Bradfield Road car park (Hillsborough) - charges and "fines"

[Moosey]

Presumably some part of that £80 is the administration fee for monitoring the car park and processing the infringement.

Clampers are regulated by law and can charge a fee larger than this I believe.

 

But it's not proportionate.

 

In the same sense that despite what the papers say, I couldn't charge £5000 of costs on a claim that I settled for £1000. Courts do not allow disproportionate costs/penalties or anything similar.

[Lockjaw]

Clamping companies exist and obviously have a working business model. Farmfoods key business is selling food, not issuing parking tickets. Thus Farmfoods could end it's contract with Excel or whoever it is and form a contract with a clamping company. Farmfoods would achieve the aim of stopping people parking illegally (probably with more success than the current policy).

 

Fair points Cyclone and, to be honest, I'm not familiar with the structure of a clamping company so I'll not venture into the world of conjecture - maybe someone knowledgeable can fill us in ... I've made it clear before on the parking (and bank charges) threads that I'm only interested in ensuring people are fully aware of the facts ... I'm not here to defend people who blatantly flout the rules, whether legal or moral, my issue is purely with the companies and their methods. I'll repeat what I believe is the major point in all of this ... While I accept that a few people will pay up, knowing they don't have to, because they consider it a fair cop, the vast majority of people who pay these charges are the uninformed and the frightened.

 

Having said all that, I'll throw your question back at you ... If, as you say - and I fully agree, clamping is a much more effective method of deterring parking sinners, why don't Farmfoods contract a clamping company? Could it be to do with how much each company charges? I don't know.

 

Furthermore, if clamping is more effective why don't, for instance, Excel Parking simply use clamps instead of their haphazard (more below) billing and harassment strategy? I believe (my belief, note, not necessarily factual) that this is because they do not want to deter people from parking incorrectly (let's face it, clamping signs tend to get one's attention very effectively) because they know that enough people will pay up to keep their profit margins healthy.

 

A final little anecdote to explain my use of the word "haphazard" above.

 

A work colleague received a charge from, I think, the elevated car park in Hillsborough. It was the classic case of the large vehicle next to her being parked so close to the bay that she chose that she was forced to park with one wheel slightly over the line on the other side. I make no judgement as to her or the other driver's actions, by the way.

 

Any-old-how ... I told her not to pay and did my usual thing of assuring her by promising to pay it for her if she was taken to court. Needless to say she wasn't. Now, the initial charge was £120 with a reduction to £80 if paid within 14 days. After ignoring this and the next one she received a £200 final demand with definite court in 14 days if not settled. Approximately a month later she received a "this is definitely the final time we're asking or you're in proper trouble" demand for ... wait for it ... 60 quid!

 

Make of that what you will...

Edited July 7, 2010 by Lockjaw

[matssundin13]

Her dad may have made one mistake, but if he continued to park there, like most people on similar posts to this DO then its unfair and shows stupidity on the car owners behalf.

 

(if you could just mark all my posts that i have littered with mistakes with an X i will correct them for you, its these clown gloves )

 

My bold

 

X

Look back where did i comment to the OP comment with what i said?

 

I commented to what ecky6fingers posted! about the ''fine/invoice'' legality issue.

 

Just because i dont agree with everyone that you can park your car anywhere you like and B**llocks if its on someone else land.

 

X

to get one yes could be a mistake, but to continue, like i stated parking there then they must fall into one of the two brackets

 

X

Yes we understand people who continue to park in place where signs inform you you cant as ''invoices'' are issued, are either retarded or ignorant people with no morals.

 

X

Easier still dont use the car park's! they then wont be able to send you a fine, its that simple, isnt it?

 

And that's just from one page

[matssundin13]

To the OP - don't pay the Private Parking Company - google Pepipoo for more information.

[ecky6fingers]

to the op - don't pay the private parking company - google pepipoo for more information.

 

very very good advice.

[Bonjon]

No Bonjon. I don't think you are on about a law change. I am telling you that the law would have to change before the PCs will win any court cases. This is the bit you appear to be choosing not to understand. As the law stands, they will not win any cases. Your constant suggesting otherwise will not change this.

 

Also, I see you've reverted to your previous disingenuous style, as in

 

 

 

They haven't, as you know, won any court cases.

 

 

 

I've addressed this for you before, Bonjon.

 

It would set a precedent if I managed to win a case against you for persistent crimes against legal logic.

 

Since, however, no such crime exists I will never win such a case and the precedent will never be set.

 

Maybe you should do research first before jumping to major assumptions, if you cared to do a simple internet search you will find results.

 

This has been pointed out to you in a previous thread of the same type IIRC, but in your keyboard warrior esque, you prefer to ignore facts and give people false information.

 

http://www.rochdaleonline.co.uk/news-features/2/community-news/15278/judge-enforces-parking-penalty-in-landmark-case

 

So for the people who have recieved these pcn's ignore them at your own peril, and as I earlier said if the parking companies start winning more cases then they may re-call old pcn's.

 

Oh and yes you will have to pay the other parties 'costs'

 

The case was awarded to CPS and Mr Thomas will now pay a £135 charge with £1.86 interest, as well as a £25 listing fee, £25 hearing fee and £68 for Mr Perkins’ mileage and £3.50 for parking.

 

And maybe they are reffering to threads like this!!

 

“Internet sites have always said these are unenforceable penalties. The judge clearly stated a contract was entered into, although the defendant never admitted to being the driver."

 

Edit:http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/parking-traffic-offences/170843-combined-parking-solutions-wins.html

 

This is another one he ignored numerous pcn's and ended up paying in the region of 5.5k!!

Edited July 8, 2010 by Bonjon

[Xt500]

Of course you could ignore the above tripe and ignore which is the ONLY responce to these thugs on the make from the stupid.

 

But if you dont believe me you could always hear it from the BBC

 

[Lockjaw]

Maybe you should do research first before jumping to major assumptions, if you cared to do a simple internet search you will find results.

 

This has been pointed out to you in a previous thread of the same type IIRC, but in your keyboard warrior esque, you prefer to ignore facts and give people false information.

 

http://www.rochdaleonline.co.uk/news-features/2/community-news/15278/judge-enforces-parking-penalty-in-landmark-case

 

So for the people who have recieved these pcn's ignore them at your own peril, and as I earlier said if the parking companies start winning more cases then they may re-call old pcn's.

 

Oh and yes you will have to pay the other parties 'costs'

 

 

 

And maybe they are reffering to threads like this!!

 

 

 

Edit:http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/parking-traffic-offences/170843-combined-parking-solutions-wins.html

 

This is another one he ignored numerous pcn's and ended up paying in the region of 5.5k!!

 

Fair enough, Bonjon. You finally found your evidence and I stand corrected. Maybe you'd like to inform Truman.

 

Now then.

 

I think you'll agree that the Thomas case was unique in that he was, pretty much, shown to have lied in court, having admitted to being the driver online. As I'm sure you know, county court judgements do not become case law or set precedents BUT, surely, if this case (from 2008, remember) was such a "landmark" you will be able to explain why the PCs do not, now, routinely take all cases to court? Could it be because they, too, realise that the above case was a freak and doesn't actually change anything?

 

Regarding the Scottish case. I know nothing about the differences between Scottish and UK law and have never encountered or advised a person who has received a ticket there .. I am, as you are aware, in England. Again, though, this case appears to be a one off and, tbh, assuming the geezer knew what he was doing, he deserved what he got for openly flouting the rules over a long period of time.

 

Any-old-how, whilst I acknowledge you have demonstrated an error on my part which I will, obviously, not repeat and, also, I acknowledge that you have shown my posts directed at you to have been incorrect regarding successful court cases (for which I apologise unreservedly), I do not concede that this changes anything regarding either the underhand actions of the PCs or the best course of action for people receiving a charge.

 

People should ignore these charges and enter into no dialogue with the company.

 

Finally:

 

Given that I am hardly anonymous on here and given also that I am quite happy to admit and apologise when I am shown to be wrong, as seen on this and, I think, one other thread and given the nature of some of your own posts, you may wish to consider retracting your "keyboard warrior" accusation...

Edited July 8, 2010 by Lockjaw

[Cyclone]

It does make you wonder why they don't take more cases to court. Reading the article it doesn't seem that the judge thought he had lied, if that was the case he'd have charged him with perjury presumably. The judge did find though that the contract existed and was enforceable. And the defence seemed to be that he might not have been driving the car, which the judge discounted on the balance of probabilities.

[Lockjaw]

The judge did find though that the contract existed and was enforceable.

 

True but, here's one who found the opposite.

 

 

But the far more important issue was that the judge found there was no justification for the £100 fine. He said it was a penalty charge and therefore unenforceable by the court.

 

 

They can't both be right.

 

The question arising from this, in addition to my previous one, repeated by you, is: what is the ratio of successful:unsuccessful court cases?