You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
You think you should be let off breaking the rules?
Well my attitude is that it's not unreasonable to expect him to pay for the extra time which he didn't realise he needed to do when he bought his ticket. At the same rate as if he had realised, obviously.
Nasty Neighbours once set me up for two tickets.
I disputed them, got them overturned.
Then I donated the money to Charidy. Thus turning malicious intent of problem neighbours, into a better outcome.
If they knew what I'd done, their heads would probably explode.
😀
Actually BT's excess charge is £5 for 5Gb:
http://www.productsandservices.bt.com/consumerProducts/displayTopic.do?topicId=33467
Hence it's broadly in line with what you're paying on your regular package, and can't easily be accused of being an unfair contractual penalty. And that's notwithstanding the fact that you definitely agreed to a contract up front, which is a much less dubious claim than one asserted by a private parking company which doesn't even have any charge over the land they feel they're "policing".
If BT charged you £60 for going a few Kb over the limit, they'd probably be laughed out of court
One of the key bits of case law:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunlop_Pneumatic_Tyre_Co_Ltd_v_New_Garage_%26_Motor_Co_Ltd
"It will be held to be penalty if the sum stipulated for is extravagant and unconscionable in amount in comparison with the greatest loss that could conceivably be proved to have followed from the breach"
The charges need to be proportionate, and free parking needs a right good sort out.
With free parking there is no incentive for proper parking management, just charging as many people as much as possible.
You think you should be let off breaking the rules?
I generally don't, but in my case the penalty was £90 for 15 minutes over.
At a rate of £1 per hour standard.
So they wanted 360 times the standard rate.
They got nothing. (If they wanted £1 paid when I left, they would have had it no problem) but instead they produced and sent 6 first class letters which would have cost a fair bit.
In the case of avontyrrell, it could be argued that he could have left the car for his free 30 minutes, and then put a 1hr ticket on it after that. So the actual loss to the parking company is nothing.
ah I miss remembered, not as bad as I first thought, pretty sure that's billed in 5Gb blocks tho so if you only go over a few Mbs you still get charged the full £5. I guess for penalties you've got to look to the mobile companiesActually BT's excess charge is £5 for 5Gb
Three broadband 1Gb sim £7.50per month, go over your allowance and it's 10.2p per Mb
rail travel, council run parking, there's all sorts of services where you don't physically sign a contract. There are signs* saying "by getting on the train/parking in our car park/whatever, you agree to our terms here's the cost for fair use and here's what you pay if you abuse our system". It's legit in other circumstances why not here?You have signed a contract with your broadband supplier.
so you can only threaten a fine, if they say "it's £1.50 and if you don't pay or overstay we [i]might[/i] fine you a whole £2" how effective will that be? At the moment it's a gamble, I'm guessing the threat of a large sum is enough to put most people off cheating and of those who aren't put off some will pay up.Unenforceable threats, mostly.
I already said £40 sounds high and £90 is indeed ridiculous**, you can argue about what's a fair sum but I don't see the original cost if you were legit from the start as being sensible. As I alluded to with the shoplifting example if there's no penalty for trying to get away without paying then a lot of people will try it on.
*again if it's some dodgy company confusing signs, signs at the top of 10' poles, small print so small you need a magnifying glass then those companies should be clamped 😉 down one
**have you seen some of the ridiculous costs solicitors and other professionals charge for disbursements and changing things? The sums don't just cover the actual work, you are paying because they have a law degree and you don't. Well the car park people just happen to have a shed load of no doubt valuable land in the middle of a town that most of us don't have.
I've no doubt there's limits on what they can charge but there's certainly a fair wedge of mark up going on.
if they say "it's £1.50 and if you don't pay or overstay we might fine you a whole £2" how effective will that be? At the moment it's a gamble, I'm guessing the threat of a large sum is enough to put most people off cheating and of those who aren't put off some will pay up.
It's probably also enough of a threat to result in some people paying more than they need to as they end up spending less time shopping than they expected. I wonder if it's possible to claim a refund?
**have you seen some of the ridiculous costs solicitors and other professionals charge for disbursements and changing things? The sums don't just cover the actual work, you are paying because they have a law degree*** and you don't. Well the car park people just happen to have a shed load of no doubt valuable land in the middle of a town that most of us don't have.
That's irrelevant really.
The solicitors have "prices" not "fines"
Carpark owners are perfectly entitled to do the same thing. And test just how valuable their land is.
Put the prices up to £50 or £100/hour and see how many customers they get.
The law doesn't say anything about how much people can charge for their services, it does however say something about penalty charges.
[i]"it's £1.50 and if you don't pay or overstay we might fine you a whole £2" how effective will that be?[/i]
They can't fine me 0.01p
so you can only threaten a fine, if they say "it's £1.50 and if you don't pay or overstay we might fine you a whole £2" how effective will that be? At the moment it's a gamble, I'm guessing the threat of a large sum is enough to put most people off cheating and of those who aren't put off some will pay up.
You're still not getting the fact that private companies cannot issue fines. They just can't. If they want to enforce their parking policies, they need to use some other method than "fines" - physical barrier entry systems maybe.
The analogy to prepaid data allowances isn't a bad one. But here the same applies, contracts have to be fair to be legally binding. Phone companies can't just charge you £10 for a 500Mb data allowance and then charge you £90 if you happen to go over by a few Kb.
so you can only threaten a fine, if they say "it's £1.50 and if you don't pay or overstay we might fine you a whole £2" how effective will that be?
You seem to be under the misapprehension that the law is there to be effective for the landowners? It's is there to be fair. The landowners are just using intimidation to get people to line their pockets. Luckily we have the internet to kybosh all this rent seeking.
i said earlier not to get hung up on the word fine, whatever you want to label it. a fair charge figure/amount can be worked out by others, I'm not fighting for the rights of land owners I'm just wondering why it is that I seemingly could go and park in any barrier-less private car park I like with out paying and ignoring any restrictions and the car park owners just have to suck it up.You're still not getting the fact that private companies cannot issue fines.
Seems a bit weird the amount of drivers who think they should be able to park within 10 meters of any building they personally wish to enter but saying car park owners are all shysters who don't deserve to earn a living. But then I'm forgetting about the "rights of drivers" aren't I?
I reckon there'd be a massive outcry if the CP owners all give it up as a bad job and sell their land for building houses on. People may have to [b]walk[/b] places
Actually scratch all that. Council run places fine you a fair wedge Salford charge 50 or 70, that seems to be enforceable. Now like I said above get rid of dodgy companies but if a private car park complies to all regulations the council does why can the council charge £50 for contraventions but private car parks can't charge a penny? Same regulations, same "contract" same contraventions but private companies can be screwed over.
@donk
I get where your coming from, and largely agree with your last post.
Couple of thing though, the car parks need to be sensibly managed. And the charges need to be sensible, often they just haven't been. Mine was pay £60 now or £120 after the appeal period ends. And that was a free parking area where no one will have suffered any losses. Residential, parked in the residents space at the instruction of the resident.
Often these companies do not ticket on there own land, residential areas and retail parks being good examples. They come in (afaik for little or no money from the landowner) and can only make money by ticketing. This is not a good business model if the object is managing ****ng space. As it is only about screwing people.
This is also an industry that out and out lied to parliament to get there own way. And there's enough BS in that place as it is. There is a place for private parking companies, but it needs policing.
The industry needs to be effectively managed by a truly independent watchdog.
absolutely. I've not read up on the full history of this saga but yes I've heard rumours of very dodgy stuff in the past. But it seems at the moment there is now way of enforcing a [b]legitimate [/b]business model.There is a place for private parking companies, [b]but it needs policing[/b].
On a tangent how do rail travel fines work? It's all privately owned, I know btp have a presence but the ticket barriers are manned by g4s, another private firm.
Not sure tbh. I seem to remember its something to do with bylaws. Possibly a hangover from British Rail days!?
As said before council/government pay it.
Private companies completely ignore, do not contact them at all, especially by email/letter as you acknowledge the ticket and enter there terms/agreement. Total rip off and the very annoying part is the DVLA give them your details. Private companies accessing your details from a government controlled body is very wrong.
This comes up every two weeks on every forum I read.
Ignore it, it's nothing other than an invoice they are hoping to bully you into paying. Do not respond, do not make any contact, they can never be sure who was driving the car and where they are so they won't bother pursuing you in a civil court. Even if they do, you can settle by offering to pay them for the extra time and that will be the end of it.
You will receive about 5 crap letters in increasingly threatening terms all signed by the same idiot with a computer and printer and the last two will be offering you a discount for early payment, which is a sign that they are losing hope of frightening you.
they can never be sure who was driving the car and where they are so they won't bother pursuing you in a civil court
In general I agree, but that is bad advice. The law has changed - the registered keeper is now obliged to tell the PPC who was driving at the time, otherwise they become personally liable. It's a quite incredible change in the law, but that's what the law now is - so claiming you don't know who was driving (or refusing to tell them) is now no longer a defence.
100
Dear PPC the drivers name was xxxxxx
oh you cant find him tough shit?
I'm starting to wonder whether conversations would flow a lot more freely on this forum if people read a thread beyond the first and last posts before replying.
I'm starting to wonder whether conversations would flow a lot more freely on this forum if people read a thread beyond the first and last posts before replying.
That would be nice.
It's incredible how many people read the OP, skip the next three pages to make a really informative post thats been covered almost word for word at least ten times already.
[i]wrong or not?[/i]
[img] 
[/img]
[i]It's incredible how many people read the OP, skip the next three pages to make a really informative post thats been covered almost word for word at least ten times already[/i]
Not really, its the webz, innit.
[img] 
[/img]
Cougar and Solo +1, despite Solo's broken picture links.
This type of behaviour is also prevalent on the thread about the reamed out head tube. The OP very patiently explains several times that oversized headsets are not the solution.
Despite this, several hundred people recommend FSA Pig headsets. They all need electrocuted. Or something.
Don't pay, BTW.
The analogy to prepaid data allowances isn't a bad one. But here the same applies, contracts have to be fair to be legally binding. Phone companies can't just charge you £10 for a 500Mb data allowance and then charge you £90 if you happen to go over by a few Kb.
That's different, it isn't a breach of contract, so I think off the top of my head that they can, subject to fairness which is different.
isn't that a good thing? your post doesn't seem to indicate your opinion either way. Car are generally pretty expensive items so you'd have thought the average person was well aware who was in possession of the keys at the time. I'd have thought the change came about because of the oh so many cases where Mr M Mouse had the car at the time. Case in point that assault on the cyclist (bexley heath?) where the owner initially claimed he had no idea who the driver was. So someone pinched the car took it for a spin punched a cyclist then returned the car.so claiming you don't know who was driving (or refusing to tell them) is now no longer a defence.
Back to the contract thing, the technicalities of it seem to be ok in principle because the council can get away with fining you for it.
Back to the contract thing, the technicalities of it seem to be ok in principle because the council can get away with fining you for it.
Not sure what you mean by that bit ?
Local Councils are legally allowed to issue Penalty Fines. Private companies are Not.
Not sure what you mean by "the technicalities of it seem to be ok" ?
Donk, you may like a read of this speech given at a BPA conference
God knows who invited him, I suspect there are elements of the BPA that want to sort out the industry.
the defence suggested by some earlier was that you hadn't entered into a contract with the car park owners. If the council owns the car park it seems the contract is sufficient enough for a fine to be iussued.Not sure what you mean by that bit ?
On the subject of the recent change in law which forces the driver to inform the PPC who was driving.
I'd question whether this makes any real world difference, there are tens, if not hundreds of thousands of unpaid tickets every year. Enough of those will have tried (in vain) to appeal. And in doing so most will have informed the PPC in writing who the driver was. This only led to 49 cases*, it just doesn't seem to be in the PPCs interest to go to court. They still lose more than half of these cases, and even then when taking in to account the amount of time they put into a case. They are never going to make good money going to court. The only real value in them going to court is to gain propaganda material in order to maintain the current situation where enough folk roll over and pay up for the business model to work.
*the number of registered cases for 2011 was 845. I've not seen any break down of this number as to what happened with them. Some will have defended and the PPC will have bailed, some will have been paid, some will have reached out of court settlement
after reading your link (ooooooh bet that talk went down well) and other posts it would appear the change in law we're talking about is specifically for PPC stuff I had assumed it was the change for all motoring offences eg when I was hit by a bloke in a vehicle, the owner claimed a fictitious* person was driving so she got a fine and points.
Sounds like the industry has a lot of morally corrupt and outright devious gits in it and I absolutely agree that they should be dealt with, but surely there's some legit companies out there too. It's for those that I'm arguing about enforcement of parking rules by some means.
TBH I'm arguing about an issue I know little about** so probably best if I bow out.
*or atleast untraceable by the police
**but hey it's the interwebz
but surely there's some legit companies out there too. It's for those that I'm arguing about enforcement of parking rules by some means.
The Legit companies tend to use Barrier controlled, pay on Exit, methods.
They may charge more, but they get the prices they ask for.
The other type rely on cheap prices to bring in business, and make up for it by conning people into paying hugely inflated "fines"
Decent signage should be enforced by law.
I imagine a lot less people would be caught out if they actually could read and understand the signs with ease.
First hour £1, thereafter £60 or £120. Instead that last bit is buried amongst the tiniest of writing in barely understandable language. And that's before you get onto the subject of signage that is actually illegal in the first place.
Interesting, i've just got one of these myself, although the circumstances were a bit bizarre. The attendant was photographing my car as i returned and explained that i had parked without a ticket. I showed him the ticket clearly displayed in the window, to which he answered "tickets been issued now, nothing i can do". His only advice was to appeal, although judging by some of the experiences that seems a waste of time. Despite having a ticket issued at 16:26 and a receipt for goods purchased from the shop i parked in front of for 16:31 (the PCN was issued at 16:30), i think i'll just ignore it. Seems the mistake is to enter into a dialogue with them.
In such circumstances I think I'd actually be quite tempted to go through the official appeal route as it's free for you but costs the parking company money. Even if they find against you, you can then go back to ignoring all correspondence - they'll never take a case they know they'd lose to court.
Interesting, i've just got one of these myself, although the circumstances were a bit bizarre. The attendant was photographing my car as i returned and explained that i had parked without a ticket. I showed him the ticket clearly displayed in the window, to which he answered "tickets been issued now, nothing i can do". His only advice was to appeal, although judging by some of the experiences that seems a waste of time. Despite having a ticket issued at 16:26 and a receipt for goods purchased from the shop i parked in front of for 16:31 (the PCN was issued at 16:30), i think i'll just ignore it. Seems the mistake is to enter into a dialogue with them.
I'd have tried to get a photograph of the ticket with the inspector in shot.
Clong you will not loose that I imagine
IIRC their picture has to be clear enough to show your ticket and that it has expired - that would be impossible in your case
Even if they maintain its true if the picture does not prove it then you win.
No idea how they prove the actual time though- are the ticket machines somehow controlled re time?
The bloke wasn't particularly keen on hanging around Cougar. The first 30 mins is free, so quite what the bloke was playing at i don't know.
If it's a proper PCN, then it'll be the council - you'll need to appeal
If it's a proper PCN, then it'll be the council - you'll need to appeal
No, it states a "Parking Charge Notice" not a "Penalty Charge Notice" and unless the new forest district council or the MET office has moved their offices to Newton Abbot, it was not issued by the county council or the police.
Company that issued it is Premier parking solutions btw.
Seems pretty obvious what he was playing at, then.
From that link - does this make anyone else angry?
At a Proceeds of Crime hearing on Friday, 19 January Linda Clark was found to have benefited to the sum of £352,951 and was ordered to pay £42,987.
So she 'earned' £310k net, wow, that showed her.
Genius:
Is anybody else really torn by somebody conning able bodied people using disabled parking bays (I'm naively assuming they didn't ticket people displaying blue badges - must be plenty of opportunity without having to resort to that)?
I presume the amount she was made to pay back was related to the assets she had - hence the other bloke only being made to pay back £1. Hard to make somebody pay money they don't have - you run into human rights issues if you try to go to far.
According to the the internerd
According to the BPA figures, and we know they never lie, there were 1.8 million private tickets issued in 2011, of which approx. 31% went unpaid, so that's about 550,000. 845 resulted in court claims, 49 went to court, 25 successfully defended.
Taken from a forum, and no source linked. Treat with caution.
Update; 3 months later not a dickie bird, can I sleep easy at night etc
Update from me: I've had 3 letters, 1 from premier car park solutions and 2 from the debt collection agency. The amount owed varies between them all. Quick trawl through the interweb shows that the car park firm and the debt collecting firm are owned by the same individual. No sleep lost here either, i forget about it until one of their begging letters arrive.
Had this about a year ago.
1st letter from APC (Parking co)
2nd & 3rd from Solicitors who represent APC (same address apparently)
Both increasing amounts with increasing amount of threat.
Then silence.
You'll get another couple of begging letters where they lower the amount you can pay. Ignore everything and never contact them.
Mine were better:
1st letter from the parking co. demanding £120 with a 50% discount for early payment.
2nd from their "lawyers" demanding £120 plus costs etc etc.
3rd from a debt collection agency with the words "BAILIFF" on the front (really scared Mrs Gti, that one, I had a job keeping her from panicking and paying them.)
4th from a different debt collection agency suggesting I paid £80 to be let off, then 5th letter suggesting £50 to be let off, meaning they'd given up hope.
All of letters 2, 3, 4 and 5 bore the same crappy illegible computer-generated signature. I'm tempted to write anonymously to goad them but guess this might be unwise. In my case it was obviously some muppet sitting in an office in Rochdale feeding different letterheads into a printer and licking the envelopes in the hope that the hit rate would be enough to pay their wages and enrich the boss.