Parking fine assistance (yay!)
Discussion
bad company said:
You’re taking the moral high ground but often these parking ‘fines’ are very unfair and unjustified. I’d always avoid paying if legally possible.
What would be “fair” or “justified”? The main point of the charges is to deter people who shouldn’t be parking there from doing so. Having a fair or justifiable charge wouldn’t act as a deterrent.Sometimes i feel that countdown and graveworm and others on here, are of the type who say that criminals who use GBH in burglaries etc should be given a second chance ,but will be the first to demand the death penalty if anything happened to them.
Its the same with these rapacious ex clampers. they only want money.How many more times do i have to say this If they dont act according to the law then stuff them. if they did, then i would, if ever in that situation, pay up. But these are so thick that it is like shooting fish in a barrel to get it cancelled. They know that if they pushed it to court they would lose. They only go after the low hanging fruit like you two. Fight legally and they back down the majority of the time. The amount is immaterial, it is the principal of law. Beckhams lawyer would have a field day with these.
Oh and the organisation known as IAS, is not one to be trusted on appeals.
Its the same with these rapacious ex clampers. they only want money.How many more times do i have to say this If they dont act according to the law then stuff them. if they did, then i would, if ever in that situation, pay up. But these are so thick that it is like shooting fish in a barrel to get it cancelled. They know that if they pushed it to court they would lose. They only go after the low hanging fruit like you two. Fight legally and they back down the majority of the time. The amount is immaterial, it is the principal of law. Beckhams lawyer would have a field day with these.
Oh and the organisation known as IAS, is not one to be trusted on appeals.
Countdown said:
What would be “fair” or “justified”? The main point of the charges is to deter people who shouldn’t be parking there from doing so. Having a fair or justifiable charge wouldn’t act as a deterrent.
No. The main point of the charges is to make Private Parking Companies huge amounts of money. silverfoxcc said:
Sometimes i feel that countdown and graveworm and others on here, are of the type who say that criminals who use GBH in burglaries etc should be given a second chance ,but will be the first to demand the death penalty if anything happened to them.
Its the same with these rapacious ex clampers. they only want money.How many more times do i have to say this If they dont act according to the law then stuff them. if they did, then i would, if ever in that situation, pay up. But these are so thick that it is like shooting fish in a barrel to get it cancelled. They know that if they pushed it to court they would lose. They only go after the low hanging fruit like you two. Fight legally and they back down the majority of the time. The amount is immaterial, it is the principal of law. Beckhams lawyer would have a field day with these.
Oh and the organisation known as IAS, is not one to be trusted on appeals.
I don't and I wouldn't. Its the same with these rapacious ex clampers. they only want money.How many more times do i have to say this If they dont act according to the law then stuff them. if they did, then i would, if ever in that situation, pay up. But these are so thick that it is like shooting fish in a barrel to get it cancelled. They know that if they pushed it to court they would lose. They only go after the low hanging fruit like you two. Fight legally and they back down the majority of the time. The amount is immaterial, it is the principal of law. Beckhams lawyer would have a field day with these.
Oh and the organisation known as IAS, is not one to be trusted on appeals.
I don't like the ex clampers etc. I think the whole sorry business is a fudge that no one wants to deal with. If my contract with them is invalid I wouldn't pay. If it was, I would because (Without in any way saying others need to) I pay what I owe irrespective of if I can be forced to.
Graveworm said:
I don't and I wouldn't.
I don't like the ex clampers etc. I think the whole sorry business is a fudge that no one wants to deal with. If my contract with them is invalid I wouldn't pay. If it was, I would because (Without in any way saying others need to) I pay what I owe irrespective of if I can be forced to.
OK I don't like the ex clampers etc. I think the whole sorry business is a fudge that no one wants to deal with. If my contract with them is invalid I wouldn't pay. If it was, I would because (Without in any way saying others need to) I pay what I owe irrespective of if I can be forced to.
A lot of these 'contracts' and the manner they are progressed are invalid, albeit by the word 'should' being used instead of 'invite' and other periods as laid down in the Act not being adhered to. The moment that happens then it is invalid.
It is people like Pep and MSE who look for these things
So lets agree on that,
This is where I'm (still) confused, the letter does state that they don't know the drivers name and address, and it does invite the keeper to either pay themselves or to pass the name and address of the driver.
Obviously someone cleverer than me will tell me that it doesn't, but in the meantime I'll continue to make sure that I get back to my car within the time that I've paid for and hopefully I won't have to have all this hassle.
Obviously someone cleverer than me will tell me that it doesn't, but in the meantime I'll continue to make sure that I get back to my car within the time that I've paid for and hopefully I won't have to have all this hassle.
Chester draws said:
This is where I'm (still) confused, the letter does state that they don't know the drivers name and address, and it does invite the keeper to either pay themselves or to pass the name and address of the driver.
Obviously someone cleverer than me will tell me that it doesn't, but in the meantime I'll continue to make sure that I get back to my car within the time that I've paid for and hopefully I won't have to have all this hassle.
Aren't you perfect. Obviously someone cleverer than me will tell me that it doesn't, but in the meantime I'll continue to make sure that I get back to my car within the time that I've paid for and hopefully I won't have to have all this hassle.
xjay1337 said:
Chester draws said:
This is where I'm (still) confused, the letter does state that they don't know the drivers name and address, and it does invite the keeper to either pay themselves or to pass the name and address of the driver.
Obviously someone cleverer than me will tell me that it doesn't, but in the meantime I'll continue to make sure that I get back to my car within the time that I've paid for and hopefully I won't have to have all this hassle.
Aren't you perfect. Obviously someone cleverer than me will tell me that it doesn't, but in the meantime I'll continue to make sure that I get back to my car within the time that I've paid for and hopefully I won't have to have all this hassle.
If I want to visit B&Q and Pets at Home, who each have their own car park with "do not leave the site" conditions clearly displayed on their notices, I either move the car between the two, or park on the public road between them and walk in. Rather than try to argue later that they do or don't have proof I left the site.
At my works car park, which is time restricted, I can only have one vehicle given exemption. If I take our second car I park on the street and walk. Rather than argue after I get a ticket that there's been no loss because if I hadn't have had that car there I'd have had the other one in the same space.
Simply, I don't trust the operators not to jump on me the moment I breach the agreement. I don't have £50 to spend unnecessarily, and I don't want the aggro of trying to argue it.
Chester it is quite simple
You have in return for not clamping! 'invite' me to your house..I decline that is the end of it
You tell me i 'should' visit your house Where is the invite? and that is what the letter sent
So it fails to comply with the very Act these shysters asked to have made in return to give up clamping
.ven the Police are not immune. Take the recent Beckham speeding case. THe police HAVE to get a letter sent out so it is RECEIVED by the 14th day. They failed ,his Breif pointed it out, and even though he was speeding he got of because of this failure. Same with PPC. if they do not comply then ..game over , only it is not contested in a court but at the POPLA tribunal
An example
Britannia Parking wrote to me as the RK concerning an overstay in a free supermarket car park. The letter was DATED three weeks after the event ,and therefore thy coulnt even fall back on the bit in the Act that says a letter is deemed to be served two days following posting
They also failed to 'invite' me to name the driver but said i 'should' tell them
I wrote back on their website to advise them that they had failed on two sections of the Act namely letter served too late to chase me as the keeper and that i would not be naming the driver.
Took all of five mins to get this put to bed and save me some cash
They replied just saying no further action and dont do it again... Assuming by that statement i was the driver ( the car has multiple names on the insurance)
NOW what about a case where it says no return within 90mis: What happens if Driver A visits and then sends driver B back to get something else within the 90mins? Both drivers have complied with the PPC requirements .YET they will send a letter our demanding money, and in a case like this you can nmae both drivers and tell them to jog on. There is also the possibily they have fallen foul of the GDPR?Act and if they have, you could claim damages. £250.00 IIRC Then it gets interesting!!!!.
Cases on Pepipoo concerning them still show that despite my letter and others before me, pointing out where they had cocked up, they still are getting it wrong
Dumb or what?
You have in return for not clamping! 'invite' me to your house..I decline that is the end of it
You tell me i 'should' visit your house Where is the invite? and that is what the letter sent
So it fails to comply with the very Act these shysters asked to have made in return to give up clamping
.ven the Police are not immune. Take the recent Beckham speeding case. THe police HAVE to get a letter sent out so it is RECEIVED by the 14th day. They failed ,his Breif pointed it out, and even though he was speeding he got of because of this failure. Same with PPC. if they do not comply then ..game over , only it is not contested in a court but at the POPLA tribunal
An example
Britannia Parking wrote to me as the RK concerning an overstay in a free supermarket car park. The letter was DATED three weeks after the event ,and therefore thy coulnt even fall back on the bit in the Act that says a letter is deemed to be served two days following posting
They also failed to 'invite' me to name the driver but said i 'should' tell them
I wrote back on their website to advise them that they had failed on two sections of the Act namely letter served too late to chase me as the keeper and that i would not be naming the driver.
Took all of five mins to get this put to bed and save me some cash
They replied just saying no further action and dont do it again... Assuming by that statement i was the driver ( the car has multiple names on the insurance)
NOW what about a case where it says no return within 90mis: What happens if Driver A visits and then sends driver B back to get something else within the 90mins? Both drivers have complied with the PPC requirements .YET they will send a letter our demanding money, and in a case like this you can nmae both drivers and tell them to jog on. There is also the possibily they have fallen foul of the GDPR?Act and if they have, you could claim damages. £250.00 IIRC Then it gets interesting!!!!.
Cases on Pepipoo concerning them still show that despite my letter and others before me, pointing out where they had cocked up, they still are getting it wrong
Dumb or what?
Interesting, it sounds like the nub of this "defence" is does the word "should" be interpreted as an "invitation" or a "mandatory order". ?
And that seems to be where the opposing parties on this thread are coming from, i can see it both ways, the would should is not "shall", but is perhaps stronger than an "invitation". If they added the words "please would you" would that satisfy the legal requirements.
On a separate note, whilst the "invitation aspect" is being concentrated on here, doesn't the rest of the Leg also state that the PPC need to inform the addressee of the time place, infraction details etc, but also the specifics of the costs of the parking not paid for? Or am I reading that bit wrong!? (para 2d). So in the OPs case, do they need to say, he went 45 mins over, he paid for 2hrs at £4, so the amount unpaid was £1.50?
And that seems to be where the opposing parties on this thread are coming from, i can see it both ways, the would should is not "shall", but is perhaps stronger than an "invitation". If they added the words "please would you" would that satisfy the legal requirements.
On a separate note, whilst the "invitation aspect" is being concentrated on here, doesn't the rest of the Leg also state that the PPC need to inform the addressee of the time place, infraction details etc, but also the specifics of the costs of the parking not paid for? Or am I reading that bit wrong!? (para 2d). So in the OPs case, do they need to say, he went 45 mins over, he paid for 2hrs at £4, so the amount unpaid was £1.50?
Edited by poo at Paul's on Wednesday 19th June 10:37
poo at Paul's said:
Interesting, it sounds like the nub of this "defence" is does the word "should" be interpreted as an "invitation" or a "mandatory order". ?
And that seems to be where the opposing parties on this thread are coming from, i can see it both ways, the would should is not "shall", but is perhaps stronger than an "invitation". If they added the words "please would you" would that satisfy the legal requirements.
On a separate note, whilst the "invitation aspect" is being concentrated on here, doesn't the rest of the Leg also state that the PPC need to inform the addressee of the time place, infraction details etc, but also the specifics of the costs of the parking not paid for? Or am I reading that bit wrong!? (para 2d). So in the OPs case, do they need to say, he went 45 mins over, he paid for 2hrs at £4, so the amount unpaid was £1.50?
All they would have to put in their standard letter would be And that seems to be where the opposing parties on this thread are coming from, i can see it both ways, the would should is not "shall", but is perhaps stronger than an "invitation". If they added the words "please would you" would that satisfy the legal requirements.
On a separate note, whilst the "invitation aspect" is being concentrated on here, doesn't the rest of the Leg also state that the PPC need to inform the addressee of the time place, infraction details etc, but also the specifics of the costs of the parking not paid for? Or am I reading that bit wrong!? (para 2d). So in the OPs case, do they need to say, he went 45 mins over, he paid for 2hrs at £4, so the amount unpaid was £1.50?
Edited by poo at Paul's on Wednesday 19th June 10:37
"In accordance with POFA 2102 s.2(9)(e) we do not know the identity of the driver, therefore we invite you to name them and provide a servicable address so we can contact them regarding this matter.
Job done and they would be compliant but even after so long they still havent grasped this. Maybe they dont know how to change a document
To me, “invite” is synonymous with “suggest” in this case.
“Should” is conditional, in that it means “it is better to do this but possible not to” rather than “you must do this; you have no option”
Also, “you should come fishing with me some time” would be a perfectly normal way to invite someone to go fishing, for example
“Should” is conditional, in that it means “it is better to do this but possible not to” rather than “you must do this; you have no option”
Also, “you should come fishing with me some time” would be a perfectly normal way to invite someone to go fishing, for example
ElectricPics said:
Countdown said:
What would be “fair” or “justified”? The main point of the charges is to deter people who shouldn’t be parking there from doing so. Having a fair or justifiable charge wouldn’t act as a deterrent.
No. The main point of the charges is to make Private Parking Companies huge amounts of money. The point IS to deter people who shouldn’t be parking there from doing so.
If those people hadn't done so in the first place, we wouldn't have a need for ANY parking companies and everyone would be happy.
All well and good but the Act specifically states the the PPC MUST do the following
Rather the same as shall/shall not, must/must not in the highway code
so if they do not??????
Poo
There is a lot of other info that they MUST put in the letter but fail to do so on many occasions
However some PPC are slowly smeling the coffee and if you get one fro m Parking Eye...tread carefully they do Court
Rather the same as shall/shall not, must/must not in the highway code
so if they do not??????
Poo
There is a lot of other info that they MUST put in the letter but fail to do so on many occasions
However some PPC are slowly smeling the coffee and if you get one fro m Parking Eye...tread carefully they do Court
Hi guys
Just an update on this.
I found they had replied to my appeal - it came through on the 11th of July however it was buried thanks to Google's anti spam.
The letter as below.
They seem to completely ignore the email regarding the requirement to invite ....
It's now long past the 28 days period to notify Popla.
Nothing has been sent to the registered keeper in the post.
Next course of action!?
Obviously my fault for missing it in the spam..
Just an update on this.
I found they had replied to my appeal - it came through on the 11th of July however it was buried thanks to Google's anti spam.
The letter as below.
They seem to completely ignore the email regarding the requirement to invite ....
It's now long past the 28 days period to notify Popla.
Nothing has been sent to the registered keeper in the post.
Next course of action!?
Obviously my fault for missing it in the spam..
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff