Private parking signs

[Red Devil]

AFAIK Excel and VCS do not use PoFA 2012. If so, they cannot use Schedule 4 keeper liability and will have pursue the driver. If they can find out who that is. They may try to rely on Elliott v Loake (keeper assumed to be driver) but that has been rubbished by several judges as it was a criminal case where there was ample corroboratory evidence. You have to ask why neither company uses the legislative framework that the government has provided.

S11Steve said:

I'll also hazard an educated guess that they keep the revenue of any tickets issued. This is fine whilst you have a genuine parking problem - I will guarantee that it will reduce the number of rogue cars left on the site, but what happens when there are no more unauthorised vehicles on site?

Purple Moonlight will do well to heed this advice. His badgering of the managing agents has resulted in them contracting with one of the worst operators in the country. The boss is an ex-clamper and was sharply poked in the ribs by DJ McIlwaine in the Ibbotson case. He also intemperately blamed the judge when he lost the Cutts case owing to his company's inadequate signage. The PPC is run for profit and once the income stream dries up, what then? PM may yet come to regret the can of worms he has opened.

[S11Steve]

I'm just out of court again - 2 more claims dismissed for failing to comply with POFA 2012.

It was a 3 hour hearing though, and the judge did make me work for it!

[The Surveyor]

S11Steve said:

I'm just out of court again - 2 more claims dismissed for failing to comply with POFA 2012.

It was a 3 hour hearing though, and the judge did make me work for it!

You should do this for a living Steve....

[Thermobaric]

I have no experience of court when it comes to private parking, well court in general too so I'm wondering why it dragged on so much.

Surely if they haven't complied with guidelines, it's open and shut? Why waste everyone's time like that.

[S11Steve]

It was a bit of a surprise for the rent-a-lawyer as well - he's been in cases where neither party have said much at all, the judge read through the statements and made a call within 5 minutes.

I'd not met this Deputy DJ before, but he spent an hour reading our submissions prior to the hearing, the first hour I got grilled on my defence, a short break for lunch, then the claimants solicitor was grilled for an hour. Another 20 break for him to ponder the points, then a good 45 minutes giving his summary and verdict. I'm not sure if the DDJ has dealt with many parking cases before, or just wanted to explore the defence points in relation to our industry. Either way, we both had to work for it today.

I raised 11 defence points initially, he focussed on only 4, 3 of which he decided in favour of the claimant (landowner authority, adequate signage, and a specific point to the rental industry regarding paragraph 13 of POFA 2012) - however the final point was failing to comply with requirements of Paragraph 8 sub para 2-5 - basically didn't have the right information and wasn't sent within the correct timeframe.

The 3 points that went in their favour had been successful against them at another hearing last week, so it does come down to the judge on the day and their interpretation of the submissions.

A win is still a win though.

[Pica-Pica]

S11Steve said:

It was a bit of a surprise for the rent-a-lawyer as well - he's been in cases where neither party have said much at all, the judge read through the statements and made a call within 5 minutes.

I'd not met this Deputy DJ before, but he spent an hour reading our submissions prior to the hearing, the first hour I got grilled on my defence, a short break for lunch, then the claimants solicitor was grilled for an hour. Another 20 break for him to ponder the points, then a good 45 minutes giving his summary and verdict. I'm not sure if the DDJ has dealt with many parking cases before, or just wanted to explore the defence points in relation to our industry. Either way, we both had to work for it today.

I raised 11 defence points initially, he focussed on only 4, 3 of which he decided in favour of the claimant (landowner authority, adequate signage, and a specific point to the rental industry regarding paragraph 13 of POFA 2012) - however the final point was failing to comply with requirements of Paragraph 8 sub para 2-5 - basically didn't have the right information and wasn't sent within the correct timeframe.

The 3 points that went in their favour had been successful against them at another hearing last week, so it does come down to the judge on the day and their interpretation of the submissions.

A win is still a win though.

If you say so.

[Countdown]

S11Steve said:

It was a bit of a surprise for the rent-a-lawyer as well - he's been in cases where neither party have said much at all, the judge read through the statements and made a call within 5 minutes.

I'd not met this Deputy DJ before, but he spent an hour reading our submissions prior to the hearing, the first hour I got grilled on my defence, a short break for lunch, then the claimants solicitor was grilled for an hour. Another 20 break for him to ponder the points, then a good 45 minutes giving his summary and verdict. I'm not sure if the DDJ has dealt with many parking cases before, or just wanted to explore the defence points in relation to our industry. Either way, we both had to work for it today.

I raised 11 defence points initially, he focussed on only 4, 3 of which he decided in favour of the claimant (landowner authority, adequate signage, and a specific point to the rental industry regarding paragraph 13 of POFA 2012) - however the final point was failing to comply with requirements of Paragraph 8 sub para 2-5 - basically didn't have the right information and wasn't sent within the correct timeframe.

The 3 points that went in their favour had been successful against them at another hearing last week, so it does come down to the judge on the day and their interpretation of the submissions.

A win is still a win though.

Would it not be a better use of your time if the drivers you represent (on a seemingly regular basis) just complied with the parking rules?

I can't speak for your drivers, only as a person who used to be responsible for managing our premises. There are a huge number of people who insist on parking like selfish twunts. Without them I doubt many landowners would bother entering into agreements with PPCs but it is usually the only option we have. Before anybody mentions barriers, don't. They are impractical for many reasons and even when they ARE practical, some of the more professional twunts will insist on tailgating people into the car park.

[S11Steve]

Countdown said:

Would it not be a better use of your time if the drivers you represent (on a seemingly regular basis) just complied with the parking rules?

I can't speak for your drivers, only as a person who used to be responsible for managing our premises. There are a huge number of people who insist on parking like selfish twunts. Without them I doubt many landowners would bother entering into agreements with PPCs but it is usually the only option we have. Before anybody mentions barriers, don't. They are impractical for many reasons and even when they ARE practical, some of the more professional twunts will insist on tailgating people into the car park.

They are not or drivers unfortunately. We are a wholesale supplier to the rental industry, so the drivers are the customers of our customers.

In the case today, the drivers were returning rental vehicles out of hours, and they were parked in the allocated bays but because reception was closed they couldn't obtain a permit. The landowners have an agreement with our customer, but the parking company ignore this and continue to issue tickets.

Don't get me wrong, I do see some YPLAC incidents, and we always try to transfer liability to the driver, however the PPCs see fleet providers as a soft target, and often ignore our transfer requests. Regardless of the what the driver did though, my defence is always challenging the keeper liability aspect. I will throw in multiple defence points, as today had proven that each judge can make their own decision on how they perceive the balance of probabilities.

[Red Devil]

S11Steve said:

In the case today, the drivers were returning rental vehicles out of hours, and they were parked in the allocated bays but because reception was closed they couldn't obtain a permit. The landowners have an agreement with our customer, but the parking company ignore this and continue to issue tickets.

A perfect example of what is wrong with the PPC industry. Companies whose only interest is the income stream, owing to the business model the majority of them use. Actual parking management and common sense are a distant dream with them. One thing that would improve matters is if landowners and their agents took steps to make a veto by the principal binding on the PPC and it is written into the contract. It might the curb the 'free agent' tendencies of PPCs and if it hurt them in the pocket so much the better.

S11Steve said:

Don't get me wrong, I do see some YPLAC incidents, and we always try to transfer liability to the driver, however the PPCs see fleet providers as a soft target, and often ignore our transfer requests.

I have never received a PPC PCN and I hold no torch for YPLACs. What I do know though is the regular non-compliance with PoFA 2012 and the obfuscation and downright lies that PPC claimants perpetrate. The rent-a-mob legal reps/solicitors they farm out cases to are often badly briefed. A friend of mine is a lay rep and I have no reason to think he is telling me porkies.

Another reform I would like to see is making the landowner jointly and severally liable when PPCs ignore the requirements of PoFA and when they bring hopeless cases to court.
It's a waste of the judiciary's valuable time. It might persuade landowners to vet their chosen PPC properly on an ongoing basis rather than wash their hands of any responsibility.

S11Steve said:

Regardless of the what the driver did though, my defence is always challenging the keeper liability aspect. I will throw in multiple defence points, as today had proven that each judge can make their own decision on how they perceive the balance of probabilities.

I agree with you about the 'judges lottery. Some have little or no knowledge about PoFA 2012 and have to have it explained to them, Even then some don't get it. Lack of consistency is a matter for concern for litigants (on both sides). Fortunately they do talk to each other and more and more are getting fed up with having their time wasted over what are, in most cases, relatively small monetary amounts. The court system is already overstretched without this nonsense.

[Kuji]

I agree with the obvious sentiment.


IF we didn't have some many dim-witted retards deliberately parking where they damn well know they should not and then breaking a fingernail over being asked not to, then the parking companies wouldn't exist.

Its just a shame that too many people get so fixated on the (subsequent)parking companies greed and errors that they lose sight of the real (original) villain of the whole piece.


Even worse is when said deliberate retards manage to misuse the rules established to actually protect innocence people to lord over the fact that they managed to get one over on a local landowner - by hitching their retard wagon to some poor sod who's continually trying to fix all the problems the retards like him/her have created.

/rant.

[Kuji]

I agree with the obvious sentiment.


IF we didn't have some many dim-witted retards deliberately parking where they damn well know they should not and then breaking a fingernail over being asked not to, then the parking companies wouldn't exist.

Its just a shame that too many people get so fixated on the (subsequent)parking companies greed and errors that they lose sight of the real (original) villain of the whole piece.


Even worse is when said deliberate retards manage to misuse the rules established to actually protect innocence people to lord over the fact that they managed to get one over on a local landowner - by hitching their retard wagon to some poor sod who's continually trying to fix all the problems the retards like him/her have created.

/rant.

[PurpleMoonlight]

If the RK notifies the PPC of the driver, does that absolve the RK of any potential charge liability under PoFA 2012?

[TooMany2cvs]

Red Devil said:

The rent-a-mob legal reps/solicitors they farm out cases to are often badly briefed.

I had to read that three times before I realised it didn't say "rent-a-mofo"...

[TooMany2cvs]

Kuji said:

I agree with the obvious sentiment.

IF we didn't have some many dim-witted retards deliberately parking where they damn well know they should not and then breaking a fingernail over being asked not to, then the parking companies wouldn't exist.

Its just a shame that too many people get so fixated on the (subsequent)parking companies greed and errors that they lose sight of the real (original) villain of the whole piece.

Even worse is when said deliberate retards manage to misuse the rules established to actually protect innocence people to lord over the fact that they managed to get one over on a local landowner - by hitching their retard wagon to some poor sod who's continually trying to fix all the problems the retards like him/her have created.

/rant.

What else can people do to protect against the entitled YPLAC brigade? They can't tow, they can't clamp, barriers are rarely the right answer.

[S11Steve]

PurpleMoonlight said:

If the RK notifies the PPC of the driver, does that absolve the RK of any potential charge liability under PoFA 2012?

Correct, but a lot of the PPC choose to ignore this when the operator of the vehicle is a Ltd company. If they get difficult we will try to get the driver details if it was on an active rental agreement

In the case yesterday though, the vehicles were parked at the rental site, but it wasn't possible to identify who the driver was at the time at the vehicle had come off hire, and had been prepped for the next hirer. Regardless of driver, it was parked in an allocated bay for my customer.

[pavarotti1980]

Kuji said:

I agree with the obvious sentiment.


IF we didn't have some many dim-witted retards deliberately parking where they damn well know they should not and then breaking a fingernail over being asked not to, then the parking companies wouldn't exist.

Its just a shame that too many people get so fixated on the (subsequent)parking companies greed and errors that they lose sight of the real (original) villain of the whole piece.


Even worse is when said deliberate retards manage to misuse the rules established to actually protect innocence people to lord over the fact that they managed to get one over on a local landowner - by hitching their retard wagon to some poor sod who's continually trying to fix all the problems the retards like him/her have created.

/rant.

You dont have to be a dim-witted retard to receive a PCN from private parking company. They target 1000s upon 1000s of people who have parked perfectly fine but for various reasons dont comply with the elaborate rules dreamt up by the parking companies. For example, does parking in your own parking space mean you should receive a ticket?

[PurpleMoonlight]

S11Steve said:

Regardless of driver, it was parked in an allocated bay for my customer.

The right to park in a space via an alternative means, eg a Lease is an interesting one, in that whether or not it trumps the permit requirement.

It may come down to what the Lease actually says, Mine for example states I have the right to park in the spaces marked in red on a site plan attached to the Lease. So I would say my Lease trumps the parking permit enforced by the PPC.

[PurpleMoonlight]

pavarotti1980 said:

You dont have to be a dim-witted retard to receive a PCN from private parking company. They target 1000s upon 1000s of people who have parked perfectly fine but for various reasons dont comply with the elaborate rules dreamt up by the parking companies. For example, does parking in your own parking space mean you should receive a ticket?

Of course there will be instances of contention, and double dipping seems to be an issue (opportunity) for some PPC but I would argue that most charges issued are justified in accordance with the terms of the parking contract. Some drivers are incredible selfish when it comes to parking their car.

[pavarotti1980]

PurpleMoonlight said:

Of course there will be instances of contention, and double dipping seems to be an issue (opportunity) for some PPC but I would argue that most charges issued are justified in accordance with the terms of the parking contract. Some drivers are incredible selfish when it comes to parking their car.

I think you have your figures the wrong way round. Some are justified and most are a means of the PPC making money given that breaching terms and conditions is their only income stream.

[PurpleMoonlight]

pavarotti1980 said:

I think you have your figures the wrong way round. Some are justified and most are a means of the PPC making money given that breaching terms and conditions is their only income stream.

Huh?

If drivers didn't breach the terms and conditions they wouldn't get a charge.