Bradfield Road car park (Hillsborough) - charges and "fines"

[ecky6fingers 10]

indeed it is alex, the appeal is another scam,

[Cyclone 10]

Please see my previous post on why firms will not start to clamp vehicles. I think it's probably on page 4 of this thread.

 

I saw it.

But clamping answers the question of how a company should stop individuals parking beyond the permissions given. Customer relations might cause companies to reconsider, but parking 'fines' are hardly a benefit to customer relations are they.

 

Moosey, as long as the signs are prominent and the clamping firm registered I think it was difficult to get anywhere in court. And of course it puts the onus on the clamped to go to court rather than the ignored invoicing parking enforcement company. So probably preferable.

 

Meadowhall use it for parking in disabled bays.

[ecky6fingers 10]

I saw it.

But clamping answers the question of how a company should stop individuals parking beyond the permissions given. Customer relations might cause companies to reconsider, but parking 'fines' are hardly a benefit to customer relations are they.

 

Moosey, as long as the signs are prominent and the clamping firm registered I think it was difficult to get anywhere in court. And of course it puts the onus on the clamped to go to court rather than the ignored invoicing parking enforcement company. So probably preferable.

 

Meadowhall use it for parking in disabled bays.

 

Disabled parking bays have no legal relevance on private land.

[Darth Vader 10]

Good job this is a discussion board and not a courtroom them, otherwise it could actually matter!

 

The point is, the parking companies rely on people believing it is an enforceable fine, and some even go the trouble of presenting them as 'fixed penalty notices' which is illegal. That is why it is so important to distinguish them from such.

[Cyclone 10]

Disabled parking bays have no legal relevance on private land.

 

A car can be clamped for not parking in a place it has permission to park.

A disabled bay is that place if the conditions of parking there require a disabled badge to be displayed.

 

I've seen them clamp a car though, served the lazy so-an-so right.

[hallam09 10]

Yes we understand people who continue to park in place where signs inform you you cant as ''invoices'' are issued, are either retarded or ignorant people with no morals.

 

People with no morals? Lol.

 

I would hardly describe people who park their car in areas they shouldn't morally bankrupt. The people who are lacking in morality are the d**ks that buy up this land to try and squeeze as much money out of people as possible. Cos God forbid anything in this world is free and someone can't be making money out of anything. Capitalism gone crazy.

[ecky6fingers 10]

People with no morals? Lol.

 

I would hardly describe people who park their car in areas they shouldn't morally bankrupt. The people who are lacking in morality are the d**ks that buy up this land to try and squeeze as much money out of people as possible. Cos God forbid anything in this world is free and someone can't be making money out of anything. Capitalism gone crazy.

 

 

The problem is parking firms dishing out tickets that look like genuine Tickets that issued by councils etc.

[Lockjaw 11]

I'll correct you as you seem to think I am on about a law change!! What will happen is that the companies issuing the PCN's will start to win more court cases, this will then set a precident in court (no laws), then they will call up all the old PCN's that people were advised to ignore, take them to court and charge them x amount more for the court costs.

 

I really hope this happens as this would serve all the inconsiderate people a bit or karma.

 

No Bonjon. I don't think you are on about a law change. I am telling you that the law would have to change before the PCs will win any court cases. This is the bit you appear to be choosing not to understand. As the law stands, they will not win any cases. Your constant suggesting otherwise will not change this.

 

Also, I see you've reverted to your previous disingenuous style, as in

 

What will happen is that the companies issuing the PCN's will start to win more court cases.

 

They haven't, as you know, won any court cases.

 

this will then set a precident in court

 

I've addressed this for you before, Bonjon.

 

It would set a precedent if I managed to win a case against you for persistent crimes against legal logic.

 

Since, however, no such crime exists I will never win such a case and the precedent will never be set.

[Lockjaw 11]

The companies really should start with the clamping, not alot of people would know how to 'legally' get them off and would be faced with a long wait and a big fine for removal.

 

Er, no. If they start clamping or using barriers then their income stream will reduce to a trickle, their business model will be broken and they will cease to exist... as explained repeatedly on threads such as this... The companies obviously understand this. You, sadly, don't seem to.

[Cyclone 10]

Clamping companies exist and obviously have a working business model. Farmfoods key business is selling food, not issuing parking tickets. Thus Farmfoods could end it's contract with Excel or whoever it is and form a contract with a clamping company. Farmfoods would achieve the aim of stopping people parking illegally (probably with more success than the current policy).

 

What is it that would need to change in law for these implied contracts to exist and thus be enforceable in court? Or is it that they would need to prove that damages had occurred?

[Moosey 10]

 

What is it that would need to change in law for these implied contracts to exist and thus be enforceable in court? Or is it that they would need to prove that damages had occurred?

 

Yup. There's no loss, however if a loss can be shown, the penalty/punishment has to be proportionate to the loss. For example, if someone in a car park were to overstay by ten minutes, having paid, they could theoretically offer the cost of 10 minutes parking as compensation, even 20 minutes, as a gesture. £80 however is not proportionate.

[Cyclone 10]

Presumably some part of that £80 is the administration fee for monitoring the car park and processing the infringement.

Clampers are regulated by law and can charge a fee larger than this I believe.