cease and desist letter" is one such phrase.
I think that some of this may derive from a suspicion that law is a sort of Harry Potter system in which the speaking of a spell, using specified words in a specified order, produces results. Bad legal systems can look like that (have a look at English law before about 1875, for example), but sensible legal systems don't rely on going to Hogwarts.
Edited by anonymous-user on Monday 28th October 08:21
Mrr T said:
TVR1 said:
Mrr T said:
LarsG said:
Go to court and argue your case, take any evidence you have with you. Chances are the court might be sympathetic to you. If you don't go they will find against you. If you win ask for compensation for your time, £100 should suffice. Make sure you have all the information with you. It's not intimidating and usually very informal.
Do not do this you will likely lose and look rather stupid. Post on one of the sites already mentioned with all the details and they will assist with a defence. Almost all parking invoices are unenforceable because parking companies cannot be bothered to make them enforceable.A defence in court will highlight those problems. Going to court and hoping to talk them into letting you off does not work.
Ever been to Court or know the procedure MrrT?
Thought not. You’re an idiot.
I gave very good advice to the OP yesterday but as always, idiots like you go off on their own tangent.
Can’t be bothered anymore.
Yes I know he going to court that why I suggests he needs a proper defence. You know that's what you do if you want to defend a case in court. You enter a defence.
I was taken to the High Court in London by an employer who tried to stop me working in the North West, in 1993. I was up against a multinational company. So yes, I've been there, done that. Surprisingly it was the same court that I used to sit in watching cases unfold when I was doin* a Law degree. Incidentally, I won that, and my costs paid for too.
Secondly more recently, there was me and the Post Office during a motoring claim, said Postie slammed into my stationary car with me in it. I won that too with costs and £500 compensation. The postie was called a dishonest man too.
Oh and an illegitimate parking ticket. I proved I wasn't in the car park at the time they claimed. Did I have evidence? Bundles of it.
What I was trying to say, going to court is not scary, not like you see on television. If you believe you are right and have the evidence to support that assumption you have every chance of winning.
In this case there won't be anyone with a wig on their head, 9/10 times you'll sit around a table. They state what they have, you then have your chance to put your side to the court. The court then decides on who or what will win lose or draw.
So I'm not quite the idiot that is claimed. Yes my 2/1 with honours LLB is a little out of date now, but the bottom line is, don't be afraid of going to court over a parking or motoring matter. Just make sure you have what you need to prove your point. Be concise and to the point.
Also, never ignore letters, they won't just go away.
If you are on a sticky wicket, hold your hands up and pay the fine.
I think people watch too may American Courtroom dramas. British justice is much more subtle.
Edited by LarsG on Monday 28th October 08:40
Edited by LarsG on Monday 28th October 08:46
LarsG said:
Going to court isn't like an American TV show.
I was taken to the High Court in London by an employer who tried to stop me working in the North West, in 1993. I was up against a multinational company. So yes, I've been there, done that. Surprisingly it was the same court that I used to sit in watching cases unfold when I was doin* a Law degree. Incidentally, I won that, and my costs paid for too.
Secondly more recently, there was me and the Post Office during a motoring claim, said Postie slammed into my stationary car with me in it. I won that too with costs and £500 compensation. The postie was called a dishonest man too.
Oh and an illegitimate parking ticket. I proved I wasn't in the car park at the time they claimed. Did I have evidence? Bundles of it.
What I was trying to say, going to court is not scary, not like you see on television. If you believe you are right and have the evidence to support that assumption you have every chance of winning.
In this case there won't be anyone with a wig on their head, 9/10 times you'll sit around a table. They state what they have, you then have your chance to put your side to the court. The court then decides on who or what will win lose or draw.
So I'm not quite the idiot that is claimed. Yes my 2/1 with honours LLB is a little out of date now, but the bottom line is, don't be afraid of going to court over a parking or motoring matter. Just make sure you have what you need to prove your point. Be concise and to the point.
Also, never ignore letters, they won't just go away.
If you are on a sticky wicket, hold your hands up and pay the fine.
I think people watch too may American Courtroom dramas. British justice is much more subtle.
It's not my place to comment on claims made by anonymous posters. However you do seem to have missed out an important part of any such case. You know the part where the plaintiff submits a written claim and the defendant submits a written defence. These will cover the elements of the claim and defence which can then be presented to the judge. I was taken to the High Court in London by an employer who tried to stop me working in the North West, in 1993. I was up against a multinational company. So yes, I've been there, done that. Surprisingly it was the same court that I used to sit in watching cases unfold when I was doin* a Law degree. Incidentally, I won that, and my costs paid for too.
Secondly more recently, there was me and the Post Office during a motoring claim, said Postie slammed into my stationary car with me in it. I won that too with costs and £500 compensation. The postie was called a dishonest man too.
Oh and an illegitimate parking ticket. I proved I wasn't in the car park at the time they claimed. Did I have evidence? Bundles of it.
What I was trying to say, going to court is not scary, not like you see on television. If you believe you are right and have the evidence to support that assumption you have every chance of winning.
In this case there won't be anyone with a wig on their head, 9/10 times you'll sit around a table. They state what they have, you then have your chance to put your side to the court. The court then decides on who or what will win lose or draw.
So I'm not quite the idiot that is claimed. Yes my 2/1 with honours LLB is a little out of date now, but the bottom line is, don't be afraid of going to court over a parking or motoring matter. Just make sure you have what you need to prove your point. Be concise and to the point.
Also, never ignore letters, they won't just go away.
If you are on a sticky wicket, hold your hands up and pay the fine.
I think people watch too may American Courtroom dramas. British justice is much more subtle.
Edited by LarsG on Monday 28th October 08:40
Edited by LarsG on Monday 28th October 08:46
Since private parking cases involve some unusual elements of contract law the defence needs to be clear why the claim has no validity.
Unless a defendant has prepared a well argued and coherent defence to the claim which they can present to the judge then they will lose.
The only area that has some sway is if this is in Scotland due to a quirk in the law that can be used to your advantage, however in England its completely different.
In Scotland the issue is with the driver of the vehicle, this is the person that would be liable for the parking charge. Now the company that is chasing up the charge will ge the owners details from the DVLA and write to them.
There is no obligation for the owner of the vehicle to divulge the driver of the vehicle in Scotland. if the company chasing the charge can not identify the driver then there is no case that can be pursed. it would cost way too much money to resolve so it generally gets binned after a few letters.
There are cases though where its been a habitual occurrence and they have obtained photographic evidence of the culprit and then went to court, those cases are very difficult to get out of as they have the driver and they can pursue.
England is different though... and Id pay it as it can get messy.
Oh and as for courts, they know if your being fruity with the language and that doesn't get you far, best being simple and concise, and ensure that you have all your facts !
In Scotland the issue is with the driver of the vehicle, this is the person that would be liable for the parking charge. Now the company that is chasing up the charge will ge the owners details from the DVLA and write to them.
There is no obligation for the owner of the vehicle to divulge the driver of the vehicle in Scotland. if the company chasing the charge can not identify the driver then there is no case that can be pursed. it would cost way too much money to resolve so it generally gets binned after a few letters.
There are cases though where its been a habitual occurrence and they have obtained photographic evidence of the culprit and then went to court, those cases are very difficult to get out of as they have the driver and they can pursue.
England is different though... and Id pay it as it can get messy.
Oh and as for courts, they know if your being fruity with the language and that doesn't get you far, best being simple and concise, and ensure that you have all your facts !
ruggedscotty said:
......
Can I correct you on some matters. It is not a quirk in the law. Its that Scotland never introduced keeper liability for private parking tickets. As for the validity of a private parking invoice in England and Wales this is a matter in contract law. There are many reasons why a contract may not have been created. However, for most private parking invoices the claim is against the keeper under POFA 2012. To create such a claim not only must there be a valid contact but the invoice must contain information defined in POFA 2012. Very few invoices meet the requirements.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff