Private Parking Companies And Their Illegal Car Park Signs In Sheffield

[geared 317]

And how many drivers used the car park from 2008 to 2011 DIDN'T get a fine?

 

Isn't the point more that the company issued £1.1 million in parking charges when they were only 50-60K out of pocket? It's so grossly disproportionate it's unreal.

 

Although obviously the 11k people that didn't pay at the pay and display were all in the wrong, because it was a pay and display not a free car park.

[Walkley Dave 10]

I use two car parks (Q at the Midland Station and Malin Bridge Park and Ride) on a regular basis, and pay at both of them. I would suspect no-one gets a so-called "fine" at either. Why? Because the object of those car parks with their barriers is to provide controlled parking.

 

Likewise Bailey House of Rotherham Hospitals which I also use with its staffed barriers. No-one gets "so-called fines" there either.

 

I have a mate who works on a small industrial estate near the town centre. He has a lockable post. He and others entitled to use the parking space have keys. No unauthorised parking.

 

Ever seen Bramall Lane on a Match Day? Two big car parks and no-one gets fined. Staffed entrances and exits at all parking at the ground. Ever heard a complaint about John Lewis's car-park in town about people being fined there? Ask yourself why no-one (or a very very tiny few) get fined at all those places.

 

I am happy to go back at step. No-one gets fined at those places with all their different methods of controlling parking because the object is to control parking. Not to set up a system to make it easy to "fine" people.

[Walkley Dave 10]

 

And didn't the judge get criticised for it being his own personal opinion and not a legal one so it had no legal standing?.

 

Two points here. You have clearly not read the case and know very little about the law with such a comment.

 

The judge was a woman.

 

All judges' opinions are their own opinions and are legal. If disputed they can be challenged in higher courts. That was in the lowest court. So if the Private Parking Company wanted to, there was plenty of scope for a challenge.

 

They didn't and they didn't because they knew they would lose.

[Magilla 510]

See post 19 , just answered .........

 

Avoided, not answered.

[BHRemovals 10]

these companys seem to be a law unto themselves

[the_bloke 17]

You keep whining on about unfair fines and threats and letters. But you seem unable to go back one step in the chain.

 

I like this. I parked for more than two hours in the Berkeley Precinct once, from 8 PM til about 11 PM. The car park is free. The shops were shut. The car park was virtually empty.

 

I was sent an invoice for £60. Followed up by the usual threats and letters, all unfounded and I didn't pay a penny. You seem to think that these companies issue invoices that are fair in the grand scheme of things, but how can you justify an invoice for staying longer in a free car park when the shops it serves are shut?

[AbdullaJones 10]

What is a twank?

 

Abbreviation for titwank i believe

[Moosey 10]

Quote:

 

Originally Posted by barleycorn

 

Signage indicating that not only will non-payers at pay and display car parks be pursued through the courts for their £1.20/hr but will also become liable for all court costs, coupled with publication of a few success stories in the local rag should help with that.

 

jb

 

And how pray will you make people liable for all their court costs? Either you employ a solicitor - for whom you cannot charge - or you do it yourself. Either way these charges are not recoverable.

 

The cost of issuing the claim is recoverable. But that is all.

 

I have successfully used it on a number of occasions. But I don't charge myself much to do it.

 

Rule 48 (1)(3) of the civil procedure rules. Costs can be ordered, even in a small claim, where the conduct of one party justifies such an order. Use it all the time when defendants don't respond to get costs out of them.

 

PPC only need find someone with a lot of tickets to exemplify the point to the court. Might work, might not.

 

I don't like or agree with private parking companies but this area isn't as clear cut as is suggested. I'd put money on me being able to argue and win one either way.

 

 

 

Posted from Sheffieldforum.co.uk App for Android

[Eckolad 10]

I would put money on beating you if you was representing someone like excel with no legal interest in the land.

 

Being sued for lots of tickets would not justify high cost order. Parking eye tried it on with 4 legal reps and wanted 5k in legal costs. They goy laughed out of court by the judge

[Walkley Dave 10]

And here are the details:

 

Manchester County Court 1XJ81016

 

Parking Eye v Smith

 

Defendant parked on two occasions without paying and therefore owed damages for the contractual breach. This amounted to £15 (clearly listed on a sign as a list of tariffs).

 

Pannone sent FOUR solicitors and attempted to claim costs of... (wait for it)

 

...£4457.20.

 

Original claim of £240 deemed a contractual penalty unrelated to damages incurred.

 

£15 + £95 costs awarded.

 

The lesson here is probably to pay for any damages sooner rather than later, which may have avoided the £95 costs.

 

Still, Parking Eye won't be looking forward to their big Pannone bill. Quite why you'd employ 4 solicitors for a small claims case and why Pannone thought they'd get £4k is probably the biggest mystery in all this.

[Moosey 10]

I would put money on beating you if you was representing someone like excel with no legal interest in the land.

 

Being sued for lots of tickets would not justify high cost order. Parking eye tried it on with 4 legal reps and wanted 5k in legal costs. They goy laughed out of court by the judge

 

 

I'm not even going to argue with you. If you're content to believe you know more civil law than a civil lawyer, that's fine with me.

 

The "no interest" in land point is wrong by the way. You won't believe me, but anything said in a tax tribunal is obiter. It isn't binding, even from the upper chambers. The upper chamber is equivalent to a high court. Obiter comments can be followed, if a Judge feels like it, but they aren't bound by them. There have been cases which the point has been accepted on, but it would be quite easy to argue that there's a valid interest there, either under third party legislation, equity, subrogated rights, or many other ways. But anyway, if you feel comfortable giving legal advice, I'm not going to stop you.

[Moosey 10]

And here are the details:

 

Manchester County Court 1XJ81016

 

Parking Eye v Smith

 

Defendant parked on two occasions without paying and therefore owed damages for the contractual breach. This amounted to £15 (clearly listed on a sign as a list of tariffs).

 

Pannone sent FOUR solicitors and attempted to claim costs of... (wait for it)

 

...£4457.20.

 

Original claim of £240 deemed a contractual penalty unrelated to damages incurred.

 

£15 + £95 costs awarded.

 

The lesson here is probably to pay for any damages sooner rather than later, which may have avoided the £95 costs.

 

Still, Parking Eye won't be looking forward to their big Pannone bill. Quite why you'd employ 4 solicitors for a small claims case and why Pannone thought they'd get £4k is probably the biggest mystery in all this.

 

 

That's not a costs point, that's a point of Pannones being stupid. It's equivalent conduct - a bill that size for a couple of hundred quid claim was quite rightly panned by the Judge. Had it been a grand, it would have been interesting I think.

 

The fact remains, there is no clear binding law in this area, so Judges can do whatever they please. Until there is binding law from the Court of Appeal, or via statute, I'd be incredibly careful advising people as to the law, because negligent advice is a risky thing!