News0 min ago
Unfair Parking Fine
Good evening
I was recently given a parking fine, which, due to inadequate signage, I believe was wrong.
I paid the fine and sent in an appeal (containing photographs) where I asked the company involved (UKPC) who I could contact if I was not happy with their decision (I had anticipated a rejection of my appeal but held out some little hope as I strongly feel that their signage was not fit for purpose in this instance)
I received a reply with the anticipated rejection but no info as to an independent arbitrator.
I wrote back asking again how I could take the matter further. I received another "form" reply saying that the fine would not be withdrawn and that no further correspondence would be considered. Still no info re escalating my appeal.
I believe that "if you done the crime, then you do the time" and have paid other fines where I was in the wrong. I do not believe I was in the wrong in this instance and have photographs to back me up. However I don't know what I should do next.
Can these people just brush you off with contempt like this?
Any suggestions please?
Thank you
Miles
I was recently given a parking fine, which, due to inadequate signage, I believe was wrong.
I paid the fine and sent in an appeal (containing photographs) where I asked the company involved (UKPC) who I could contact if I was not happy with their decision (I had anticipated a rejection of my appeal but held out some little hope as I strongly feel that their signage was not fit for purpose in this instance)
I received a reply with the anticipated rejection but no info as to an independent arbitrator.
I wrote back asking again how I could take the matter further. I received another "form" reply saying that the fine would not be withdrawn and that no further correspondence would be considered. Still no info re escalating my appeal.
I believe that "if you done the crime, then you do the time" and have paid other fines where I was in the wrong. I do not believe I was in the wrong in this instance and have photographs to back me up. However I don't know what I should do next.
Can these people just brush you off with contempt like this?
Any suggestions please?
Thank you
Miles
Answers
1 to 19 of 19
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Boriyako. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
-- answer removed --
-- answer removed --
-- answer removed --
Many thanks to all who replied.
Have done some research of my own since posting and it would appear that you are all correct, the thing to do was NOT PAY THE CHARGE!
According to appealnow.com - http://www.appealnow.com/private/ - I have a number of grounds on which to fight this but it would mean paying a solicitor.
On a Carer's wage that ain't gonna happen - just in case I get a judge who is in a bad mood that day.
In addition, they cannot (as they threaten on the ticket/charge/whatever) hand your details to a debt collection agency before a court has found you guilty!!!
Swines!!
Have done some research of my own since posting and it would appear that you are all correct, the thing to do was NOT PAY THE CHARGE!
According to appealnow.com - http://www.appealnow.com/private/ - I have a number of grounds on which to fight this but it would mean paying a solicitor.
On a Carer's wage that ain't gonna happen - just in case I get a judge who is in a bad mood that day.
In addition, they cannot (as they threaten on the ticket/charge/whatever) hand your details to a debt collection agency before a court has found you guilty!!!
Swines!!
At a premises where i previously worked, the rear service yard was often full of cars which did not belong their - clearly signed as a service yard for the eight business premises (shop and office). It meant that delivery vechiles often had to park 50 yards or more away and staff have to carry goods in the pouring rain.This was passed to the landlord who employed a private clamping firm to police the area.
Though we as tenants wanted unrestricted access to our premises we thought the signing was at best minimal/obscure and certainly more designed to trap motorists and get the clamping firm their 'fines" rather than keep the area vechile free.
After a few weeks of watching the clampers operate we escalated this to the landlords , Norwich Union and the result was several much larger signs were put up on every 5/6 metres along the perimeter wall at a height where they could not be missed.
Most clamping firms are used for a valid reason and the landlords especially the larger ones have a reputation to maintain and want to see the regulations applied fairly to deliver that result - If you believe the signs to be seriously to small try to find out who the landlord is and try contacting them.
We
Though we as tenants wanted unrestricted access to our premises we thought the signing was at best minimal/obscure and certainly more designed to trap motorists and get the clamping firm their 'fines" rather than keep the area vechile free.
After a few weeks of watching the clampers operate we escalated this to the landlords , Norwich Union and the result was several much larger signs were put up on every 5/6 metres along the perimeter wall at a height where they could not be missed.
Most clamping firms are used for a valid reason and the landlords especially the larger ones have a reputation to maintain and want to see the regulations applied fairly to deliver that result - If you believe the signs to be seriously to small try to find out who the landlord is and try contacting them.
We
A friend of mine had a similar experience, we sent copies of the photo's we had and a letter disputing the case, the fine was cancelled. They had said she had been parked there all day, when in fact she had parked in the morning, and returned for a short time in the evening, and hadnt broken any rules. Had she not had photo evidence they would have gotten away with it i presume. She then reported them, as quite clearly she hadnt been there all day.
Miles,
I was merely pointing out, contrary to other peoples' posts, that UKPC can and do take people to court to recover the fees. I don't know the circumstances or layout of where you parked but our car park is clearly a private residential car park and people still feel that they can park anywhere they like. If you had people constantly parking on the drive of your house you'd probably be annoyed as me.
If you feel that UKPC have charged you when they shouldn't have done, and their appeal process has failed, your only affordable option is the small claims court. They are many websites that claim to be able to help you overturn tickets.
Yours may be a genuine case, but I am jaded by the number of people who moan about car parking tickets when they have parked somewhere they shouldn't have done. I am neither smug nor intending to patronise, but fed up of people too tight to pay for the public car park thinking they can park outside my house for free.
I was merely pointing out, contrary to other peoples' posts, that UKPC can and do take people to court to recover the fees. I don't know the circumstances or layout of where you parked but our car park is clearly a private residential car park and people still feel that they can park anywhere they like. If you had people constantly parking on the drive of your house you'd probably be annoyed as me.
If you feel that UKPC have charged you when they shouldn't have done, and their appeal process has failed, your only affordable option is the small claims court. They are many websites that claim to be able to help you overturn tickets.
Yours may be a genuine case, but I am jaded by the number of people who moan about car parking tickets when they have parked somewhere they shouldn't have done. I am neither smug nor intending to patronise, but fed up of people too tight to pay for the public car park thinking they can park outside my house for free.
I've received a parking charge notice from UKPC. As we know, private companies like UKPC legally are not authorised to issues fines or penalties as it is contrary to the BPA code of practice, whch they can be thrown out of for contravening. Private parking firms are not backed up by any aspect of criminal law. My advice to anyone who receives such a charge is not to pay it.
There 2 options to anyone who decides not to pay it, you can either simply ignore it or write to the company and dispute it. The key word here is dispute, the word appeal gives uneeded legitimacy to the charge. If you do dispute the charge it and do it writing the company have 14 days to respond under BPA regulations.
My opinion is that these charges, regardless of the circumstances, are unenforceable and this is backed up by many eminent experts and solicitors who specialise in this area.
And don't get intimidated by letters threatening you with debt collectors, debt collectors have very little power and are not the same as bailiffs. Bailiffs must have court orders to enforce detbs, debt collectors are unable to enter your home without your permission and cannot seize possessions in the same way that bailiffs can. If debt collectors get persistent after you have told them you will not pay the chage, simply quote the Administration of Justice Act 1970 and tell them not to contact you again.
There 2 options to anyone who decides not to pay it, you can either simply ignore it or write to the company and dispute it. The key word here is dispute, the word appeal gives uneeded legitimacy to the charge. If you do dispute the charge it and do it writing the company have 14 days to respond under BPA regulations.
My opinion is that these charges, regardless of the circumstances, are unenforceable and this is backed up by many eminent experts and solicitors who specialise in this area.
And don't get intimidated by letters threatening you with debt collectors, debt collectors have very little power and are not the same as bailiffs. Bailiffs must have court orders to enforce detbs, debt collectors are unable to enter your home without your permission and cannot seize possessions in the same way that bailiffs can. If debt collectors get persistent after you have told them you will not pay the chage, simply quote the Administration of Justice Act 1970 and tell them not to contact you again.
I've received a parking charge notice from UKPC. As we know, private companies like UKPC legally are not authorised to issues fines or penalties as it is contrary to the BPA code of practice, whch they can be thrown out of for contravening. Private parking firms are not backed up by any aspect of criminal law. My advice to anyone who receives such a charge is not to pay it.
There 2 options to anyone who decides not to pay it, you can either simply ignore it or write to the company and dispute it. The key word here is dispute, the word appeal gives uneeded legitimacy to the charge. If you do dispute the charge it and do it writing the company have 14 days to respond under BPA regulations.
My opinion is that these charges, regardless of the circumstances, are unenforceable and this is backed up by many eminent experts and solicitors who specialise in this area.
And don't get intimidated by letters threatening you with debt collectors, debt collectors have very little power and are not the same as bailiffs. Bailiffs must have court orders to enforce detbs, debt collectors are unable to enter your home without your permission and cannot seize possessions in the same way that bailiffs can. If debt collectors get persistent after you have told them you will not pay the chage, simply quote the Administration of Justice Act 1970 and tell them not to contact you again.
There 2 options to anyone who decides not to pay it, you can either simply ignore it or write to the company and dispute it. The key word here is dispute, the word appeal gives uneeded legitimacy to the charge. If you do dispute the charge it and do it writing the company have 14 days to respond under BPA regulations.
My opinion is that these charges, regardless of the circumstances, are unenforceable and this is backed up by many eminent experts and solicitors who specialise in this area.
And don't get intimidated by letters threatening you with debt collectors, debt collectors have very little power and are not the same as bailiffs. Bailiffs must have court orders to enforce detbs, debt collectors are unable to enter your home without your permission and cannot seize possessions in the same way that bailiffs can. If debt collectors get persistent after you have told them you will not pay the chage, simply quote the Administration of Justice Act 1970 and tell them not to contact you again.
I profoundly disagree with bushbaby_de, as the the solictor said in my above link. He doesn't know of any cases by private parking companies that have been sucessfully argued in court. In most cases they do not even turn up to court and I would suggest the reason for this is that they do not want a landmark judgement going against them as it would set a precedent with which all subsequent claims are judged, which would put all private parking firms out of business.
By parking at one of the sites ukpc manage a driver enters into a contract with us.
A key legal precedent for England and Wales was set in 1996, in the case of Arthur v Anker. The judge ruled that when Mr Arthur parked in breach of the terms and conditions prominently displayed at the site, he had entered into a contract with Mr Anker’s company and broken the terms. Therefore he was liable to pay the charges levied.
A newer precedent was set in 2008, in the case of Combined Parking Solutions (CPS) v Stephen James Thomas. Mr Thomas tried to deny that he was the person responsible for parking his car without a permit in a church car park managed by CPS. However, the judge ruled that “on the balance of probabilities” the driver was Mr Thomas, and that he had therefore knowingly entered into a contract with CPS. He was held liable to pay CPS’s charges plus interest, court fees and expenses.
In the Scottish courts the Arthur v Anker and CPS v Stephen James Thomas cases are considered ‘persuasive but not binding’. However the 2005 case of University of Edinburgh v Daniel Onifade set a relevant legal precedent for Scotland. In this case the court decided that Mr Onifade had knowingly parked in a private car park at the university on 29 occasions, without displaying a valid permit. The signage on display clearly explained that this would incur a charge of £30 per day. The judge held that Mr Onifade was liable to pay the total charges of £870 plus interest and costs. UKPC clearly display the appropriate terms and conditions on the signage at all our sites. As a result the parking charges we issue are enforceable in the civil courts.
A key legal precedent for England and Wales was set in 1996, in the case of Arthur v Anker. The judge ruled that when Mr Arthur parked in breach of the terms and conditions prominently displayed at the site, he had entered into a contract with Mr Anker’s company and broken the terms. Therefore he was liable to pay the charges levied.
A newer precedent was set in 2008, in the case of Combined Parking Solutions (CPS) v Stephen James Thomas. Mr Thomas tried to deny that he was the person responsible for parking his car without a permit in a church car park managed by CPS. However, the judge ruled that “on the balance of probabilities” the driver was Mr Thomas, and that he had therefore knowingly entered into a contract with CPS. He was held liable to pay CPS’s charges plus interest, court fees and expenses.
In the Scottish courts the Arthur v Anker and CPS v Stephen James Thomas cases are considered ‘persuasive but not binding’. However the 2005 case of University of Edinburgh v Daniel Onifade set a relevant legal precedent for Scotland. In this case the court decided that Mr Onifade had knowingly parked in a private car park at the university on 29 occasions, without displaying a valid permit. The signage on display clearly explained that this would incur a charge of £30 per day. The judge held that Mr Onifade was liable to pay the total charges of £870 plus interest and costs. UKPC clearly display the appropriate terms and conditions on the signage at all our sites. As a result the parking charges we issue are enforceable in the civil courts.
1 to 19 of 19
