Parking ticket from Meadowhall

[Penistone999]

I think it is hilarious people defend private parking companies. There dodgy tactics are well documented, they hound people like they are criminals and the owners are multimillionaires.

 

If I go to Meadowhall Retail park tomorrow and spent 3 hours 1 minute looking round the shops and spending money, what offense have i done and what problems have I caused people?

 

The answer is nothing, but I will then get crappy letters through the door.

 

Stuart

 

At present its a legal Scam . So was wheel clamping ,but that was outlawed , and i honestly believe that parking invoices issued by private parking companies will go the same way in the next couple of years.

[Walkley Dave]

If you read through a lot of the cases that have been thrown out by the judge , there is a common theme, the case was thrown out because the parking company had no right to persue the motorists because they have no grounds to do so and have no contract with the motorist.

 

Points 3 and 5 from this judgement are the important ones.

 

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=70585

 

The problem with this approach is that if they do produce such a contract you have lost!

 

In my humble opinion it is much simpler and less frightening to go through the POPLA appeal process which came in, in October 2012.

 

As those who advise on these things on parking forums gradually gather experience in dealing with POPLA then it is often a slam dunk to win. (Currently I believe over 60% of appeals are being won and it is rising!)

 

Not only that but the speculative invoice I have received recently does not stand a prayer in any appeal because it has broken all sorts of rules. Most private parking tickets seem to do so at the moment. Those with experience can quickly spot these now.

 

But I might not have known that about mine had I "ignored" or 'binned" it.

 

When the law changed in October 2012 the parking companies have no choice but to issue a POPLA appeal reference to any appeal.

 

Simpler (and IMHO - easier) to win. And for those easily frightened - less frightening than court papers. Doing it this way will gradually drive the private parking company speculative invoice out of business.

 

(Every single person receiving a private parking notice should appeal to POPLA. The parking companies are paying for the service and they also lose £27.00+VAT on each successful one).

 

There are strong rumours that some are already not paying their bills to the BPA!!

[Penistone999]

 

There are strong rumours that some are already not paying their bills to the BPA!!

 

They might be feeling the pinch due to people not falling for their scam invoices anymore.

[ChrisT70]

The problem with this approach is that if they do produce such a contract you have lost!

 

In my humble opinion it is much simpler and less frightening to go through the POPLA appeal process which came in, in October 2012.

 

As those who advise on these things on parking forums gradually gather experience in dealing with POPLA then it is often a slam dunk to win. (Currently I believe over 60% of appeals are being won and it is rising!)

 

Not only that but the speculative invoice I have received recently does not stand a prayer in any appeal because it has broken all sorts of rules. Most private parking tickets seem to do so at the moment. Those with experience can quickly spot these now.

 

But I might not have known that about mine had I "ignored" or 'binned" it.

 

When the law changed in October 2012 the parking companies have no choice but to issue a POPLA appeal reference to any appeal.

 

Simpler (and IMHO - easier) to win. And for those easily frightened - less frightening than court papers. Doing it this way will gradually drive the private parking company speculative invoice out of business.

 

(Every single person receiving a private parking notice should appeal to POPLA. The parking companies are paying for the service and they also lose £27.00+VAT on each successful one).

 

There are strong rumours that some are already not paying their bills to the BPA!!

 

that is excellent advice, and should become the norm by the sound of it. drive them out of business legally!

[onewheeldave]

The problem with this approach is that if they do produce such a contract you have lost!

 

I understand that they're never produced such a contract? To my knowledge the only times these 'parking companies' have won a case they've taken to court has been on occasions when the defendants have failed to turn up. And, a case even going to court is very rare.

In my humble opinion it is much simpler and less frightening to go through the POPLA appeal process which came in, in October 2012.

 

As those who advise on these things on parking forums gradually gather experience in dealing with POPLA then it is often a slam dunk to win. (Currently I believe over 60% of appeals are being won and it is rising!)

An appeal involves the victim spending their valuable time, wheareas simply ignoring the 'invoices' (which are unenforcable) requires zero time/effort. Plus, while it's nice to know 60% of appeals succeed, that's nowhere near as good as the 100% success rate of just ignoring the 'invoices'.

 

As for fear- a moderate amount of research/reading will show that there can be no consequences to ignoring the invoice, so no need for fear/anxiety whatsoever.

 

 

....Doing it this way will gradually drive the private parking company speculative invoice out of business.

I doubt the parking companies will last long enough for this appeals procedure to drive them out of business- now that programs like 'Watchdog' have, on several occasions, broadcast the information that all 'invoices' from private parking companies have no legal standing, fewer and fewer of the public will be paying them.

 

---------- Post added 12-05-2013 at 19:29 ----------

 

that is excellent advice, and should become the norm by the sound of it. drive them out of business legally!

 

Though the much easier method of simply ignoring unenforcable invoices is also totaly legal!

[TheBlueDragon]

I've now started recieving letters stating that if I don't pay the £95 they will be taking it further. I will keep ignoring and see what comes next. I've been keeping the letters incase

[Moosey]

I understand that they're never produced such a contract?

 

See I find this odd.

 

Feel free to google the constituent parts of a contract - agreement, consideration, intent to enter a legal relationship. There's nothing that says that has to be in writing (that's a deed), nor that the consideration for the contract needs to be sufficient.

 

What I'm getting at is this.

 

If Mr Parking Company had any brains, they could quite easily call upon Mr Landowner to attend Court and say "Yep, we agreed verbally that we would let Mr Parking Company police the car park, and in return, we'd let them take any fees they recover". There's your contract, there's your authority to proceed on the landowner's behalf, and bang goes that argument.

 

Why haven't they done that? I don't know.

 

Alternatively, why haven't they run it as a subrogated claim I wonder. I recover these all the time for people. Mr Medical Company pays for private treatment, but has nothing to do with an accident, and because Mr Claimant is willing to sign a piece of paper for me, Mr Lawyer, after the claim starts, I can recover all Mr Medical Company's costs too, even though the old privity of contract argument says they've no interest in the accident.

 

Never known why they don't think of these things.

[Walkley Dave]

See I find this odd.

 

Feel free to google the constituent parts of a contract - agreement, consideration, intent to enter a legal relationship. There's nothing that says that has to be in writing (that's a deed), nor that the consideration for the contract needs to be sufficient.

 

What I'm getting at is this.

 

If the parking company had any brains, they could quite easily call upon Mr Landowner to attend Court and say "Yep, we agreed verbally that we would let Mr Parking Company police the car park, and in return, we'd let them take any fees they recover". There's your contract, there's your authority to proceed on the landowner's behalf, and bang goes that argument.

 

Why haven't they done that? I don't know.

 

Alternatively, why haven't they run it as a subrogated claim I wonder. I recover these all the time for people. Mr Medical Company pays for private treatment, but has nothing to do with an accident, and because Mr Claimant is willing to sign a piece of paper for me, Mr Lawyer, after the claim starts, I can recover all Mr Medical Company's costs too, even though the old privity of contract argument says they've no interest in the accident.

 

Never known why they don't think of these things.

 

Devil's advocate speaking.

 

I would say that it isn't quite as easy as that. I would argue they need to have sufficient "interest" in the land. I think that goes back to a court decision but for the life of me I can't remember (old age!).

 

My first question to Mr. Landowner would be "is Mr. Private Parking allowed to run a car boot sale on your land without reference to you?" If the answer is no then I would argue Mr. Private Parking does not have sufficient interest. There are other problems - humorously detailed here:

 

http://nutsville.com

 

And whilst there does not have to be sufficient interest there has to be some. Otherwise it isn't a contract surely?

[Moosey]

Devil's advocate speaking.

 

I would say that it isn't quite as easy as that. I would argue they need to have sufficient "interest" in the land. I think that goes back to a court decision but for the life of me I can't remember (old age!).

 

My first question to Mr. Landowner would be "is Mr. Private Parking allowed to run a car boot sale on your land without reference to you?" If the answer is no then I would argue Mr. Private Parking does not have sufficient interest. There are other problems - humorously detailed here:

 

http://nutsville.com

 

And whilst there does not have to be sufficient interest there has to be some. Otherwise it isn't a contract surely?

 

I think I'd have to disagree.

 

Their interest in the land is that they're an authorised user of it. There's no question at all that they're authorised to carry out parking enforcement, in whatever way that may be. The landowner allows them to:-

 

- Put staff on there, with access to whichever parts they want

- Control the access/egress of patrons (whether you consider it legal or not)

- Put signage up

- Display company logos on those signs

- Set prices for parking and choose the rules (again, whether legal or not).

 

That's a pretty major interest.

 

In terms of interests in land, it can't be a legal interest, not being a lease or freehold, so it must be an equitable interest. Various definitions exist, but you can look at equitable easements, and I'm sure we could squeeze this circumstance in the definition. That said, I'm a civil lawyer, not a property lawyer, I'll admit.

 

I've always thought there were ways to argue round these points.

 

On the contract point, I think interest or not, there can still be a valid contract. If there's the basic elements of the contract, which are there in my scenario above (agreement, consideration, intent), that's a valid contract.

[geared]

That may be true, but there's no chance in hell they'd be able to prove loss to base their claim on, especially in a free car park where the person getting the ticket was already spending money in the establishment.

Also the charge will probably fall foul of being excessive or a penalty or something.

 

There's so many holes in the legal standing of the PPC's that it's not hard to completely wipe the floor with them in court - as so many have done before.