Court orders woman to pay £24,500 to private parking company
Discussion
A woman has been ordered by a sheriff to pay a private parking company £24,500 in unpaid charges.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-tayside-cent...
Carly Mackie ignored hundreds of penalty notices for parking at Dundee's Waterfront without a permit, claiming they were unenforceable. Ms Mackie said that she had a right to park in the area as she was living there at the time.
In a written judgement, Sheriff Way said: "She admits she parked without a permit, on the property that the pursuers were contracted to protect. She had no better right or title to do so than any other interloper or stranger no matter what her belief might be." The sheriff said Ms Mackie had "entirely misdirected herself" on both the law and "the contractual chain" in the case. He said: "The defender is bound by that contract and incurred the parking charge on each occasion. The defender refused to pay the parking charges not because she was unaware of the parking scheme or the terms of the notices or the financial consequences of parking at any time, but because she did not believe that the charges were valid in law. The parking charges flow from a valid contract between the pursuers and the defender and she is liable for them."
Can be expensive, getting it wrong.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-tayside-cent...
Carly Mackie ignored hundreds of penalty notices for parking at Dundee's Waterfront without a permit, claiming they were unenforceable. Ms Mackie said that she had a right to park in the area as she was living there at the time.
In a written judgement, Sheriff Way said: "She admits she parked without a permit, on the property that the pursuers were contracted to protect. She had no better right or title to do so than any other interloper or stranger no matter what her belief might be." The sheriff said Ms Mackie had "entirely misdirected herself" on both the law and "the contractual chain" in the case. He said: "The defender is bound by that contract and incurred the parking charge on each occasion. The defender refused to pay the parking charges not because she was unaware of the parking scheme or the terms of the notices or the financial consequences of parking at any time, but because she did not believe that the charges were valid in law. The parking charges flow from a valid contract between the pursuers and the defender and she is liable for them."
Can be expensive, getting it wrong.
hornetrider said:
A foolish woman, having put herself in a position to possibly having to pay such a life changing amount of money.
Foolish and greedy. She could have had a parking permit for £40 a month but declined. Doubtless we'll be seeing her an upcoming episode of Can't Pay We'll Take It Away in the near future.
Silly Bint said:
She said: 'We have a right to park in front of our own property. I've considered moving out. It just makes my life so hellish.
'I always make a point of parking in front of my own garage, where nobody else could park, and never parking on the double yellow lines on the road.'
So she parked on the path. Sympathy level: zero.'I always make a point of parking in front of my own garage, where nobody else could park, and never parking on the double yellow lines on the road.'
hornetrider said:
Silly Bint said:
She said: 'We have a right to park in front of our own property. I've considered moving out. It just makes my life so hellish.
'I always make a point of parking in front of my own garage, where nobody else could park, and never parking on the double yellow lines on the road.'
So she parked on the path. Sympathy level: zero.'I always make a point of parking in front of my own garage, where nobody else could park, and never parking on the double yellow lines on the road.'
Looking at the picture above I assume it’s all private land and the yellow lines mean nothing, The path looks to just be a cobble area in front of the garages. So it’s not really a path, indeed since its cobbled I assume most people will avoid walking on it.
So the parking company was employed to control parking I assume because people where parking incorrectly. She was a tenant in the development. By parking in front of her father’s garage she did not interfere with any other users since they could not have parked there without blocking the access.
So while she may have been in breach of contract she may not have been causing any inconvenience.
We know the parking company concerned are bottom feeders.
Quite possible this could have been defended.
It seems to be the lynchpin of her defence was 'I wish to park directly adjacent to the title of the property in which I live - and I have a right to park directly adjacent to the title of the property in which I live'
....I am slightly surprise this got as far through the system as it did....
ETA: ''We have a right to park in front of our own property" - that sort of admits its not on.
So, no. No you don't.
....I am slightly surprise this got as far through the system as it did....
ETA: ''We have a right to park in front of our own property" - that sort of admits its not on.
So, no. No you don't.
Edited by Vocal Minority on Monday 3rd April 16:07
Mrr T said:
hornetrider said:
Silly Bint said:
She said: 'We have a right to park in front of our own property. I've considered moving out. It just makes my life so hellish.
'I always make a point of parking in front of my own garage, where nobody else could park, and never parking on the double yellow lines on the road.'
So she parked on the path. Sympathy level: zero.'I always make a point of parking in front of my own garage, where nobody else could park, and never parking on the double yellow lines on the road.'
Looking at the picture above I assume it’s all private land and the yellow lines mean nothing, The path looks to just be a cobble area in front of the garages. So it’s not really a path, indeed since its cobbled I assume most people will avoid walking on it.
So the parking company was employed to control parking I assume because people where parking incorrectly. She was a tenant in the development. By parking in front of her father’s garage she did not interfere with any other users since they could not have parked there without blocking the access.
So while she may have been in breach of contract she may not have been causing any inconvenience.
We know the parking company concerned are bottom feeders.
Quite possible this could have been defended.
Mrr T said:
I assume... I assume... I assume...
That's an awful lot of assuming there champ 
Mrr T said:
She is certainly stupid for ignoring the PCN but not sure your condemnation on her choice of where to park is correct.
Well... https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@56.4599089,-2.96137...Looks pretty spot on to me. It's a path, and where she parked is a blot.
Edited by hornetrider on Monday 3rd April 16:10
hornetrider said:
Well... https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@56.4599089,-2.96137...
Looks pretty spot on to me. It's a path, and where she parked is a blot.
I use assume to demonstrate I do not know. Better I feel than claiming knowledge I do not have.Looks pretty spot on to me. It's a path, and where she parked is a blot.
Edited by hornetrider on Monday 3rd April 16:10
Thanks for the new picture. I now agree its idiot parking.
However it actually raises another question.
It looks like an adopted road, and it’s unusual for a council not to adopt both pavements. If they have then only the council/police could issue fines.
ash73 said:
How the hell did it add up to £24.5K? That's ridiculous. Yes she should pay a fine, but it should be a reasonable amount.
It was apparently hundreds of tickets she ignored, so it would easily add up to £18,500 (which was apparently the amount of unpaid fines when proceedings were issued; I assume the remainder was costs) . If it was a ticket a day for a year, that would be £50 per ticket. That's the contract she formed by parking her car in that area. If you didn't pay your utility bill, would you expect to be sued for the full amount or let off with "a reasonable amount"?ash73 said:
How the hell did it add up to £24.5K? That's ridiculous. Yes she should pay a fine, but it should be a reasonable amount.
Is it not a private parking issue? If so she cannot be fined, it's a contractual obligation. Is it a reasonable charge? Apparently the legalist involved thought so...ash73 said:
How the hell did it add up to £24.5K? That's ridiculous. Yes she should pay a fine, but it should be a reasonable amount.
It's as simple as this i think, you don't pay the odd 70 quid fine, thats ok, surely they wont pursue you, it's not worth their time in court for such a small amount. You push them to the point the cost of going court is dwarfed by the amount owed and they'll happily go for blood.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff