Parking ticket
Discussion
Parked in my local maplins today. Observed the sign which said 1 hour blah blah. Went to maplins and then to another (off site) shop only to return after 25 mins to a parking ticket!
WTF I thought. Went into maplins and they said I got it cos I left the site! £100 fine!
A bit of googling suggests this is a con and I shouldn't pay up.
Is it a scam? UKCPS is the name of the parking company on the ticket.
WTF I thought. Went into maplins and they said I got it cos I left the site! £100 fine!
A bit of googling suggests this is a con and I shouldn't pay up.
Is it a scam? UKCPS is the name of the parking company on the ticket.
Edited by audi321 on Friday 18th August 21:15
I wouldn't pay it. Reasearch it yourself but basically;
It's not a fine, it's an invoice dressed up as a fine. They do this to make you worried and cough up. It's shades of a confidence trick.
You would be refusing to pay on the grounds it's not reflective of the loss the landowner has suffered. (I'm not a solicitor by the way.)
http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/reclaim/private-p...
It's not a fine, it's an invoice dressed up as a fine. They do this to make you worried and cough up. It's shades of a confidence trick.
You would be refusing to pay on the grounds it's not reflective of the loss the landowner has suffered. (I'm not a solicitor by the way.)
http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/reclaim/private-p...
Chainsaw Rebuild said:
I wouldn't pay it. Reasearch it yourself but basically;
It's not a fine, it's an invoice dressed up as a fine. They do this to make you worried and cough up. It's shades of a confidence trick.
You would be refusing to pay on the grounds it's not reflective of the loss the landowner has suffered. (I'm not a solicitor by the way.)
http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/reclaim/private-p...
Ever heard of Mr Beavis?It's not a fine, it's an invoice dressed up as a fine. They do this to make you worried and cough up. It's shades of a confidence trick.
You would be refusing to pay on the grounds it's not reflective of the loss the landowner has suffered. (I'm not a solicitor by the way.)
http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/reclaim/private-p...
PurpleMoonlight said:
Chainsaw Rebuild said:
I wouldn't pay it. Reasearch it yourself but basically;
It's not a fine, it's an invoice dressed up as a fine. They do this to make you worried and cough up. It's shades of a confidence trick.
You would be refusing to pay on the grounds it's not reflective of the loss the landowner has suffered. (I'm not a solicitor by the way.)
http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/reclaim/private-p...
Ever heard of Mr Beavis?It's not a fine, it's an invoice dressed up as a fine. They do this to make you worried and cough up. It's shades of a confidence trick.
You would be refusing to pay on the grounds it's not reflective of the loss the landowner has suffered. (I'm not a solicitor by the way.)
http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/reclaim/private-p...
Beavis is not the silver bullet which PPCs would have you believe. One if the key points in the Supreme Court judgement is that signage is key.
In the case of Beavis it couldn't have been clearer. The OP will need to post a pic of the one he is alleged to have fallen foul of before any sensible advice can be forthcoming.
What the judgement did do was put the skids under GPEOL as a defence..
In the case of Beavis it couldn't have been clearer. The OP will need to post a pic of the one he is alleged to have fallen foul of before any sensible advice can be forthcoming.
What the judgement did do was put the skids under GPEOL as a defence..
I challenged someone in one of my parking spaces on Thursday. It went like this:
Me: What unit are you visiting?
Her: Unit 22.
Me: Can you park in spaces allocated to unit 22 then please, this one is allocated to my unit.
Her: But there are none available.
Me: Then park off site and walk.
Her: Why? You are not using it.
Me: That's not the point, it is not allocated to unit 22 so you have no right to park here.
Me: I have left you several notes notifying you of this but you ignore them.
Her: I haven't received any notes and don't touch my car in future.
Me: If your car wasn't in my space I wouldn't need to.
She then moves her car to a space allocated to another unit on site, not 22.
5 minutes later there is another unauthorised vehicle in the space.
This is the low life mentality landowners have to deal with. I really do wonder why some people think their right to park their car somewhere outweighs any common courtesy and respect for other peoples property and business. It happens every day without fail.
On the odd occasion I am actually asked for permission I always give it if the space is not needed that day.
All these people in pepipoo or wherever should try being on the receiving end of these selfish drivers for a change.
Me: What unit are you visiting?
Her: Unit 22.
Me: Can you park in spaces allocated to unit 22 then please, this one is allocated to my unit.
Her: But there are none available.
Me: Then park off site and walk.
Her: Why? You are not using it.
Me: That's not the point, it is not allocated to unit 22 so you have no right to park here.
Me: I have left you several notes notifying you of this but you ignore them.
Her: I haven't received any notes and don't touch my car in future.
Me: If your car wasn't in my space I wouldn't need to.
She then moves her car to a space allocated to another unit on site, not 22.
5 minutes later there is another unauthorised vehicle in the space.
This is the low life mentality landowners have to deal with. I really do wonder why some people think their right to park their car somewhere outweighs any common courtesy and respect for other peoples property and business. It happens every day without fail.
On the odd occasion I am actually asked for permission I always give it if the space is not needed that day.
All these people in pepipoo or wherever should try being on the receiving end of these selfish drivers for a change.
Edited by PurpleMoonlight on Sunday 16th July 05:16
UKCPS doesn't meet the Beavis test on signage and their Notice to keeper does not comply with POFA 2012
They are also inordinately stupid as a business, so in 20-25 days, write them a very short appeal letter
"Dear UKCPS,
I am writing as Registered Keeper of the XX12XXX, and I understand that a parking charge was issued on *date* at *location*
I do not believe that this charge is valid as the signage is inadequate to form a contract.
Please cancel the charge.
Love from me"
They will write back and reject it. At some point in the future you will get another letter, but crucially if UKCPS receive an appeal from the "keeper" they do not tend to send out a POFA compliant Notice to Keeper. Without this document being issued, they can not legally hold the keeper liable.
It is that simple because this company are that stupid. Because they are in the IPC, they do not tend to rely on POFA, but do rely on having a bunch of corrupt solicitors behind them issuing many threats.
Besides, they also have a duty to mitigate their losses if they saw the driver leaving the site in order to issue a ticket for breach of contract. Google VCS v Ibbotson for more detail on this.
Or just pay it. Up to you if you feel that £60/£100 is worth less than your time.
They are also inordinately stupid as a business, so in 20-25 days, write them a very short appeal letter
"Dear UKCPS,
I am writing as Registered Keeper of the XX12XXX, and I understand that a parking charge was issued on *date* at *location*
I do not believe that this charge is valid as the signage is inadequate to form a contract.
Please cancel the charge.
Love from me"
They will write back and reject it. At some point in the future you will get another letter, but crucially if UKCPS receive an appeal from the "keeper" they do not tend to send out a POFA compliant Notice to Keeper. Without this document being issued, they can not legally hold the keeper liable.
It is that simple because this company are that stupid. Because they are in the IPC, they do not tend to rely on POFA, but do rely on having a bunch of corrupt solicitors behind them issuing many threats.
Besides, they also have a duty to mitigate their losses if they saw the driver leaving the site in order to issue a ticket for breach of contract. Google VCS v Ibbotson for more detail on this.
Or just pay it. Up to you if you feel that £60/£100 is worth less than your time.
PurpleMoonlight said:
S11Steve said:
Besides, they also have a duty to mitigate their losses if they saw the driver leaving the site in order to issue a ticket for breach of contract. Google VCS v Ibbotson for more detail on this.
That's pre Beavis. Does it still apply?AS above though, it's been heralded as some sort of silver bullet for the parking industry.
S11Steve said:
Yes, the Beavis case only focused on one matter - and that was whether £100 was commercially justifiable. Under certain circumstances, (free car park and not P&D, and correct signage) then yes it was.
AS above though, it's been heralded as some sort of silver bullet for the parking industry.
I think it went further than that.AS above though, it's been heralded as some sort of silver bullet for the parking industry.
It confirmed that for a free timed car park there was no justification to justify any loss and the imposition of a charge for breaching the contract is enforcable.
With no loss to justify there is no duty to mitigate it.
It's arguable I suppose, but I'm not aware if it has been properly tested yet since the Beavis ruling. I've thrown it into a few appeals where appropriate, but most of my appeals focus on keeper liability and POFA compliance.
Curiously. the Cardiff NHS case that is in the news today seems to imply that POFA compliance is not so important... This one will rumble on.
Curiously. the Cardiff NHS case that is in the news today seems to imply that POFA compliance is not so important... This one will rumble on.
S11Steve said:
It's arguable I suppose, but I'm not aware if it has been properly tested yet since the Beavis ruling. I've thrown it into a few appeals where appropriate, but most of my appeals focus on keeper liability and POFA compliance.
Curiously. the Cardiff NHS case that is in the news today seems to imply that POFA compliance is not so important... This one will rumble on.
I agree with PurpleMoonlight to an extent - part of the SC ruling was that there is no need for there to be a loss, in which case the requirement to mitigate the loss ceases. What I don't know is whether there is a similar concept that could be applied to contractual breaches; is there a legal principle that if you permit a contractual breach (which arguably the parking attendant did, in this case, by watching the driver walk away rather than saying "you'll be in breach if you do that") then you can't reasonably pursue a 'penalty clause' based on that breach? IANAL, but it seems to me that it's unreasonable for a company employed to "manage" parking permitting someone to take the piss so that they can enforce that penalty clause, even more so when it is likely their only source of income from the site.Curiously. the Cardiff NHS case that is in the news today seems to imply that POFA compliance is not so important... This one will rumble on.
As for the Cardiff case, from the reporting that I've seen the judge made some very unusual decisions in that case - not least of which was allowing full costs for "unreasonable behaviour" seemingly on the basis that she thought two of the defence points were nonsense, and suggesting that even if the keeper was not the driver, the driver had probably told the keeper there was a contract formed by parking at the site. Utterly bizarre, and it will doubtless be appealed.
Edited by spikyone on Monday 17th July 11:26
spikyone said:
I agree with PurpleMoonlight to an extent - part of the SC ruling was that there is no need for there to be a loss, in which case the requirement to mitigate the loss ceases. What I don't know is whether there is a similar concept that could be applied to contractual breaches; is there a legal principle that if you permit a contractual breach (which arguably the parking attendant did, in this case, by watching the driver walk away rather than saying "you'll be in breach if you do that") then you can't reasonably pursue a 'penalty clause' based on that breach?
I see both sides of the argument, but the basis for "commercial justification" of the parking charge was to help ensure that the there were spaces for genuine users. Stopping someone from leaving the site would be another way to fulfil that, and probably more effective than issuing a ticket I suppose.Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff