Me V UKCPS Ltd

[Conniff]

I would be interested in your comments on ANPR (automatic number plate recognition camera technology) where tickets are not issued - increasing number of companies are using htese i believe

 

And councils and in all sorts of places like 'tips', so they can restrict the number of time you use the tip.

[pt2537]

i have no interest in ANPR nor do i have enough background knowledge in the subject to enter into discussions on the subject.

 

well, i have to disagree, the issue of data protection was raised by my tutor who is a practising barrister and in his opinion, there would be a breach of DPA1998 in certain conditions

 

Controversial Parking Company Sacked (from Burnley and Pendle Citizen)

 

in addition the above link shows that parking companies dont act properly and that is our main gripe, if they acted responsibly and didnt employ scare tactics then there wouldnt be a problem

 

ive spoken to Neil Herron recently and he hears case upon case where this sorto f thing happens where parking companies dont play fair

[peternet]

all this is matter of opinion. we are concerned largely with contract law Paul. Let me pose you this - if you go into a shop take some goods to the till and then disagree with the price quoted to you are you entitled to walk away with the goods? parking on private land is basically the same - you enter a contract (providing the signage is there) with the ladowner or their agent to park your vehicle for an amount of money - failing to pay is therefore breaking that contract. OK taking from a shop would be 'criminal' law but in essence you are breaking a contract in the same way. There are plenty of cases which have gone to court and Parking companiers have won.

You talk of fairness or parking companies not acting properly - yet you dont talk of motorists acting improperly!

[Conniff]

I should remind you that as the owner of a vehicle I personally cannot be held responsible for any contract allegedly agreed to or implied by any other driver of my vehicle.

 

I read on here last night (can't find it this morning) that this was used all the way to the court and the judge ruled against it as the owner refused to say who the driver was.

He said that as the owner of the car, you must have known who was driving and that the refusal to divulge means he can do no other than to make the owner responsible for the ticket.

[pt2537]

Let me pose you this - if you go into a shop take some goods to the till and then disagree with the price quoted to you are you entitled to walk away with the goods?

No of course you are not, and this is not a very good analogy im afraid, selecting goods in a shop has been held as a an invitation to treat not offer and acceptance to create a binding contract

 

 

 

 

 

parking on private land is basically the same - you enter a contract (providing the signage is there) with the ladowner or their agent to park your vehicle for an amount of money - failing to pay is therefore breaking that contract.

 

Now there a true point, and if you are required to pay and display and you blatantley park without intention of displaying a ticket you should recieve a ticket, no argument from me on that one,

 

however, it is not always this situation, many companies dont use pay and display in their car parks

 

 

 

 

OK taking from a shop would be 'criminal' law but in essence you are breaking a contract in the same way.

 

 

no it would not be breaking a contract, taking from a shop would be Theft as Defined in s1 Theft Act 1968

 

 

There are plenty of cases which have gone to court and Parking companiers have won.

 

yes therre have, some have won by default, others have won because the drivers were not able to defend or afford legal representation

 

however, many have been challenged successfully too lets not forget this

 

 

 

You talk of fairness or parking companies not acting properly - yet you dont talk of motorists acting improperly!

 

 

No, im afraid i disagree

 

if i parked in asda for example and i overstayed my time, because i am shopping in their store do i deserve a parking ticket?

 

each case should be dealt with on its own merits, thats my opinion

 

Regards

paul

[Conniff]

if i parked in asda for example and i overstayed my time, because i am shopping in their store do i deserve a parking ticket?

 

Have to agree with that, sometimes we go up as a family and can easily spend four hours in the store. But would they enforce a ticket if you had the till receipt with the time on it, I would think not.

[pt2537]

no but the problem i have is most of the time i bin the reciept so i wouldnt have it to produce

 

and i have come across a case where i prepared the defence for a friend in the local county court where exactly that happened, albeit not with asda but under pretty much the same circumstances, however enforcement action was taken against my friend who wasnt even in the country at the time this happened and did not know who had the car at the time.

 

in this case the judge ruled that there was no obligation upon the defendant to provide proof of the driver as it was clear he would not be able to do so. he said that obligation only extended to offences under road traffic legislation and this was clearly a contractual issue.

 

 

 

regards

paul

[Guest perky88]

I have come across a case where i prepared the defence for a friend in the local county court where exactly that happened

enforcement action was taken against my friend who wasnt even in the country at the time this happened and did not know who had the car at the time.

in this case the judge ruled that there was no obligation upon the defendant to provide proof of the driver as it was clear he would not be able to do so. he said that obligation only extended to offences under road traffic legislation and this was clearly a contractual issue.

 

Do you have the case details for this ... I would be very interested in getting a judgement transcript as this 100% goes against the cases I have tried where a defendant states they do not know/will not say who the driver was.

 

I suspect the over-riding factor was he was out of the country - But even then, a person would not just allow anyone to drive their car (insurance reasons alone) .. the judgement will explain the reasoning behind the judges decision without us guessing !!

[pt2537]

Hello Perky,

 

I will Ask my Friend when i speak to him next if he is happy for me to disclose this information to you, ultimately i will not do so without his acceptance

 

 

regards

 

paul.

[pt2537]

Oh forgot to mention,

 

Perky, i know Neil Herron has been working on such cases, if you take a look at his Blog Neil Herron

 

it may contain info on this, if not i would contact neil, im sure he would love to talk to you

 

regards

paul

[Guest perky88]

Hello Perky,

 

I will Ask my Friend when i speak to him next if he is happy for me to disclose this information to you, ultimately i will not do so without his acceptance

 

I am sure you will agree, such a case will be of much assistance to people on here.

 

The record is also public and as he won the case I cant really see an objection (the judgement will only say his surname, no other details are in there) .. it will also say the parking company who took him to court which will be useful also.

[pt2537]

yes i appreciate what you are saying. however, i do not find it acceptable to disclose information unless i have the consent of the person in question.

 

i feel this is only fair,

 

i will also have a chat with Neil as im sure he has had a few such cases, i will see what he has to say as well as i agree, if a case can be presented to refute your claims it would be beneficial to all concerned

 

regards

paul

[Simon7685]

..

Edited March 16, 2009 by Simon7685

[peternet]

Simon at the start of this thread you admitted parking - so that is not in dispute - you cannot now claim (as some others suggest) that you dont know who the driver was (and that rarely stands in court anyway). I am sorry to hear of your disabilities but your gripe maybe should be with Wilkinsons who seem to be failing to provide adequate disable parking and access as required. Why cant you park in one of the adjacent public car parks which have disabled bays as required and get the staff of the store to assist you to the car with heavy items.

Or are you perhaps trying to be obstructive - reading your other threads you do seem to find cause to take on a variety of organisations and set out to challenge the rules under which they operate - if you really dont like how and organisation runs then go elsewhere it is a free society after all

[peternet]

One quick question for our 3rd year law student friend (I've posed the same question to my 2nd year law student stepdaughter) - its not entirely irrelevant to this thread as I believe it is about contract law - why do so many shops have 'civil proceedings' notices - to the effect that thye will recover costs/damages through civil proceedings from shoplifters - has this not got to do with breach of contract -in other words taking goods for free without entering into the contract to purchase at terms offered by shop.

Hope this isnt too off topic but the fundamental issue of entering into a contract is what private parking companies use.

[battyboomboom]

I am not a law student, but the reason they would say "civil proceedings" is because the shop cannot commence crimical proceedings , and therefore to retrieve the monetary value lost from the act of theft they would need to commence proceedings in the civil courts.

[legalhawk]

I am not a law student, but the reason they would say "civil proceedings" is because the shop cannot commence crimical proceedings , and therefore to retrieve the monetary value lost from the act of theft they would need to commence proceedings in the civil courts.

 

Anybody can commence criminal proceedings. This is called private prosecution.

 

It was explained to me in my criminal law course that the civil proceedings are used to get injunctions in order to be able to deny shoplifters further entrance to the business premises. That was the real reason for it.

[Simon7685]

//

Edited March 16, 2009 by Simon7685

[phoenix20]

I have quietly been watching this thread over the last few days. if i may be permitted to clarify things a little with regard to Simon7685 - he was visiting Wilkinsons store at the Balmoral Centre in Scarborough - this centre has a NCP car park with disabled bays and access. Wilkinsons staff will kindly assist anyone with large packages to their car in the NCP car park. The area he parked in is private property for tenants and deliveries. In the light of these facts I must agree with Peternet that he was at least being unherlpful to himself and probably obstructive.

[legalhawk]

Turn this around a little if someone parked on your driving blocking your access you would take all measures to have the vehicle removed and try to recover costs from the vehicle owner - wouldnt you.

 

Well, the sentiment is understandable, however, two wrongs don't make a right. Any action must still be sound according to the laws. It is not acceptable to use unlawful punishment, nor is it acceptable that certain people enrich themselves on the lack of legal knowledge of ordinary people.

 

If you read the OFT's description of a [problem], it sounds very similar.

[Muggerbee]

Well, the sentiment is understandable, however, two wrongs don't make a right. Any action must still be sound according to the laws. It is not acceptable to use unlawful punishment, nor is it acceptable that certain people enrich themselves on the lack of legal knowledge of ordinary people.

 

If you read the OFT's description of a [problem], it sounds very similar.

 

If it quacks,has webbed feet and feathers it is in all probability a duck,

if it stands up in public and says I support the assertion that anybody can ignore the basic legal rights of the people in order to line their own pockets on a consumer rights forum then it's a {answers on a post card please}

[Simon7685]

//

Edited March 16, 2009 by Simon7685

[Simon7685]

//

Edited March 16, 2009 by Simon7685

[phoenix20]

Hi Simon7685

No personal attack on your personality - that is impossible I dont know you! I am all for consumer rights and fight ofr mine frequently (preferring direct lines of communication). However I was brought up in the old school of resonsibilities coming before rights. As a consumer I have a responsibility to abide by the rules of any organisation i deal with. If I am careless and dont fully appreciate the responsibilities of I have in dealing with others then i suffer the 'penalty'. By all means campaign against htose who genuinely cheat you or misshandle your monies etc but when you break the rules of those you choose to deal with accept that as your responsibility and pay up then you may become a little wiser and move on.

You obviously have a good camoaigning spirit - but learn to use it wisely 0 there are plenty of organisations out their who break their own rules and make us consumers suffer - tackle those.

[phoenix20]

Just a quickie - please excuse any typos - I suffer from severe arthritis in my hands