It should be on the previous threads about this case.
I worked in salisbury hospital. Parked in the staff carpark. Ran up 69 parking tickets. Was initially accused of fraud and asked to attend a paces interview which i declined. The CPS decided it was a civil case and not a fraud case.
The claimaint has used the CCMCC to gain a judgement for £5000.
Yes they are claiming that there were 69 seperate instances of parking wihout displaying a ticket.
I have offered the full cost of parking on each of those instances whihc would amount to £70 (rounded up).
They have refused and go via a small claims court to get the money.
I am not completely clear on your answer.
What i wanted to do is to first use the wrong address issue to buy time so i can prepare a proper defence. Will the court give me another hearing to explain my defence or will it want to have both issues dealt with at the same hearing.
Also there are atleast 3 cases of private parking companies being denied breach of contract verdicts, as under uk law, contracts with penalty clauses for breaches are not considered valid.
You say the case law is against me but what i wanted is a list of cases that would support my position, do you know of any?
In terms of signage what is the law in respect of this. Do the signs that mandate a contract, need to be placed in each parking bay for them to be considered valid?
I really dont want to have to hired a lawyer for this and would really appreciate some concrete guidance.
I didnt get them late i never got them. They were returned by Royal mail as the address and post code had no geographical locality associated with it.
In respect of case law i have seen the case of OBS v Thurlow which was won by the defendant on appeal, would that not count?
Also the case of Perera v Aintree Hospital Trust was again determined in favour of the defendant.
There are others cases as mentioned on the website http://www.penaltychargenotice.co.uk/private-land-enforcement/court-cases/court-cases-for-private-parking-tickets/
Please advise what your view on these are and if i can use these in my defence.
I dont see your reasoning. There being a contract is not relevant. The issue if of penalty clauses whoch would negate that contract.
The case of Perera v NHS Aintree is almost identical. He was an employee and parked in the carpark and got tickets which he ignored. He won the case.
I feel your not addressing what has occured in these cases as they are almost the same as mine.
Ok how does that work. I dont feel ive got any forward with this.
I havebeen asked to look at this for you. At present, this is not a parking issue.This is a County Court judgement issue. They appear to have a judgement againstyou because you did not get the various papers. In which case, you need to makea court application to set the judgement aside so that you have time to defendit. In order to get the judgement set aside, you have to have a reasonabledefence. The general defence to parking charges is that the signage was notsufficient.
Youwill be aware that the authority you cite of Perera, is no longer applicablebecause the law changed in October 2012 to make these private land "fines" (theyare not fines they are actually contractual charges) enforceable under theProtection of Freedoms Act. Statute has taken over case law.
So youmay have a defence to any charges which have been levied but it would be thatthere was not sufficient signage in the car park for you to realise that therewas a charge. However, that defence fails after the first or second ticket whenyou were then advised that you are being charged for parking.
I'mafraid that this is one that I would not be taking to court with any hope ofsuccess. I think you will probably get the judgement set aside but if the carpark people decide to pursue this, I do not think that you are good ground.Take comfort from the fact that although the amount claimed is substantial,because it is small claims, they will not get their legal costs back even ifthey win.
Youhave another possible defence (which I also do not think will work) and that isthat these are 69 separate contracts which just all happen to be based upon thesame facts and therefore should be 69 separate hearings. To be honest, if youwere to run that all you will do is alienate the judge because he will thinkthat you are being a smarty-pants and I think it would fail in any event. Imention it for completeness in case it crossed your mind.
Iappreciate this is not the answer you wanted but there is no point in memisleading you. I have a duty to advise you truthfully and honestly even ifthat answer is unfavourable.
Theywere always enforceable against the driver in contract subject to the signageissue which we are all aware of..
Thereason that they never went to court was quite simply because for one or twoparking offences it was simply not financially viable proposition.
Howeverfor 69 tickets it can be financially viable proposition if they win. What theyalso want is to set an example and to stop people driving a coach and horsesthrough their (unfair in my opinion) parking charges. They treat this as alittle cash cow hoping that people will simply be intimidated and pay up. It isa pity that everyone does not take your stance because if they did, the courts wouldbe overloaded and the legislation would be repealed. Unfortunately, people arelike sheep!
Whathas happened is that statute has reinforced the fact that these charges areenforceable in contract but what it is also done (and in my mind completelyunfairly) is made the charges enforceable against the registered keeper.
Parkingcharges (Public and Private) are the only offence where the person who is notcommitted the offence is culpable. It is almost like someone steals your car,they commit an armed robbery using the car as a getaway and you get chargedwith the offence of aiding and abetting because you are the registered keeper!Absolutely bizarre.
Iwould certainly run your defences using the previous case law and what I wouldsay is that the only thing that statute has done is added culpability of theregistered keeper and therefore, the previous authorities still apply. It is avery thin defence but I think it is worth going for. Remember, that even if youlose, you will have the satisfaction of knowing that they have spent a shedload of time and money in legal costs.
Thereis one thing that I have not checked in detail and that is just to confirm thatlegal costs are not payable/recoverable under the Protection of Freedoms Actand that the matter is treated in the same way as a small claim (under £10,000since 1 April 2013). My understanding is that they are costs are notrecoverable but you need to check that act in minute detail just to be sure. Thelast thing you would want is to lose and then be stung for £10,000 worth oflegal costs.
I amactually going to have a look myself for my own satisfaction and will post upin due course. It is particularly busy today for me to do research but I mightget 20 minutes later on.
Right, I have more.
I have read throughthe act and it is silent on legal costs however the court may decide that it iscovered in "parking charges".
In which case, ifthe signage says that legal costs of enforcing the Parking charges arerecoverable as Parking charges and says what those charges are then there is arisk that the court will say that even though it is small claims, the costs arerecoverable.
What about the issue of penalities in contracts being against english law
the case of Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co Ltd v Selfridge & Co Ltd has been successfully used in at least 3 cases i have seen the transcripts of.
Does the new regulation of Oct 2012 negate this? and also can the COtber 2012 change be used retrospectivly?
It isn't a penalty. It is the contractual fee you agreed to pay by parking there.
However it flies in the face of you cannot accept by silence, Felthouse V Bindley. I dont make the law, I just regurgitate it.
The court have found that it isn't silence, you agree by parking.
I don't agree but they don't listen to me!
It is no differentthan the extra charge in the Late Payment of Commercial Debts (Regulations) orthe same Interest Act.
The courts have deemedthat it is a contractual charge that you agreed to by parking there and notpunitive. By all means plead it differently but you will have to take it to theHouse of Lords to get the previous decisions overturned.
I don't agree withthe decision but I didn't make it, I am just bound by it.
It is not £5000. Itis 69×72 quid.
I know exactly whatyou're coming from and many others have tried before you but I am afraid thatstatute and case law is not on your side.
DISCLAIMER: Answers from Experts on JustAnswer are not substitutes for the advice of an attorney. JustAnswer is a public forum and questions and responses are not private or confidential or protected by the attorney-client privilege. The Expert above is not your attorney, and the response above is not legal advice. You should not read this response to propose specific action or address specific circumstances, but only to give you a sense of general principles of law that might affect the situation you describe. Application of these general principles to particular circumstances must be done by a lawyer who has spoken with you in confidence, learned all relevant information, and explored various options. Before acting on these general principles, you should hire a lawyer licensed to practice law in the jurisdiction to which your question pertains.
The responses above are from individual Experts, not JustAnswer. The site and services are provided “as is”. To view the verified credential of an Expert, click on the “Verified” symbol in the Expert’s profile. This site is not for emergency questions which should be directed immediately by telephone or in-person to qualified professionals. Please carefully read the Terms of Service (last updated February 8, 2012).