Parking ticket from Meadowhall

[Gleadly]

The whole private parking industry is a shady set up to say the least. The industry is Governed by the BPA , which is a body made up by the PPC`s themselves ,so is biased and has a vested interest to say the least and is self regulated. This is the reason why it took Government Legislation to ban clamping ,as the BPA would never have done it themselves ,as it would have been starving their members ( ie, themselves)of profit.

 

Are you suggesting that anyone can freely park whenever they want on private land???

 

This is tantamount to trespassing if you don't have the owners' permission.

[alchresearch]

The consensus is that anyone can park wherever they like on private land without fear of prosecution because of a legal technicality.

 

It doesn't make it morally right, but this doesn't matter to those who don't respect simple rules for the sake of their own convenience.

[Moosey]

Are you suggesting that anyone can freely park whenever they want on private land???

 

This is tantamount to trespassing if you don't have the owners' permission.

 

That's not what he's suggesting.

 

He's suggesting that people can't park anywhere they like, as doing so can constitute trespass.

 

What he is suggesting however is that most parking companies don't have legal standing to pursue actions for trespass, as they aren't the landowners, and without the relevant permissions, it's nigh on impossible to pursue a trespass claim.

 

Arguably (I say arguably, as I'm sitting on fence here), private parking tickets are unenforceable in law also, under the law of contract (not related to trespass).

 

I think that's the general consensus.

[Walkley Dave]

The consensus is that anyone can park wherever they like on private land without fear of prosecution because of a legal technicality.

 

It doesn't make it morally right, but this doesn't matter to those who don't respect simple rules for the sake of their own convenience.

 

Nonsense. Time and time again Alchresearch has spouted this nonsense. Time and time again it has been explained to him/or her, but it doesn't seem to make much difference.

 

If a private landowner wishes to stop people parking on private land they can put up barriers.

 

If a private landowner wishes to charge people for parking on private land they are perfectly free to do so.

 

What is not allowed is private parking companies with no interest in the land or landowners issuing speculative invoices and pretending to fine people. Only councils and the police can issue parking fines. Private parking companies can sue for their losses. But they don't because (on free car parks) there aren't any.

 

 

It isn't a technicality it is the law.

[alchresearch]

What is not allowed is private parking companies with no interest in the land or landowners fining people.

 

Not even if the private parking companies have been employed to manage the car parks?

 

You talk as if Excel have just turned up to a free car park and are dishing out tickets without the landowners knowledge.

 

Why should a landowner have to pay the additional expense of installing and managing barriers?

 

You're quick to criticise Excel and anyone who hates ignornant parking, but you fail to come up with an adequate solution.

[Walkley Dave]

Since much of this was written there has been a significant decision at POPLA.

 

In this particular instance it was a car with a disabled sticker - nevertheless it applies to all speculative invoices issued by PCM at Meadowhall.

 

See the result of the appeal and the adjudicator's decision at

 

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=75213

 

The significance is that the private parking company did not produce a copy of the contract which allowed them to issue fines on behalf of the landowner. Therefore whatever they said was disallowed.

 

Plenty of places showing how to appeal against these speculative invoices on the internet - but everyone receiving one at Meadowhall should now appeal via POPLA (or ignore).

[alchresearch]

Since much of this was written there has been a significant decision at POPLA.

 

In this particular instance it was a car with a disabled sticker - nevertheless it applies to all speculative invoices issued by PCM at Meadowhall.

 

See the result of the appeal and the adjudicator's decision at

 

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=75213

 

The significance is that the private parking company did not produce a copy of the contract which allowed them to issue fines on behalf of the landowner. Therefore whatever they said was disallowed.

 

Plenty of places showing how to appeal against these speculative invoices on the internet - but everyone receiving one at Meadowhall should now appeal via POPLA (or ignore).

 

Correct me if I'm wrong but it states the Appellant parked without showing his blue badge, and thought that a disabled tax disc and disabled son would be enough to justify parking there?

 

That wouldn't fly on a public road.

[Walkley Dave]

Correct me if I'm wrong but it states the Appellant parked without showing his blue badge, and thought that a disabled tax disc and disabled son would be enough to justify parking there?

 

That wouldn't fly on a public road.

 

All sorts of things apply on public roads differently to private land but this wasn't a public road.

 

However that isn't the point.

 

The point is that private parking companies must (now) produce a contract between them and the landowner which shows they have the authority to issue speculative invoices - and of course if they wish to enforce their speculative invoices in court, to take people to court on behalf of the landlord as well.

 

This has been the case as far as court is concerned for a while. Which is why PPC's rarely take people to court anyway.

 

But now it applies to POPLA too.

[alchresearch]

The one thing I just don't understand is why people don't just avoid any hassle by parking properly in the first place. Countless numbers manage it without issue every day, so why are these minority who can't so special? There are people on here who brag at how many they can get. Are their lives so devoid of any meaning this is all they have to fill their day?

 

Take the case above. He didn't display his badge. Why not just chalk it up to experience and park in a regular bay? If his son was that disabled then it would have been second nature to make sure the badge was in the car and displayed.

 

The thing that people don't seem to be considering while they're rejoicing over yet another win over private parking management companies is that they're not going to take these losses lying down. They've lost the right to clamp. Now they're losing the right to charge.

 

Does anyone seriously think they're just going to go away? Are shops with parking going to let their car parks become an unmanaged free-for-all? Where's the incentive to bother to follow any parking rules? Who will you complain to when you find your car blocked in by someone who couldn't find a space and didn't care about you?

[geared]

Private land is private land, simple as. You don't have to have a blue/green/red or whatever sticker.

A disabled bay is there for a disabled person, no-one else - but they do not need a badge to park there.

 

People should park respectfully on private land, but on the other hand you can have cowboys roaming around dishing out extortionate 'tickets' to people who've overstayed in a free car park.

 

It's a two way street, and right now neither party is travelling down it.

 

Are shops with parking going to let their car parks become an unmanaged free-for-all?

 

I seem to remember a time not too long ago, when there were few/zero parking companies.

Most people got along just fine (I say most, not all).