You can buy it from the dvla for around £2.50 if you are a buisness An oldie but I'm sure you can find newer ones on money saving expert expert site I got this from http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=4335121
That's a fecking disgrace if they can do that? Referring back a while in this thread . Kill them......kill them all!!!
Apparently they have no successful court cases as popla keep upholding appeals against them. The letter below has been used to defeat them before but i don't know if the car park your son used has anpr but it might explain how they got your sons details. I would appeal it with NPE first and see what their defence is and then adjust the text below to suit their claims as to why your guilty and go to popla. It basically requires NPE to produce so much evidence that it's unlikely they will or at least haven't to date. This info was on moneysavingexpert, the letter was drafted by someone up to speed on the laws and used against NPE I wish to appeal this parking charge on the following grounds. 1. The charges are penalties and not a contractual charge, breach of contract or trespass. They are not a genuine pre estimate of loss either. 2. In order to form a contract the signs need to be clear so that they must be seen by an average person. They were not. There was no breach of contract. 3. NPE do not hold sufficient interest in the land to offer a motorist a contract to park. They have no locus standi. 4. NPE have failed to adhere to the BPA code of practice. 5. Unreliable, unsynchronised and non-compliant ANPR system. 6. Keeper liability. 1.The charges are penalties. The charges are represented as UNAUTHORISED PARKING. It was dark and the unlit signs were not seen by the driver. There is free parking available so any charge is extravagant and unconscionable. According to the BPA code "If the parking charge that the driver is being asked to pay is for a act of trespass, this charge must be proportionate and commercially justifiable. We would not expect this amount to be more than £100. If the charge is more than this, operators must be able to justify the amount in advance" £100 is clearly not proportionate to a stay in a car park in which the vehicle was allowed to park for free. Neither is it commercially justified because it would make no sense and in any event in was only ruled so in Parking Eye v Beavis in a car park where the operator paid £1000 per week, a case which in any event is being appealed to the supreme court. It is also noted that the judge in Beavis did rule it was a penalty although in that particular car park it was commercially justified due to the £1000 per week paid by the operator. The longer a driver stays in the various shops then the more profit is made. £100 is clearly a penalty. The £100 is not a genuine pre estimate of loss and is extravagant and unconscionable. It is a penalty. It is not an attempt to claim liquidated damages which should be a genuine pre estimate of loss. £100 cannot be so as the figures quoted include business costs. I require NPE to submit a full breakdown of how these losses are calculated in this particular car park and for this particular ‘contravention’. NPE cannot lawfully include their operational day to day running costs (e.g. provision of signs, ANPR and parking enforcement) in any ‘loss’ claimed. Not only are those costs tax deductible, but were no breaches to occur in that car park, the cost of parking 'enforcement ' would still remain the same. According to the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations, parking charges for breach on private land must not exceed the cost to the landowner during the time the motorist is parked there. As the landowner allows free parking for shoppers and several hundred pounds were spent then there is no loss. The Office of Fair Trading has stated that ''a ‘parking charge’ is not automatically recoverable simply because it is stated to be a parking charge, as it cannot be used to state a loss where none exists.'' The charge is an unenforceable penalty. 2. Unclear and non-compliant signage, forming no contract with drivers. I require signage evidence in the form of a site map and dated photos of the signs at the time of the parking event. It was dark and the signs were unlit so the driver could not see them. I would contend that the signs (wording, position and clarity) fail to properly inform the driver of the terms and any consequences for breach, as in the case of Excel Parking Services Ltd v Martin Cutts, 2011. As such, the signs were not so prominent that they 'must' have been seen by the driver - who would never have agreed to pay £100 in a carpark where they could have paid nothing. It was not a genuine attempt to contract for unlimited parking in return for £100. As the PCN had no VAT content to it, it cannot be for a service. It must therefore be a penalty. 3. Contract with landowner - no locus standi NPE do not own nor have any interest or assignment of title of the land in question. As such, I do not believe that NPE Has the necessary legal capacity to enter into a contract with a driver of a vehicle parking in the car park, or indeed to allege a breach of contract. Accordingly, I require sight of a full copy of the actual contemporaneous, signed and dated site agreement/contract with the landowner (and not just a signed slip of paper saying that it exists). Some parking companies have provided “witness statements” instead of the relevant contract. There is no proof whatsoever that the alleged signatory has ever seen the relevant contract, or, indeed is even an employee of the landowner. Nor would a witness statement show whether there is a payment made from either party within the agreement/contract which would affect any 'loss' calculations. Nor would it show whether the contract includes the necessary authority, required by the BPA CoP, to specifically allow NPE to pursue these charges in their own name as creditor in the Courts, and to grant them the standing/assignment of title to make contracts with drivers. In POPLA case reference 1771073004, POPLA ruled that a witness statement was 'not valid evidence'. This witness statement concerned evidence which could have been produced but was not. So if the operator produces a witness statement mentioning the contract, but does not produce the actual un-redacted contract document, then POPLA should be consistent and rule any such statement invalid. So I require the unredacted contract for all these stated reasons as I contend the Operator's authority is limited to that of a mere parking agent. I believe it is merely a standard business agreement between NPE and their client, which is true of any such business model. This cannot impact upon, nor create a contract with, any driver, as was found in case no. 3JD00517 ParkingEye v Clarke 19th December 2013 (Transcript linked): http://nebula.wsimg.com/0ce354ec6697...&alloworigin=1 I refer the Adjudicator to the recent Appeal Court decision in the case of Vehicle Control Services (VCS) v HMRC ( EWCA Civ 186 [2013]): The principal issue in this case was to determine the actual nature of Private Parking Charges. It was stated that, "If those charges are consideration for a supply of goods or services, they will be subject to VAT. If, on the other hand, they are damages they will not be." The ruling of the Court stated, "I would hold, therefore, that the monies that VCS collected from motorists by enforcement of parking charges were not consideration moving from the landowner in return for the supply of parking services." In other words, they are not, as the Operator asserts, a contractual term. If they were a contractual term, the Operator would have to provide a VAT invoice, to provide a means of payment at the point of supply, and to account to HMRC for the VAT element of the charge. The Appellant asserts that these requirements have not been met. It must therefore be concluded that the Operator's charges are in fact damages, or penalties, for which the Operator must demonstrate his actual, or pre-estimated losses, as set out above. 4. Failure to adhere to the BPA code of practice. The signs do not meet the minimum requirements in part 18. They were not clear and intelligible as required. The BPA Code of Practice states under appendix B, entrance signage: “The sign must be readable from far enough away so that drivers can take in all the essential text without needing to look more than 10 degrees away from the road ahead.” For a contract to be formed, one of the many considerations is that there must be adequate signage on entering the car park and throughout the car park. I contend that there is not. Upon returning to the car park after receiving this unjustified 'charge notice' to check the alleged terms at a later date, I had to get out of my car to even read the larger font on the signs, and the smaller font was only readable when standing next to a sign. They were also very brightly coloured but too busy, confusing and unclear. They were also unlit making them redundant in the dark. When with reference to the BCP Code of Practice, it actually states: "There must be enough colour contrast between the text and its background, each of which should be a single solid colour. The best way to achieve this is to have black text on a white background, or white text on a black background. Combinations such as blue on yellow are not easy to read and may cause problems for drivers with impaired colour vision" 5. ANPR ACCURACY This Operator is obliged to ensure their ANPR equipment is maintained as described in paragraph 21.3 of the British Parking Association's Approved Operator Scheme Code of Practice. I require the Operator to present records as to the dates and times of when the cameras at this car park were checked, adjusted,calibrated, synchronised with the timer which stamps the photos and generally maintained to ensure the accuracy of the dates and times of any ANPR images.This is important because the entirety of the charge is founded on two images purporting to show my vehicle entering and exiting at specific times. It is vital that this Operator must produce evidence in response to these points and explain to POPLA how their system differs (if at all) from the flawed ANPR system which was wholly responsible for the court loss by the Operator inParkingEye v Fox-Jones on 8 Nov 2013. That case was dismissed when the judge said the evidence form the Operator was 'fundamentally flawed' as the synchronisation of the camera pictures with the timer had been called into question and the operator could not rebut the point. So, in addition to showing their maintenance records, I require the Operator in this case to show evidence to rebut this point: I suggest that in the case of my vehicle being in this car park, a local camera took the image but a remote server added the time stamp. As the two are disconnected by the internet and do not have a common "time synchronisation system", there is no proof that the time stamp added is actually the exact time of the image. The operator appears to use WIFI which introduces a delay through buffering, so "live" is not really "live". Hence without a synchronised time stamp there is no evidence that the image is ever time stamped with an accurate time. Therefore I contend that this ANPR "evidence" from this Operator in this car park is just as unreliable as the ParkingEye system and I put this Operator to strict proof to the contrary. 6. Keeper liability. The protection of freedoms act 2012 schedule 4 allows the opportunity for parking companies liable for the actions of the driver but only if full compliance is achieved. In the case of an ANPR situation compliance with section 9 is required. Right to claim unpaid parking charges from keeper of vehicle 4(1)The creditor has the right to recover any unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle. (2)The right under this paragraph applies only if— (a)the conditions specified in paragraphs 5, 6, 11 and 12 (so far as applicable) are met .... 6(1)The second condition is that the creditor (or a person acting for or on behalf of the creditor)— (b)has given a notice to keeper in accordance with paragraph 9. 9(1)A notice which is to be relied on as a notice to keeper for the purposes of paragraph 6(1)(b) is given in accordance with this paragraph if the following requirements are met. (2)The notice must— (a)specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates; (b)inform the keeper that the driver is required to pay parking charges in respect of the specified period of parking and that the parking charges have not been paid in full; (c)describe the parking charges due from the driver as at the end of that period, the circumstances in which the requirement to pay them arose (including the means by which the requirement was brought to the attention of drivers) and the other facts that made them payable; (d)specify the total amount of those parking charges that are unpaid, as at a time which is— (i)specified in the notice; and (ii)no later than the end of the day before the day on which the notice is either sent by post or, as the case may be, handed to or left at a current address for service for the keeper (see sub-paragraph (4)); (e)state that the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver and invite the keeper— (i)to pay the unpaid parking charges; or (ii)if the keeper was not the driver of the vehicle, to notify the creditor of the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver and to pass the notice on to the driver; (f)warn the keeper that if, after the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice is given— (i)the amount of the unpaid parking charges specified under paragraph (d) has not been paid in full, and (ii)the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver,the creditor will (if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met) have the right to recover from the keeper so much of that amount as remains unpaid; (g)inform the keeper of any discount offered for prompt payment and the arrangements for the resolution of disputes or complaints that are available; (h)identify the creditor and specify how and to whom payment or notification to the creditor may be made; (i)specify the date on which the notice is sent (where it is sent by post) or given (in any other case). (3)The notice must relate only to a single period of parking specified under sub-paragraph (2)(a) (but this does not prevent the giving of separate notices which each specify different parts of a single period of parking). (4)The notice must be given by— (a)handing it to the keeper, or leaving it at a current address for service for the keeper, within the relevant period; or (b)sending it by post to a current address for service for the keeper so that it is delivered to that address within the relevant period. (5)The relevant period for the purposes of sub-paragraph (4) is the period of 14 days beginning with the day after that on which the specified period of parking ended. (6)A notice sent by post is to be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, to have been delivered (and so “given” for the purposes of sub-paragraph (4)) on the second working day after the day on which it is posted; and for this purpose “working day” means any day other than a Saturday, Sunday or a public holiday in England and Wales. (7)When the notice is given it must be accompanied by any evidence prescribed under paragraph 10. (8)In sub-paragraph (2)(g) the reference to arrangements for the resolution of disputes or complaints includes— (a)any procedures offered by the creditor for dealing informally with representations by the keeper about the notice or any matter contained in it; and (b)any arrangements under which disputes or complaints (however described) may be referred by the keeper to independent adjudication or arbitration. The notice to keeper does not specify a period of parking. The notice merely indicates a time of entry in to the car park and an exit time from the car park. The BPA code of practice makes reference to the fact that entry is not parking and dictates a grace period must be allowed partly for this very reason. As the keeper is not the person who was driving the keeper cannot know what the period of parking is and the legislation dictates it must be specified, presumably for that very reason. In Woodchester v Swayne & Co [1998] EWCA Civ 1209 (14 July 1998) it was held that the specified information required to be provided by legislation should indeed be accurate and that the failure made the relevant notice invalid. It was also the deciding factor in Parking Eye v Mrs X Case No: 3JD08399 IN THE ALTRINCHAM COUNTY COURT. http://nebula.wsimg.com/c289944f81b4...&alloworigin=1 Sections C, D, E & F has not been complied with at all. Other sections are not totally complied with either. The keeper is not invited to pay. There is no keeper liability and the appeal should be upheld.
I'm firmly in the 'do nothing' camp. Been sent all kinds of exciting sounding letters, threatening all kinds of action, non of which have amounted to anything as yet. The funniest thing is that the latest one hassling me has forwarded to their solicitors who are called 'Wright Hassall'..... which is exactly what they are! The 'landmark' case that is getting banded around everywhere now is still not a definitive coverall piece of case law and is being used to further scare folk into paying. In that case the bloke got involved, contesting, appealing etc. I despise parking charges and parking laws.
I got an e-mail from my employer (Company car) saying that they had received a letter from the council because I had went through a "Bus Gate" whatever one of those is. They included a picture and in the mail they said that if I did not pay any fines, they would pay it and deduct from my wages blah, blah, blah. As it was the council, they had evidence, I knew they would probably pursue it and my employer would pay the fine anyway, I took advantage of the early payment offer and paid £30 instead of the full £60. I think I'd have been having a discussion with my employer had the fine been one of these cowboy companies demanding payment, but I don't know if their stance would have been different in those circumstances tbh. I hope so.
I've had at least 4 of these cowboy companies chasing me, I always open letters initially but then when I get familiar with envelopes I can place them straight in the bin without opening. Was a case in Scotland recently that a lass lost but that was many thousand of pounds and the company obviously saw the benefit of chasing her, she constantly parked in the same spot she asked for it and got it. General consensus is they can go piss up a rope fuck stick.
This isn't my position on it... but arguing for the other side: If you park on private property that is signed with parking charges and fines isn't it your fault? Dunno about this particular case, but taking a local supermarket car park as an example... you get an hour and a half free and then it's a £100 fine. If they didn't enforce it in some way there would never be a parking space when you wanted to pop in for the weekly shop (or just buy lube and whiskey).
Yep. If I knowingly did something wrong on private property I've no problem. Council tickets I've either appealed or paid. Chancing cowboys ignored completely. The latest is from work, they've sold their parking patrol out to a private company. They did this without informing staff with existing permits. Previously if you failed to display a permit you'd get a nice reminder on your vehicle and then promptly go and sort it out or get a ticket. There is no discount for renewing late. My commuter bike has a ticket one day in February, not a time of year I use it a lot and had been using the car which I use on street free parking. I went online straight away (with online they don't even email to let you know your permit about to expire) and applied for a new permit for a whole £32. Not a chance I was coughing up £60 to a private firm for reminding me to renew my £32 permit!
I got one a couple of years ago in Cornwall. I Googled the hell out of the company and realised that they do bully boy tactics but dont take to court. I got a few shit-o-grams and fake solicitors letters. Each one was binned, I just didnt even engage with them. Do some digging on the company find out if they are likely to take it to court.
Many yrs ago I got stung by one of these. Ouside my own fecking garage. I rented a place in a managed block and a co resident called them round after I'd popped back to get something I'd forgotten and left bike outside garage. It cost me £60 and as I was a student at the time, I wasnt very wealthy at all. I had no choice but to pay up. What I will say is that I got much more than my £60 back from the person who instigated it and leave it at that.
Yes CF, but its whether the fine is hugely disproportionate to either A. The normal parking charge or B. revenue lost cause you were in that space ?? In my Son's case, it was a near empty hotel car park, so he'd argue that no revenue was lost cause other spaces were available.
Lots of bad info in here There are two types of parking "fines" - 1. those issued by local councils 2. those issued by private parking companies (ppc) Those issued by 1 are "must pays", unfortunately. Things like driving in bus lanes, parking on double yellows or council run car parks (be careful, see below) then you MUST pay or you will get fined and you could end up in court with a CCJ and bigger fine. Those in type 2 are mostly a scam. They are not "Penalty Notices" (a legal term) by any stretch. They can look like legitimate penalty notices but they cannot say "Penalty Notice" because they're not. They will say things like "Parking Notice" or "Penalty Charge" because none of these are legal terms. They are basically a "speculative invoice" (a legal term) which is inviting you to pay for something. This is the scam; anyone can send these notices out, but they may not have the authority to enforce these notices and lay any legal claim that it must be paid. PPCs came about because they realised that land owners with car parks are not making any money from that land. Parking was often free as implementing and enforcing parking costs money and can put shoppers off. However, they suffer from people using them for all-day free parking and so (potentially) lose business. PPCs realised that there was money to be made by issuing "tickets" to these people, and once the numbers were done they only need a certain percent to pay to make money. In fact they could make so much money that they could pay the land owner to run their car park for them! Land owners were now making money from their car parks, at zero cost and zero outlay. Happy days! However, the law says otherwise. The PPC premise is that you are entering into a contract by parking and should you break the contract then you must pay damages for breaching the contract. This premise is correct, but legally there are all sorts of problems with the "forming a contract" (a legal term) along with calculating the damages owed, especially on free car parks. Then there's the PPCs legal status to be able to issue and pursue these through the courts. Notices may only be served by the land owner or their agent (a legal term). Now an agent of the land owner has all sorts of power over the land, including the ability to sell the land, so it's highly unlikely that any PPC is given the legal status of agent in the contract with the land owner. These are just a few examples of problems with the current PPC system. Each case is different and needs to be handled in its own way given the circumstances. With a little bit of reading and a little bit of help, it's very easy to find the correct way to fight your "notice" and give them the legal finger. I know all this because I took on ParkingEye in the same car-park that Beavis was challenging (see ParkingEye vs Beavis) and WON at the POPLA (Parking On Private Land Appeals) process. I also took on Parking24 and sent them a legal finger letter and never heard back (12+ months). My suggestion is NOT TO IGNORE but to understand who you are fighting, the options that you have open and THEN decide how to handle the invoice. That may be to do nothing, but it also may be sending a letter or simply asking for a POPLA code which can be enough for most to drop it. For the best help, see www.pepipoo.com
Will see what happens first, then make a judgement call after that, as so far, my boy has received only one damaged letter, whereby we could not even read the PCN number, so we'll leave it for now until we hear something else then go from there, cheers again. Wayne
That's fair enough, however these vultures do it at motorway services which I think is a real safety issue as some people are tired and not exactly well off so they just bat on tired when a free sleep would eliminate danger, one of the tickets I got was in Starbucks car park at around 8-30 at night the car park was empty and I was with a friend spending money in the coffee shop....
