Parking ticket

[SLCZ3]

As already mentioned go to Moneysupermarket, check out Parking and speed fines threads read the newbies pages intently.
Beavis was a free car park with time restriction, which was found to be enforceable so the defendant lost on that, whereas in P&D it does not apply to it.
I emphasis you read the newbies info and there will be help/guidance available on there, do not admit to being the driver!!!!!

[PurpleMoonlight]

SLCZ3 said:

As already mentioned go to Moneysupermarket, check out Parking and speed fines threads read the newbies pages intently.
Beavis was a free car park with time restriction, which was found to be enforceable so the defendant lost on that, whereas in P&D it does not apply to it.
I emphasis you read the newbies info and there will be help/guidance available on there, do not admit to being the driver!!!!!

The legislation covers failure to pay & display.

[S11Steve]

PurpleMoonlight said:

The legislation covers failure to pay & display.

It's so far untested at anything above the county courts, but In pay and display car parks, the parking fee is the 'benefit' offered to car parking firm, which means the 'excess' charge can only be a penalty. In the free parking car parks, like the one in Beavis, the only 'consideration' is the charge for over-staying, so it cannot be a penalty charge as it is the agreement to pay it is only 'consideration' offered by the motorist.


An example of one such judgement is here - http://nebula.wsimg.com/de2566ded6f0a611c309f14948...

[PurpleMoonlight]

S11Steve said:

It's so far untested at anything above the county courts, but In pay and display car parks, the parking fee is the 'benefit' offered to car parking firm, which means the 'excess' charge can only be a penalty. In the free parking car parks, like the one in Beavis, the only 'consideration' is the charge for over-staying, so it cannot be a penalty charge as it is the agreement to pay it is only 'consideration' offered by the motorist.


An example of one such judgement is here - http://nebula.wsimg.com/de2566ded6f0a611c309f14948...

The legislation provides for the parking provider to charge the parking charge loss plus the cost to collect. Of course the cost to collect can vary but £60 isn't unreasonable.

[The Surveyor]

spikyone said:

.......
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.

The Cardiff NHS case is different due to it being a misuse of their own staff parking rules, where staff with permits were parking outside 'permit holder' parking areas in bays which were covered by the pay & display parking rules, parking without paying and displaying. The Car Parking Permits are only issued to a named member of staff rather than the registered keeper, hence the clarification on the driver and keeper situation. Its a very specific case relating to abuse of the staff permit system, rather than a traditional abuse of the parking rules.

[spikyone]

The Surveyor said:

spikyone said:

.......
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.

The Cardiff NHS case is different due to it being a misuse of their own staff parking rules, where staff with permits were parking outside 'permit holder' parking areas in bays which were covered by the pay & display parking rules, parking without paying and displaying. The Car Parking Permits are only issued to a named member of staff rather than the registered keeper, hence the clarification on the driver and keeper situation. Its a very specific case relating to abuse of the staff permit system, rather than a traditional abuse of the parking rules.

From what I have been able to glean - admittedly second hand - the parking company were still pursuing the keeper rather than the driver. And the reason staff were parking outside those bays is because something like 9000 permits were issued for 1000 staff parking spaces. If anyone was abusing the staff permit system, it sure as hell wasn't the staff.

[PurpleMoonlight]

spikyone said:

From what I have been able to glean - admittedly second hand - the parking company were still pursuing the keeper rather than the driver. And the reason staff were parking outside those bays is because something like 9000 permits were issued for 1000 staff parking spaces. If anyone was abusing the staff permit system, it sure as hell wasn't the staff.

It rather is you know.

[The Surveyor]

spikyone said:

The Surveyor said:

spikyone said:

.......
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.

The Cardiff NHS case is different due to it being a misuse of their own staff parking rules, where staff with permits were parking outside 'permit holder' parking areas in bays which were covered by the pay & display parking rules, parking without paying and displaying. The Car Parking Permits are only issued to a named member of staff rather than the registered keeper, hence the clarification on the driver and keeper situation. Its a very specific case relating to abuse of the staff permit system, rather than a traditional abuse of the parking rules.

From what I have been able to glean - admittedly second hand - the parking company were still pursuing the keeper rather than the driver. And the reason staff were parking outside those bays is because something like 9000 permits were issued for 1000 staff parking spaces. If anyone was abusing the staff permit system, it sure as hell wasn't the staff.

So, 9,000 staff coming and going and 1,250 parking spaces. Even the eternally dim would know that staff parking is limited and that the permit does not guarantee a space. So unless the Hospital has valet parking, it was the staff who were abusing the system and that's what the courts have agreed.

[spikyone]

PurpleMoonlight said:

spikyone said:

From what I have been able to glean - admittedly second hand - the parking company were still pursuing the keeper rather than the driver. And the reason staff were parking outside those bays is because something like 9000 permits were issued for 1000 staff parking spaces. If anyone was abusing the staff permit system, it sure as hell wasn't the staff.

It rather is you know.

No, it rather isn't. We're talking about people who work at the hospital being punished for parking at the hospital; it's just that they parked outside the designated area because too many staff permits were issued and it was always full. Can you explain why they should be punished for their employer's idiocy? These weren't "free parking" permits either; staff were paying over £1 per day for the privilege of having a 1 in 9 chance of finding a parking space. Which is roughly the same odds as winning any prize on the National Lottery.
Meanwhile a company with no interest in the land was going around slapping parking charges on them. Perhaps you could explain why hospital employees were in the wrong and the parking company were in the right? Given that you've already suggested Barry Beavis was a "champion for the selfish driver" (actually he was a customer of a shop and overstayed thanks to their incompetence) it seems you're not bothered about letting facts get in the way of your blind support for parking companies.

EDIT: @The Surveyor, so what are you suggesting the unlucky 7750 staff should have done? Teleport to work? Maybe they could've set up their rota so that everyone only worked one day in nine or something?

Edited by spikyone on Monday 17th July 15:03

[pavarotti1980]

audi321 said:

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. Trouble is it's a company car and the lease company will probably just pay any fines, slap on a fee and pass this onto me.

Is it a scam? UKCPS is the name of the parking company on the ticket.

Dont pay it but contact UKCPS and confirm you were the driver to take the lease company out of the loop. It may be worth contacting lease company and telling them you are appealing as driver and they are not to pay any invoice they receive in relation to it. if they do then that is their problem and you wont pay them a penny.

Then you need to appeal to UKCPS after having a look on the moneysavingexpert private parking forum which gives some templates for appeals

[PurpleMoonlight]

spikyone said:

No, it rather isn't. We're talking about people who work at the hospital being punished for parking at the hospital; it's just that they parked outside the designated area because too many staff permits were issued and it was always full. Can you explain why they should be punished for their employer's idiocy? These weren't "free parking" permits either; staff were paying over £1 per day for the privilege of having a 1 in 9 chance of finding a parking space. Which is roughly the same odds as winning any prize on the National Lottery.

They failed to pay the contractual charge for where they did park.

If your drive is full does it give you the right to park on your neighbours?

[pavarotti1980]

PurpleMoonlight said:

They failed to pay the contractual charge for where they did park.

If your drive is full does it give you the right to park on your neighbours?

But how could they enter into the contract? The provisions of POFA were not met in the signage apparently. Large prominent lettering displaying the "penalty" were not evident and contained in the tiny print. I dont think that will be the end of this case as the judge does seem to have gone against the norm in these cases

[S11Steve]

pavarotti1980 said:

Dont pay it but contact UKCPS and confirm you were the HIRER to take the lease company out of the loop. It may be worth contacting lease company and telling them you are appealing as driver and they are not to pay any invoice they receive in relation to it. if they do then that is their problem and you wont pay them a penny.

Then you need to appeal to UKCPS after having a look on the moneysavingexpert private parking forum which gives some templates for appeals

Never admit to being the driver - but admitting to being the hirer is a different matter.

If UKCPS receive any correspondence prior to issuing a Notice to Keeper, invariably they will not issue one, thus making keeper liability an impossibility.
It's also highly unlikely that they would issue any paperwork to hold the hirer liable.

[pavarotti1980]

S11Steve said:

Never admit to being the driver - but admitting to being the hirer is a different matter.

If UKCPS receive any correspondence prior to issuing a Notice to Keeper, invariably they will not issue one, thus making keeper liability an impossibility.
It's also highly unlikely that they would issue any paperwork to hold the hirer liable.

That does against moneysavingexpert resident helpers who do say to appeal as driver to a windscreen ticket, which this was

[S11Steve]

pavarotti1980 said:

That does against moneysavingexpert resident helpers who do say to appeal as driver to a windscreen ticket, which this was

The hirer and driver are not necessarily one and the same person, or even legal entity.

I've got a few examples of failed appeals where the parking company and even the IAS deducted that "in the balance of probabilities, the keeper was driving the vehicle at the time".

If the keeper is a ltd company, how does that work?

Same principle with "Hirer" - many cars are leased/hired to a Ltd company, so appealing as driver sticks your head above the parapet. Appealing as hirer doesn't confirm anything. If they are in contact with somebody in regards an appeal, they should have no reason to go to the leasing company. So another point to trip them up on.

[The Surveyor]

spikyone said:

......
EDIT: @The Surveyor, so what are you suggesting the unlucky 7750 staff should have done? Teleport to work? Maybe they could've set up their rota so that everyone only worked one day in nine or something?

Quote from the trust:- Cardiff and Vale University Health Board said more than 98% of staff complied with parking regulations and it was "disappointing" some had "chosen to refuse to co-operate".

So a small percentage of staff thought that the rules everybody else is abiding too didn't apply to them? Of which 3 members of staff were responsible for 100 notices.

I expect adults to behave like adults and sort their own sh*t out, I expect NHS staff to behave like adults over something as simple as making their own way to work and back.

[pavarotti1980]

S11Steve said:

The hirer and driver are not necessarily one and the same person, or even legal entity.

I've got a few examples of failed appeals where the parking company and even the IAS deducted that "in the balance of probabilities, the keeper was driving the vehicle at the time".

If the keeper is a ltd company, how does that work?

Same principle with "Hirer" - many cars are leased/hired to a Ltd company, so appealing as driver sticks your head above the parapet. Appealing as hirer doesn't confirm anything. If they are in contact with somebody in regards an appeal, they should have no reason to go to the leasing company. So another point to trip them up on.

I wouldnt even bother appealing to IAS. Kangaroo court is an understatement

[Thermobaric]

It's worth it just for the paper trail should it reach court.

[Pica-Pica]

Before the Beavis case, I had unwittingly overstayed in a Home Bargains/Parking Eye parking lot. I had exited over a low wall so did not see the signs. I got the notice with photos, £50 now or £85 after 14 days. I wrote that as the place was only a quarter full, I was not inconveniencing anyone, and I had shopped at said Home Bargains (and elsewhere). I worked out the maximum daily council charge nearby was £6, so I wrote back with a cheque for £12 with the statement, if you cash it by a specific date (14 days ahead), I will deem you to have accepted this as the 'imaginary' loss, if you do not cash it by that date, I will regard you as having waived the charge. They swiftly cashed it. Some said I should not have paid, but technically it is their land, and it is trespass, and that was my own little 'test case'. Sadly Beavis screwed that for all of us.

[pavarotti1980]

Pica-Pica said:

Before the Beavis case, I had unwittingly overstayed in a Home Bargains/Parking Eye parking lot. I had exited over a low wall so did not see the signs. I got the notice with photos, £50 now or £85 after 14 days. I wrote that as the place was only a quarter full, I was not inconveniencing anyone, and I had shopped at said Home Bargains (and elsewhere). I worked out the maximum daily council charge nearby was £6, so I wrote back with a cheque for £12 with the statement, if you cash it by a specific date (14 days ahead), I will deem you to have accepted this as the 'imaginary' loss, if you do not cash it by that date, I will regard you as having waived the charge. They swiftly cashed it. Some said I should not have paid, but technically it is their land, and it is trespass, and that was my own little 'test case'. Sadly Beavis screwed that for all of us.

ParkingEye v Beavis was very specific and not the silver bullet that all the parking companies thought it would be. ParkingEye leased the land which is very different to almost all other car parks, hence the distinction in the parking charges being commercially jusitifiable.