Should we pay the fine?

[Kuwahara]

I always ignore PCN tickets ,not to be mixed up with Police or Local authority ones which need to be addressed/challenged but don’t ignore ,you’ll get threatening letters from a bogus solicitor that doesn’t exist ,they exist on fear….

Edited by Kuwahara on Tuesday 15th November 18:52

[ReverendCounter]

The university should be able to help get this cancelled, I would have thought?

[illmonkey]

That looks like a printout/dump when the machine boots up. It's not a ticket and as good as rubbish I'd say.

[semisane]

Ignore surely !!

[sixor8]

Is it possible it's the remnants from another car, slapped on her windscreen by the 'offender?'

[vikingaero]

What a wonderful employer the University is? Get people/students/union to sign a petition demanding they sort out the parking.

Do the Dean or Heads of Departments have their own parking? Park in their spaces!

[GiantCardboardPlato]

Just write to the parking office/whatever and they’ll likely cancel it, especially if your wife has a permit,
Universities are struggling and in many senses are not what they/we were, but they are still fundamentally communities. In my experience colleagues will see reason and cancel it. It’s not like the crazy shopping centre/whatever ones,

[surveyor_101]

ITS NOT A FINE ITS A SPECULATIVE INVOICE!! Parking Charge Notice!

It looks the ticket wasn't even printed properly, clue is in the name TPS is also known as Toilet Paper Solutions,

Clearly you have not read it as it doesn't say fine anywhere.

Since you call it a fine pay it, like the ignorant sheep some people are.

Edited by surveyor_101 on Wednesday 16th November 08:13

[DartyBistard]

Boo-urns said:

After a little reading online, it seems that most people ignore these things but you do read the odd story where someone's been taken to court and received a CCJ.

A CCJ is only issued if the court decides against you, and then you don't pay. If you went to court and lost that would not appear as a CCJ as long as you did actually then pay the charge in line with courts rulings.

However, the parking operators and debt collectors letters will lie and say the opposite to the above. Ignore the bds would be my advice and has worked well for me personally. This is a speculative invoice for a supposed breach of contract and these leeches exist by using fear tactics to get people to pay. The letters get more menacing in tone but are all equally useless as enforceable documents. I would only respond to a letter from the court - which is unlikely but can happen.

As mentioned already, the above does not apply for actual penalty notices from the police or council.

[R56Cooper]

surveyor_101 said:

ITS NOT A FINE ITS A SPECULATIVE INVOICE!! Parking Charge Notice!

It looks the ticket wasn't even printed properly, clue is in the name TPS is also known as Toilet Paper Solutions,

Clearly you have not read it as it doesn't say fine anywhere.

Since you call it a fine pay it, like the ignorant sheep some people are.

Edited by surveyor_101 on Wednesday 16th November 08:13

Have a read of this :

https://www.lawble.co.uk/parking-eye-vs-beavis-law...

[surveyor_101]

R56Cooper said:

Have a read of this :

https://www.lawble.co.uk/parking-eye-vs-beavis-law...

Are you being obtuse? A fine and a charge for breach of clearly established contracts.

Yes, well aware of BEAVIS VS PE 2015, it is not a fine and this is very specific. (Aside from the fact that PRIVATE parking industry could not in its wildest dreams construct a case like this against anyone else it's almost like Beavis was a PE PLANT.

A fine is has a legal definition and is issued by a government body not a private company who are basically cowboy clampers.

The beavis case ruled that in a free limit time carpark if the signage met a clear test and the operator could demonstrate landowner authority, then a gross period of overstay where the driver clearly identifies himself then then the only income, they generate is from invoice terms breaching such people.

Are you aware the government don't agree with the level of charge in this case? They have drafted legislation that includes limiting it for £50!


The PPC hang their hat on this case but post Beavis I have gone up against PE and they had no landowner agreement with the new owner, their planning permission for the carpark lapsed. They provided a layout and signage plan claiming signs that had been removed still existed and on the photo evidence some of the photos submitted in evidence said on the bottom (sign removed from site a date 2 years prior)

PE attempts I have seen to build a case are so laughable it is not even funny!

[Ganglandboss]

Boo-urns said:

As I say, she's paid for the privilege of parking there...

I used to work in the estates department at a university and paid for parking. On one occasion, I had been out at lunchtime and returned to find the car park full. This was a frequent occurrence, as the car park is also used for conference centre visitors, and it was a planning requirement that it was also open to the public.

Usually we could just drive up to the gatehouse and ask if they had any space on the campus. On this occasion I was greeted by a security guard who was regarded by all as a bit of a bell-end. He refused to let me on, so I parked under the railway arch by the entrance to our workshop.

The security guard reported me to one of the senior managers, who came down to see me before I was due to finish. He told me I was not allowed to park there, so I told him I was unable to get on the multi storey car park, and asked what I should have done. His answer was I park on the NCP.

I asked who would pay for that, considering I already paid for a space at work. His answer was 'You do not pay for a space; you pay for a licence to hunt for a space'. I had a look at the wording in the agreement, and it did state that permit holders were not guaranteed a space.