Finally in court with the private parking company...
Discussion
I allegedly broke the implied contract between a car park operator, whose facilities I used, and myself in May 2019. Obviously, they have vigorously pursued this ever since.
I have endured months of letters from the parking company, and their solicitor, months of 'County Court Judgement Impending', horrific details of what would happen to my credit rating, the fact that their credit control officers and their dogs would be at my doorstep and all of that crapola. All the generous 'pre-approved offers' daily by email, and their derision when I offered to settle for a de minimis sum.
I said all along I would happily challenge this in court, and finally got my day, well an hour's conf call with the judge and their agent. Obvs Judge saw sense.
I do have form here, there's another similar thread where I got cash out of Parking Eye for my defence costs as we settled out of court.
I'll post up all the story when I get a spare few hours....
I have endured months of letters from the parking company, and their solicitor, months of 'County Court Judgement Impending', horrific details of what would happen to my credit rating, the fact that their credit control officers and their dogs would be at my doorstep and all of that crapola. All the generous 'pre-approved offers' daily by email, and their derision when I offered to settle for a de minimis sum.
I said all along I would happily challenge this in court, and finally got my day, well an hour's conf call with the judge and their agent. Obvs Judge saw sense.
I do have form here, there's another similar thread where I got cash out of Parking Eye for my defence costs as we settled out of court.
I'll post up all the story when I get a spare few hours....
I assume that the profit modelling of these companies supports suing, perhaps on the basis that most claims are undefended, or that the defendant settles either because nervous about the process, or just because CBA. In some cases the defendant will be liable, but the cost/benefit figures of a single case must be unfavourable, because even if the company recovers, say, £100 or so on a case, it will have spent more than that on processing the claim.
I suppose that obtaining results by volume is the plan. Individual cases, such as this one, where the company loses reduce the profits, but presumably the company is still ahead overall. I suspect that the margins are a bit tight.
I suppose that obtaining results by volume is the plan. Individual cases, such as this one, where the company loses reduce the profits, but presumably the company is still ahead overall. I suspect that the margins are a bit tight.
Breadvan72 said:
I assume that the profit modelling of these companies supports suing, perhaps on the basis that most claims are undefended, or that the defendant settles either because nervous about the process, or just because CBA. In some cases the defendant will be liable, but the cost/benefit figures of a single case must be unfavourable, because even if the company recovers, say, £100 or so on a case, it will have spent more than that on processing the claim.
I suppose that obtaining results by volume is the plan. Individual cases, such as this one, where the company loses reduce the profits, but presumably the company is still ahead overall. I suspect that the margins are a bit tight.
Much as when dealing with scammers on the phone - the more of the scammers' time people like the OP can take up, the less positive the business case becomes.I suppose that obtaining results by volume is the plan. Individual cases, such as this one, where the company loses reduce the profits, but presumably the company is still ahead overall. I suspect that the margins are a bit tight.
to the OP!I doubt that the P and L of phone cold calling outfits is greatly affected by someone engaging one of their hapless call centre workers in a windy uppy conversation for a few minutes. I tend to feel a bit sorry for people unlucky or silly enough to be making such calls for a living.
I also don't agree that a private parking company is necessarily a scam operation. The business model is a bit odd, but it's one that exists because some people are either selfish d
heads about parking, or are just too bone idle to read signs and what not. Where there's a niche in an economy, someone will fill it, even if doing so makes them unpopular, and even if the profit margin is a bit slender.
I also don't agree that a private parking company is necessarily a scam operation. The business model is a bit odd, but it's one that exists because some people are either selfish d
heads about parking, or are just too bone idle to read signs and what not. Where there's a niche in an economy, someone will fill it, even if doing so makes them unpopular, and even if the profit margin is a bit slender. Breadvan72 said:
I doubt that the P and L of phone cold calling outfits is greatly affected by someone engaging one of their hapless call centre workers in a windy uppy conversation for a few minutes. I tend to feel a bit sorry for people unlucky or silly enough to be making such calls for a living.
I also don't agree that a private parking company is necessarily a scam operation. The business model is a bit odd, but it's one that exists because some people are either selfish dheads about parking, or are just too bone idle to read signs and what not. Where there's a niche in an economy, someone will fill it, even if doing so makes them unpopular, and even if the profit margin is a bit slender.
Taking people to court is effectively a loss leader. Their whole business model relies on them frightening people into believing there will be consequences; if they don't follow through to court and score the occasional win, what's to make people pay in the first place? Most companies' websites lead with details of all the court cases they've won. Pre-Beavis, and pre-POFA, many people would've advised that a letter from a parking company should be thrown in the bin, for reasons I'm sure you're familiar with.I also don't agree that a private parking company is necessarily a scam operation. The business model is a bit odd, but it's one that exists because some people are either selfish d
heads about parking, or are just too bone idle to read signs and what not. Where there's a niche in an economy, someone will fill it, even if doing so makes them unpopular, and even if the profit margin is a bit slender. They don't spend much money on court, by all accounts, typically engaging an advocate from a third party legal firm (who may or may not be legally qualified) if things ever get as far as court, and they're working on the hope that the other party won't turn up.
I suspect it's actually a very profitable little industry on the whole. Private parking companies' "management" of car parks involves putting up some signs and a couple of ANPR cameras, perhaps some payment machines on-site, then waiting for people to transgress some rule that may or may not be necessary.
The business model isn't just "a bit odd", to the average man in the street it's utterly bizarre that you can consent to a contract simply by the act of parking your car, particularly when the contract is with a company that has no interest in the land itself. It's probably far less profitable to run a legitimate P&D car park than it is to operate a private parking company that concerns itself solely with sending out £60-£100 charges and some threatening letters, with the occasional court cost thrown in.
ETA: congratulations OP, looking forward to reading the details!
spikyone said:
Private parking companies' "management" of car parks involves putting up some signs and a couple of ANPR cameras, perhaps some payment machines on-site, then waiting for people to transgress some rule that may or may not be necessary.
The main benefit to the Landowner is that they deter 95% of people from parking where they're not supposed to.I look forward to the OP's story but in my opinion the majority of people being caught by PPCs knew they shouldn't have been parking there and did so in the hope that they wouldn't get caught, or wouldn't get chased even if they did.
spikyone said:
...
They don't spend much money on court, by all accounts, typically engaging an advocate from a third party legal firm (who may or may not be legally qualified) if things ever get as far as court, and they're working on the hope that the other party won't turn up.
...
The business model isn't just "a bit odd", to the average man in the street it's utterly bizarre that you can consent to a contract simply by the act of parking your car, particularly when the contract is with a company that has no interest in the land itself.
...
(1) AFAIK they use people who may have been to law school but have not done pupillages or training contracts and so are not fully fledged barristers or solicitors. These people are a sort of exploited prole class of almost-lawyers, whose existence derives from there being too many law school places, which are offered on a "pay and you're in" basis, and not enough pupillages and training contracts for all of those law school graduates. Others in this group slave as paralegals in the photocopying rooms of mega law firms, preparing vast bundles of documents for big Commercial cases. Few if any of these people will go on to get pupillages or training contracts, and they may drift off into insurance, regulatory work, or some other field altogether after a few years of low paid grunt work. They don't spend much money on court, by all accounts, typically engaging an advocate from a third party legal firm (who may or may not be legally qualified) if things ever get as far as court, and they're working on the hope that the other party won't turn up.
...
The business model isn't just "a bit odd", to the average man in the street it's utterly bizarre that you can consent to a contract simply by the act of parking your car, particularly when the contract is with a company that has no interest in the land itself.
...
The regulatory probity of the advocacy bit is a bit grey, and there is some doubt as to whether these unqualified advocates should be allowed to address the courts, but in practice they are.
(2) There is nothing even remotely bizarre about contracts being formed by conduct. This is not unique to car parks and has been going on for centuries. The absence of an interest in the land is of interest only to the FOTL loons who cluster on some of those bonkers obsessive websites about parking tickets.
Countdown said:
The main benefit to the Landowner is that they deter 95% of people from parking where they're not supposed to.
I look forward to the OP's story but in my opinion the majority of people being caught by PPCs knew they shouldn't have been parking there and did so in the hope that they wouldn't get caught, or wouldn't get chased even if they did.
There is something remarkable about the motor car in that it turns its operator into an an arrogant, selfish anarchist, who thinks that he or she can do just whatever the Hell he or she likes, saying screw rules, and screw other people's property; or at least so it can appear from all the threads here about speeding tickets and parking tickets. I look forward to the OP's story but in my opinion the majority of people being caught by PPCs knew they shouldn't have been parking there and did so in the hope that they wouldn't get caught, or wouldn't get chased even if they did.
Why would anyone find it odd that parking on private land has rules? Just because you have access to drive onto private property via public roads, doesn't mean you have an inalienable right to park on that land, or indeed any right.
I'm with Countdown on this one. I've yet to hear of that mystical complaint where someone has genuinely been done over through no fault of their own. it's almost always "I got back to my car too late because I couldn't be fked to get back on time / didn't want to pay more for a ticket", or some other excuse that can basically be summed up as "I wanted to park there, so I did, and I don't want to play by the same rules as everyone else, even though those rules were painfully obvious to me and were a condition of parking there".
I'm with Countdown on this one. I've yet to hear of that mystical complaint where someone has genuinely been done over through no fault of their own. it's almost always "I got back to my car too late because I couldn't be f
ked to get back on time / didn't want to pay more for a ticket", or some other excuse that can basically be summed up as "I wanted to park there, so I did, and I don't want to play by the same rules as everyone else, even though those rules were painfully obvious to me and were a condition of parking there".Edited by Durzel on Thursday 10th September 15:25
Durzel said:
Why would anyone find it odd that parking on private land has rules? Just because you have access to drive onto private property via public roads, doesn't mean you have an inalienable right to park on that land, or indeed any right.
I'm with Countdown on this one. I've yet to hear of that mystical complaint where someone has genuinely been done over through no fault of their own. it's almost always "I got back to my car too late because I couldn't be fked to get back on time / didn't want to pay more for a ticket", or some other excuse that can basically be summed up as "I wanted to park there, so I did, and I don't want to play by the same rules as everyone else, even though those rules were painfully obvious to me and were a condition of parking there".
I'm with Countdown on this one. I've yet to hear of that mystical complaint where someone has genuinely been done over through no fault of their own. it's almost always "I got back to my car too late because I couldn't be f
ked to get back on time / didn't want to pay more for a ticket", or some other excuse that can basically be summed up as "I wanted to park there, so I did, and I don't want to play by the same rules as everyone else, even though those rules were painfully obvious to me and were a condition of parking there".Edited by Durzel on Thursday 10th September 15:25
I got issued a ticket in a railway station carpark (run by NCP) despite having paid for my parking via the app.
Refused the initial appeal, saying that I should have paid, despite me sending them the receipt they'd emailed me, which confirmed I'd paid over an hour before the ticket was issued.
Eventually got it cancelled by phoning and getting them to check the details. Turns out the person who issued the ticket hadn't bothered to refresh the day's e tickets on his handheld before patrolling the car park.
They couldn't explain why they didn't cross check before issuing the paperwork nor why the initial appeal was rejected.
Also had a dodgy ticket issued to my other half at a hotel - she'd gone in to buy a spa gift voucher and was ticketed because she hadn't entered her details into the computer in reception.
Very good reason why she hadn't done that - it wasn't installed until a week after they'd issued the ticket, so there was no way of doing it. Also no signage to tell patrons they had to either.
That one got cancelled too, but only after the local media got sent a copy of the ticket and the email from the hotel manager confirming when the terminal and signs were installed.
So our household's experience of private parking tickets so far is that 100% of those issued to us have been at the least, issued incorrectly and, more likely, could be considered fraudulent.
The plural of anecdote is not data.
There is no fraud in the scenarios you narrate. You have described mistakes.
The shrillness around this subject is bizarre. The fact that systems operated by bored humans who may be working for low pay are sometimes error prone should surprise no one and is hardly a cause for outrage.
I sometimes wonder what would happen to the middle class motorist if he or she ever encountered a serious injustice. Given the apoplexies that occur when a hotel receptionist or a minimum wage traffic warden cocks up, I assume that if something worse hsppened the motorist would actually explode. It could make quite good telly.
There is no fraud in the scenarios you narrate. You have described mistakes.
The shrillness around this subject is bizarre. The fact that systems operated by bored humans who may be working for low pay are sometimes error prone should surprise no one and is hardly a cause for outrage.
I sometimes wonder what would happen to the middle class motorist if he or she ever encountered a serious injustice. Given the apoplexies that occur when a hotel receptionist or a minimum wage traffic warden cocks up, I assume that if something worse hsppened the motorist would actually explode. It could make quite good telly.
Breadvan72 said:
The plural of anecdote is not data.
There is no fraud in the scenarios you narrate. You have described mistakes.
The shrillness around this subject is bizarre. The fact that systems operated by bored humans who may be working for low pay are sometimes error prone should surprise no one and is hardly a cause for outrage.
I sometimes wonder what would happen to the middle class motorist if he or she ever encountered a serious injustice. Given the apoplexies that occur when a hotel receptionist or a minimum wage traffic warden cocks up, I assume that if something worse hsppened the motorist would actually explode. It could make quite good telly.
Visualises a re boot of Beadles About. ( Breadvans About ? ) where he roams the land subjecting random hapless middle class members of the public to serious miscarriages of justice ...sounds a ratings winner to me...mind you not sure it will be getting re runs on ITV 4 in 30 years time..perhaps someone can suggest an appropriate vehicle for the aforesaid “hero “ to drive?.There is no fraud in the scenarios you narrate. You have described mistakes.
The shrillness around this subject is bizarre. The fact that systems operated by bored humans who may be working for low pay are sometimes error prone should surprise no one and is hardly a cause for outrage.
I sometimes wonder what would happen to the middle class motorist if he or she ever encountered a serious injustice. Given the apoplexies that occur when a hotel receptionist or a minimum wage traffic warden cocks up, I assume that if something worse hsppened the motorist would actually explode. It could make quite good telly.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff