pay it or bin it ?
Poll: pay it or bin it ?
Total Members Polled: 39
Discussion
hi chaps, i was always told and especially after that chap on watchdog famously said, never to pay private parking charges.
i've had a cheeky letter through the post, where they couldn't even get the charges right stating two different amounts in the same letter! i was wondering what the general consensus on what my next move should be ?
https://www.dropbox.com/s/hftcxtxpqq0eyze/Scan.jpe...
thank you in advance. dave
i've had a cheeky letter through the post, where they couldn't even get the charges right stating two different amounts in the same letter! i was wondering what the general consensus on what my next move should be ?
https://www.dropbox.com/s/hftcxtxpqq0eyze/Scan.jpe...
thank you in advance. dave
Edited by driftdaddy on Saturday 6th December 03:32
The first point is that if a car park requires a payment to use it, you should pay that charge, because otherwise you are a chiselling trespasser, but your question is probably about an attempt to make you pay a penalty for not paying the original charge, for overstaying, or whatever. As to that, the amount claimed is usually excessive and is what the law of contract treats as an unenforceable penalty.
You may get some advice here from keen amateur lawyers who frequent obsessive parking websites, but (being a real lawyer) I suggest that you ignore their well meant but conceptually half baked advice. The simple thing to do is to write asserting that the amount claimed is a penalty. In most cases, even where there was a contract (and the act of parking where there are signs spelling out the parking rules will usually give rise to a contract), no loss has been caused by the breach of that contract, or any loss caused is minimal.
There is a general attitude here that it is outrageous for private landowners to seek to enforce parking control, but when you think about that for a minute of course it isn't. The problem is that the attempts to do so involve silly excessive charges.
Look on the parking websites if you like, but wear a tinfoil hat as they are full of loonies and saddoes.
If you do write a letter, write using plain English and be polite. There is no need to follow the long, pompous and ranty templates suggested by the parking libertarian loons. Contrary to barrack room lawyer opinion, there is no need for convoluted or archaic verbal forms when writing on legal subjects.
You may get some advice here from keen amateur lawyers who frequent obsessive parking websites, but (being a real lawyer) I suggest that you ignore their well meant but conceptually half baked advice. The simple thing to do is to write asserting that the amount claimed is a penalty. In most cases, even where there was a contract (and the act of parking where there are signs spelling out the parking rules will usually give rise to a contract), no loss has been caused by the breach of that contract, or any loss caused is minimal.
There is a general attitude here that it is outrageous for private landowners to seek to enforce parking control, but when you think about that for a minute of course it isn't. The problem is that the attempts to do so involve silly excessive charges.
Look on the parking websites if you like, but wear a tinfoil hat as they are full of loonies and saddoes.
If you do write a letter, write using plain English and be polite. There is no need to follow the long, pompous and ranty templates suggested by the parking libertarian loons. Contrary to barrack room lawyer opinion, there is no need for convoluted or archaic verbal forms when writing on legal subjects.
The OP has not told us what the parking charge was for. If, for example, he parked somewhere where you are supposed to pay a fiver to park and he didn't pay the fiver, he should pay the fiver. If the claim is just for some mahoosive penalty charge for staying too long or whatever, he should politely decline to pay that. The costs etc. are all cheeky monkey stuff.
Sensible letters from the OP will in many cases deter the claimant from suing. If the claimant does sue, on current legal principles it will struggle to succeed in a claim for a big extra charge.
Sensible letters from the OP will in many cases deter the claimant from suing. If the claimant does sue, on current legal principles it will struggle to succeed in a claim for a big extra charge.
Breadvan72 said:
There is a general attitude here that it is outrageous for private landowners to seek to enforce parking control
I would say that for everyone with that attitude there is equally someone on here with the attitude that how dare anyone even think about leaving their vehicle on land they don't own, and why should a land owner who might wish to restrict who can and can't park a vehicle should have to invest in any sort of physical measure such as gates and barriers, or employ attendants to enforce those restrictions at their own expense. ging84 said:
I would say that for everyone with that attitude there is equally someone on here with the attitude that how dare anyone even think about leaving their vehicle on land they don't own,
Yes indeed why should they leave their vehicle on land they don't own without the owner's permission.ging84 said:
and why should a land owner who might wish to restrict who can and can't park a vehicle should have to invest in any sort of physical measure such as gates and barriers, or employ attendants to enforce those restrictions at their own expense.
I agree entirely, the landowner shouldn't have to go to any expense to stop freeloaders parking on their land.ging84 said:
I would say that for everyone with that attitude there is equally someone on here with the attitude that how dare anyone even think about leaving their vehicle on land they don't own, and why should a land owner who might wish to restrict who can and can't park a vehicle should have to invest in any sort of physical measure such as gates and barriers, or employ attendants to enforce those restrictions at their own expense.
You should always separate your principles and thoughts about how you think something should operate from the law. The way you think something should operate is irrelevant, how the law is structured is what matters.Breadvan72 said:
The first point is that if a car park requires a payment to use it, you should pay that charge, because otherwise you are a chiselling trespasser, but your question is probably about an attempt to make you pay a penalty for not paying the original charge, for overstaying, or whatever. As to that, the amount claimed is usually excessive and is what the law of contract treats as an unenforceable penalty.
You may get some advice here from keen amateur lawyers who frequent obsessive parking websites, but (being a real lawyer) I suggest that you ignore their well meant but conceptually half baked advice. The simple thing to do is to write asserting that the amount claimed is a penalty. In most cases, even where there was a contract (and the act of parking where there are signs spelling out the parking rules will usually give rise to a contract), no loss has been caused by the breach of that contract, or any loss caused is minimal.
There is a general attitude here that it is outrageous for private landowners to seek to enforce parking control, but when you think about that for a minute of course it isn't. The problem is that the attempts to do so involve silly excessive charges.
Look on the parking websites if you like, but wear a tinfoil hat as they are full of loonies and saddoes.
If you do write a letter, write using plain English and be polite. There is no need to follow the long, pompous and ranty templates suggested by the parking libertarian loons. Contrary to barrack room lawyer opinion, there is no need for convoluted or archaic verbal forms when writing on legal subjects.
This should be a sticky. In fact it should probably be emailed to every member of PH. You may get some advice here from keen amateur lawyers who frequent obsessive parking websites, but (being a real lawyer) I suggest that you ignore their well meant but conceptually half baked advice. The simple thing to do is to write asserting that the amount claimed is a penalty. In most cases, even where there was a contract (and the act of parking where there are signs spelling out the parking rules will usually give rise to a contract), no loss has been caused by the breach of that contract, or any loss caused is minimal.
There is a general attitude here that it is outrageous for private landowners to seek to enforce parking control, but when you think about that for a minute of course it isn't. The problem is that the attempts to do so involve silly excessive charges.
Look on the parking websites if you like, but wear a tinfoil hat as they are full of loonies and saddoes.
If you do write a letter, write using plain English and be polite. There is no need to follow the long, pompous and ranty templates suggested by the parking libertarian loons. Contrary to barrack room lawyer opinion, there is no need for convoluted or archaic verbal forms when writing on legal subjects.
driftdaddy said:
hi chaps, i was always told and especially after that chap on watchdog famously said, never to pay private parking charges.
Presumably you are referring to this - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XAIcdi9niHA - if you look at the date you will notice that it is long before PoFA 2012, so you have now been listening to poor/out-of-date advice. Did Link Parking send you a NtK? If it was PoFA 2012 compliant (you might be surprised how many aren't: always check), you were unwise to ignore it. The preferred method is to appeal to the PPC and when it is rejected (which is SOP: the PPC business model is geared to extracting cash not parking control) use POPLA.driftdaddy said:
i've had a cheeky letter through the post, where they couldn't even get the charges right stating two different amounts in the same letter!
Really; where?driftdaddy said:
i was wondering what the general consensus on what my next move should be ?
Your poll is pointless as the options given are binary. There should be a third one which is look elsewhere. Ask on pepipoo/MSE. On PH you will mostly get a debate. On the others you will get answers, but read up on the threads first, as it means you won't be wasting your time or that of the forum members.Breadvan72 said:
You may get some advice here from keen amateur lawyers who frequent obsessive parking websites, but (being a real lawyer) I suggest that you ignore their well meant but conceptually half baked advice.
I agree with one thing. This forum is not the place to get it. What do you mean by obsessive parking websites? There are many documented cases on pepipoo and MSE where PPCs have been roundly defeated.Breadvan72 said:
The simple thing to do is to write asserting that the amount claimed is a penalty. In most cases, even where there was a contract (and the act of parking where there are signs spelling out the parking rules will usually give rise to a contract), no loss has been caused by the breach of that contract, or any loss caused is minimal.
While I don't disagree with you, it's not quite that simple. The PPC may not be asserting breach of contract. There is also more than one way of seeing them off. Each case needs to be looked at on its merits. Find others which are the same or sufficiently similar, then use grounds which have been proven to work. Breadvan72 said:
There is a general attitude here that it is outrageous for private landowners to seek to enforce parking control, but when you think about that for a minute of course it isn't. The problem is that the attempts to do so involve silly excessive charges.
Quite. If the industry and those who employ them put their collective house in order then we wouldn't be having this discussion. It is the disgraceful tactics that so many PPCs use that is doing landowners no favours. And the latter too often have a Pontius Pilate approach instead of reining in the cowboy firms they employ. Breadvan72 said:
Look on the parking websites if you like, but wear a tinfoil hat as they are full of loonies and saddoes.
And also sensible people who know how the PPCs operate and can provide the right guidance to enable the motorist to see off those who seek to extort unjustified sums of money.HenryJM said:
You should always separate your principles and thoughts about how you think something should operate from the law. The way you think something should operate is irrelevant, how the law is structured is what matters.
^^This^^ Red Devil appears to think that the 2012 Act changed the position as to liability for parking charges. It didn't. It simply allowed for a claim to be made against the keeper of a car in some circumstances. There still has to be a claim in the first place. The claim can either be for breach of contract or for the tort of trespass. In either case, the claim is worthless unless a loss can be shown. Trespass is in principle actionable without proof of loss, as Court can award nominal damages, but in reality a Court would probably award costs against a claimant who seeks nomimal damages for trespass, unless also seeking an injunction. These cases are about claims for inflated charges, and the claims are legally flawed whether put in contract or in tort.
Anyway, OP, you can take advice from a qualified and experienced lawyer here, or you can go and hang out with people who iron their anoraks on the parking websites. Your call.
Anyway, OP, you can take advice from a qualified and experienced lawyer here, or you can go and hang out with people who iron their anoraks on the parking websites. Your call.
There is a case going before the court of appeal next year on behalf of the parking anoraks (I think it relates to a defendant called Beavis, though I don't know whether his legal representation is his equally well known compadre?).
I don't know how wide an application it will have however there is likely to be some ruling on the liquidated damages issue. The law in this area appears to have softened slightly in recent times in favour of LDs, particularly allowing 'commercial justification' to creep in in support.
If the PPCs were to lose I'd expect a fairly quick legislative reaction to protect landowners. I doubt it would make sense to do nothing and render the privity changes in the PoFA more or less otiose.
I don't know how wide an application it will have however there is likely to be some ruling on the liquidated damages issue. The law in this area appears to have softened slightly in recent times in favour of LDs, particularly allowing 'commercial justification' to creep in in support.
If the PPCs were to lose I'd expect a fairly quick legislative reaction to protect landowners. I doubt it would make sense to do nothing and render the privity changes in the PoFA more or less otiose.
AndrewEH1 said:
I might be a little slow this morning but I don't understand the breakdown of the fees.
From the looks the land owners/car park operators have been to court and got a judgement in their favour?
No, they haven't. They are threatening to do so, but a firm response from the OP may see the threat off. The fees claimed are mostly bFrom the looks the land owners/car park operators have been to court and got a judgement in their favour?
ks.Breadvan72 said:
AndrewEH1 said:
I might be a little slow this morning but I don't understand the breakdown of the fees.
From the looks the land owners/car park operators have been to court and got a judgement in their favour?
No, they haven't. They are threatening to do so, but a firm response from the OP may see the threat off. The fees claimed are mostly bFrom the looks the land owners/car park operators have been to court and got a judgement in their favour?
ks.Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff