Advertisement
Message Forums |
|
 Topic: Parking fines on watchdog now.
|
Page: 1 .... 3 4 5 6 7 8
  |
03/6/2015 at 9:05pm
Location:
Outfit:
View Profile
Reply
Quote
|
Joined: 02/6/2010 Platinum Member 
Forum Posts: 596
Tent Reviews: 1
| Site Reviews Total: | 4 |
|
| Site Reviews 2024: | 1  |
| Site Reviews 2023: | 0  |
| Site Reviews 2022: | 0 |
| Site Reviews 2021: | 0 |
| Site Reviews 2020: | 0 |
| Site Reviews 2019: | 0 |
| Site Reviews 2018: | 0 |
|
| Site Nights 2024: | 2 |
| Site Nights 2023: | 0 |
| Site Nights 2022: | 0 |
| Site Nights 2021: | 0 |
| Site Nights 2020: | 0 |
| Site Nights 2019: | 0 |
| Site Nights 2018: | 0 |
|
If I give the website as to where my cut and pastes are from they are not 'unspecified'. On MSE people post up verbatim the actual POPLA appeal responses. Another couple were added today.
Here's one:
Reasons for the Assessor’s Determination
On 15 February 2015, a parking charge notice was issued to a vehicle with registration mark xxxxxx by either not purchasing the appropriate parking time or by remaining at the site without authorisation.
The Operator’s case is that the site is a 1 hour free stay car park after which tariffs apply as stated on the signage and the vehicle in question remained at the site for 11 minute longer than the stay authorised.
The Appellant has made a number of submissions, however, I will only elaborate on the one submission that I am allowing this appeal on, namely that the Operator does not have authority to pursue parking charge notices.
The Operator rejected the Appellant’s representations, as set out in the correspondence they sent because they state that a breach of the car park conditions had occurred by either not purchasing the appropriate parking time or by remaining at the site without authorisation. They advise that they have written authority to operate and issue parking charge notices at this site
from the landowner.
The onus is on the Operator to prove its case on balance of probabilities.
Once an Appellant submits that the Operator does not have authority to pursue parking charge notices, the onus is on the Operator to show otherwise.
The Operator has not provided any evidence to address the Appellant’s submission such as a valid contract or a witness statement and they have not discharged the burden of proof.
Accordingly, I allow this appeal.
Aurela Qerimi
The appellant also states the site was sold on 22 Jan, so the PPC had no contract with the new landowner, but continued invoicing into February anyway. I wonder how many keepers paid up?
The contracts are never shown because of how the laws of agency and contract work. Who is the keeper's contract with if the PPC don't own the land? Do the PPC have agency rights to actually demand money? It potentially opens a can of worms, hence don't reveal it, Lose the appeal and pay £27.
If anyone wants some general reading google "parkingprankster". Lots of the issues surrounding PPCs are covered in easy to understand bite sized blogs.
Post last edited on 03/06/2015 21:15:08
|
04/6/2015 at 12:35pm
Location:
Outfit:
View Profile
Reply
Quote
|
Joined: 13/5/2009 Diamond Member 
Forum Posts: 4262
| Site Reviews Total: | 2 |
|
| Site Reviews 2024: | 0 |
| Site Reviews 2023: | 0 |
| Site Reviews 2022: | 0 |
| Site Reviews 2021: | 0 |
| Site Reviews 2020: | 0 |
| Site Reviews 2019: | 0 |
| Site Reviews 2018: | 0 |
|
| Site Nights 2024: | 0 |
| Site Nights 2023: | 0 |
| Site Nights 2022: | 0 |
| Site Nights 2021: | 0 |
| Site Nights 2020: | 0 |
| Site Nights 2019: | 0 |
| Site Nights 2018: | 0 |
|
Well, that was nice reading for a sunny Thursday morning Billy 
Thanks for posting.
So:
1. The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 confers on operators of private car parks the right to recover parking charges.
2. Beavis judges said that control of parking on private land was in the interests of the community as a whole.
3. In that case, they said that the charge was not unreasonable and was similar to excess charges levied by public carparks or by overstaying at a meter.
4. Arguments that the charge was an unlawful penalty were rejected.
Pending the Supreme Court decision (which might have no bearing on other operators and other cases) it seems to me then that the best option is to view private and public carparks as the same, read the signs, and comply. But that if we do get an invoice from a private land car park operator, the choices are:
a) Unless there's a mistake, pay it. End of. Move on.
b) Ignore it. But that may not be the end of it.
c) Appeal if we think there's grounds. Some are upheld. Some are rejected.
d) If you don't pay, they may take you to court.
e) If you go to court, you may win. You may lose.
Hopefully this long thread serves to show that, applied correctly, private car park operators DO have the right to invoice overstayers.
The action we can then take, if we are invoiced, is down to our personal choice and judgement, and attitude to time and cost should the PPC choose to pursue it.
Is that about it?
-------------
Mike
My advice is worth no more than the price paid for it
Prague May/Jun 2017
Lake Annecy Aug 2017
|
|
|
9076 Visitors online !
Free UKCampsite.co.uk Window Sticker - Recommend to Friend - Add a Missing Campsite
[Message Forums]
[Caravan Sites & Camping]
[Company Listings]
[Features / Advice]
[Virtual Brochure]
[Shop!]
[Reception]
[Competitions]
[Caravans & Motorhomes For Sale]
[Event Diary]
[Contact Us]
[Tent Reviews]
Please note we are not responsible for the content of external sites & any reviews represent the author's personal view only. Please report any error here. You may view our privacy and cookie policy and terms and conditions here. All copyrights & other intellectual property rights in the design and content of this web site are reserved to the UKCampsite.co.uk © 1999 - 2024 |
Advertisement
|
|
|
