Combined Parking Solutions wins another case, this time in Scotland

[Shovel]

It's not on casecheck....

[englishsummer]

Take a look on perkys website for your answers, under legal issues .. The case in on there and is very useful, the sherrif principal is now a lord in the court of session and very well respected ..

[MARTIN3030]

Looks like this was an extremely exceptional case.

Convincing everyone here that this is a typical outcome of a case,or will be in all future ones,is a different matter.

Especially coming from anyone whose vested interests are in trying to justify such a result as being the right one.

[WebFerret]

Checking out Perkys website - it seems to have some legaly required aspected missing for a website!

 

It shows the company details as:

 

Combined Parking Solutions

PO Box 4487

Wolverhampton

WV1 9BP

 

Email: info@combinedparkingsolutions.co.uk

Sales Line: 0871 288 4606

 

© 2006, Combined Parking Solutions - All Rights Reserved.

But I cannot find any reference on Companies House for this name?

 

No registered company number showing?

 

No full postal address (PO BOX numbers not allowed!)?

 

And no direct company phone number (only a premium rate sales line)?

 

And the link on the page to "Contact us" is not working?

 

Perhaps the site is still under construction - lol :grin:

 

Ref: The Companies (Trading Disclosures) Regulations 2008 No. 495

Edited November 29, 2008 by WebFerret

[MARTIN3030]

I cannot accept that the figure of 5% is correct.

 

I suspect that in excess of 50% of invoices a PPC issues remain unpaid.

 

This does mean that if you ignore an invoice the odds are stacked in your favour that you will not be taken to court; and when you factor in the percentage of court cases a PPC looses, the odds for the motorist are very good.

 

 

 

Seems that PPC does relatively better than some,which makes it even more difficult to believe this 5% figure ?

 

 

200,000 drivers defy parking fines, leaving cities £14m out of pocket - Scotsman.com News

[BaldyBaldwin]

i cant help feeling some of the advice handed out on these forums has contributed to the chaps downfall

[freakyleaky]

i cant help feeling some of the advice handed out on these forums has contributed to the chaps downfall

What makes you say that? I was not aware the person in question had asked for advice from these forums.

[WebFerret]

On CPS website it has posted a number of judgements and they all show the 'Claimant' in each case as simply that of "Combined Parking Solutions (a trading name) PO Box 4487, Wolverhampton, West Midlands WV1 9BP"

 

Nowhere does it confirm the 'legal entity' behind this trading name - am I missing something here? but I would say that the legal entity, trading as (whatever), should be stated as the claimant if this is to be a legal order?

 

Perhaps those in the know would confirm if there is an anomaly here?

[BaldyBaldwin]

"What makes you say that? I was not aware the person in question had asked for advice from these forums."

 

read the original post,

perhaps not on this forum,

 

The point i am trying to make is that the advice given out on this forum is to just ignore any private parking ticket you get and you will get away with it regardless of the circumstances, and IMHO that is sometimes irresponsible as there are two sides to every story.

This forum was started to fight back against cowboy PPC,s but now it just seems to tell people that you can park were you like and if you get a ticket, so what ?, you will get away with it.

[HSBCrusher]

This forum was started to fight back against cowboy PPC,s but now it just seems to tell people that you can park were you like and if you get a ticket, so what ?, you will get away with it.

I quite agree.

 

If you use a parking space, you should pay for it, as I told another user the other night.

 

However, these "penalty" tickets are just invoices and have no standing in law. This is not a "test case" and is an isolated case at that.

 

Parking companies need to operate within the law, and quit their bully-boy tactics. Even to think about threatening someone's house over some unpaid parking tickets is in my opinion quite immoral and shows up a lot of parking companies for what they are.

[flyingdoc]

Yes you can move for bankruptcy but the COURT decides on payments not you. If the courts think his payment offer is reasonable they will not grant a bankruptcy order.

 

You seem to be relishing the thought of bankrupting someone, which makes it little wonder that people revile you so much.

 

It also amuses me that you seem to hold this single victory up as a beacon that what you are doing is legal and that you are winning.

 

The liklihood is that you won this case because the person you took to court appears (by your reporting of the case) to be a serial abuser of the car parking system, with over 30 "offences."

 

I find it highly unlikely that you would have won this case had the defendant had a single "offence" to his name,

 

My own opinoin, and it is nothing more than an opinion, is that what you are doing is both illegal and immoral and although you may from time to time enjoy an occasional win in court - the overwhelming trend will be that you will lose.

 

I dont however wish upon you that in losing, you are made bankrupt. only a moral degenerate would wish that upon anyone.

[freakyleaky]

 

read the original post,

perhaps not on this forum,

 

The point i am trying to make is that the advice given out on this forum is to just ignore any private parking ticket you get and you will get away with it regardless of the circumstances ........

I think you would find that the advice to someone who came here saying they had over 30 unpaid tickets would be slightly more substantial. This is an exceptional case.

[BaldyBaldwin]

"However, these "penalty" tickets are just invoices and have no standing in law. This is not a "test case" and is an isolated case at that."

 

thats exactly what i am on about, who said they were penalties? and if they are invoices then they do have basis in law, a lot of PPC,s now operate within the law and yet people on this site just tell people to ignore invoices and they will go away, very soon people will start to be on the wrong end of a court judgement after following "advice" given on this forum by people who do not know what they are talking about but are just merely parroting some they have read on this forum

[HSBCrusher]

there are 2 sides to the argument BB.

 

The same with the banks... folks do run delinquent accounts, and the banks do need to make profits somewhere.

 

however, bank charges impact on everybody, the innocent as well as the not so innocent, and why should a bank be making profits from the poorest in society? Its wrong.

 

Its the same with this issue.. there are those who are inconsiderate. The current remedy doesn't work, and is unlawful. A new solution is required.

 

For the avoidance of doubt I will repeat

 

If you use a parking space, you should pay for it.

[BaldyBaldwin]

thanks for that Crusher, thats exactly the point i,m trying to make

[flyingdoc]

I agree baldy - invoices are enforceable under the law.

Things are not a simple as that though.

 

The contract with the parking company which is made when either you park - or when you put money in the parking machine (Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking) is dependant firstly on adequate sineage.

It is also dependant on the parking company proving who the driver was (not the registered keeper) as only the driver can have entered into the contract.

The Law on contract aslo specifies that in a breach of contract - only losses incurred due to the breach will be recoverable.

SO the immense amounts "invoiced" do not reflect the true losses of the company,

 

If the claim is that the driver agreed to pay the huge "penalty fee" should they exceed their stay then this would fall foul of the unfair terms and conditions legislation.

 

So on the whole, these invoices are certainly challengeable in many ways.

 

Perhaps if the parking companies were less draconian then people would be more likely to pay reasonable charges rather than fighting unreasonable ones.

 

EnglishSummers posts in this thread have certainly done nothing to enhance the reputation of such companies and I know that once I am qualified (Currently studying GDipL and then on to LPC) I will have little compunction in taking pro bono work against such companies.

 

There is legal and there is illegal

there is right and there is wrong.

 

in my opnion what these parking companies are doing is wrong, and is also in many cases (but perhaps not all) illegal.

[crem]

 

For the avoidance of doubt I will repeat

 

If you use a parking space, you should pay for it.

 

..however, if you stay a few minutes over a "free" time limit in a retail park due to the fact the queues are so long in the store (or the staff a bloody useless at helping you in a timely manner), as in the case below, then I think it is unreasonable to even consider charging a CUSTOMER for spending too long in a shop.

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=1844300

 

hi first post on sit not sure if anyone out there can help me, but today i got a parking charge notice of £70.50 which has to be paid with in 14 days or will be incure an extra £20 it say's that first photo was taken at 11.45am as i arrived at the retail park and the ticket was issued at 13.19 a few mins befor i got there now this is a retail park for curry's but they allow their customer 90mins but with this being the most busy time of the year the store is very busy, please can some one tell me do i have any rights and what can i do? p.s also there is no way i can afford this as i am on income support so not sure how to pay for this. thanks very much.

[HSBCrusher]

absolutely, I agree. How does this help anybody or anything, other than the parking company's coffers?

 

I think you know of whom I speak though

[HSBCrusher]

Well this defendant racked up over 30tickets in various carparks - not just combined parking but thanks to the PPC database other tickets were also discovered.

as my learned friend freaky says, how many of those other tickets were real ones issued by a council?

[englishsummer]

They were all private tickets.

 

I would agree that giving a ticket to someone who has spent 3hrs in a store shopping but the car park states 2hrs is crazy, but at the time of issue the issuer does not know what the driver is doing, just the fact the vehicle had been there for 1hr longer than it should be.

 

It is therefore reasonable for that person, upon receipt of the ticket to write in with copy of purchase recepit stating the same and it would get cancelled if not by the ppc then def by the store anything else is crazy.

 

 

As for comment 28 by martin, it seems like any case won by a ppc is exceptional but I am sure if a ppc loses it will be because the law was applied correctly and all tickets are unenforcable .. And so the merry go round continues.. From a business point of view if every case we take to court is exceptional and we win them all well good on exceptional.

 

I will also end by commenting on a previous post - the defendant (as far as I know) didn't come on here for help but referred to a person called Graham Walker who is apparently a leading road traffic law specialist.

[green_and_mean]

God, you are such nice people. You've sure made that guy's Christmas. Hope you're proud of yourself.

 

Serves him right for parking repeatedly on other peoples property really. He thought like a lot of people here he was above the law and got caught out I have no sympathy for people like this.

[freakyleaky]

They were all private tickets.

 

Well thats cleared that one up then. Thanks.

 

I will also end by commenting on a previous post - the defendant (as far as I know) didn't come on here for help but referred to a person called Graham Walker who is apparently a leading road traffic law specialist.

Well he should have come here instead then.

 

Serves him right for parking repeatedly on other peoples property really. He thought like a lot of people here he was above the law and got caught out I have no sympathy for people like this.

So you think he should loose his house then?

[crem]

They were all private tickets.

 

I would agree that giving a ticket to someone who has spent 3hrs in a store shopping but the car park states 2hrs is crazy, but at the time of issue the issuer does not know what the driver is doing, just the fact the vehicle had been there for 1hr longer than it should be.

 

It is therefore reasonable for that person, upon receipt of the ticket to write in with copy of purchase recepit stating the same and it would get cancelled if not by the ppc then def by the store anything else is crazy.

 

morrisons/trethowans solicitors hi,i received a parking ticket for overstaying the 2 hour limit in a morrisons supermarket,me being the registered owner of the vechicle have received the fine,i sent them a template letter(downloaded from this site) stating that i acknowledge receipt and that they need to contact the driver,,,,,i have just received there reply which follows

 

thankyou for your recent letter the contents of which have been noted.Having considered your appeal we regret to advise you that our client has rejected the same and we are therefore instructed not to waive the charge.

please note that as the registered keeper/hirer of the vechicle you are liable for this charge even if you were not the driver at the time the charge arose.We refer you to the road traffic act 1991(as ammended)

It would seem this "other" PPC as well as Morrisons come under your description of "crazy" then. :grin:

 

Although not withstanding the letter they have sent quoting the 1991 RTA is utter crap, I also very much doubt they refer each and every appeal on to Morrisons for approval which also suggests they lie in their letters too.

Edited November 29, 2008 by crem
spelling

[englishsummer]

Freakyleaky, in reality even if he came here he would still have lost, this site maybe useful, articles about parking companies in the newspaper may also be useful but they are not authoritive and when faced with a binding decision about private parking made by such a well respected sherrif who now sits in the court of session and writes many of the guidelines for civil matters .. I feel the cards are stacked against you(them).

 

As for losing his house, well that's an extreme for any debt but a reality if debts are not paid, the law is the law and in this case he took a chance and it has cost him ... Lawyers need paying, perky needs paying for his attendance as the purser (and his flight/hotel/taxis etc)

 

I am sure it won't come to this, he is employed so an attachment is prob the best route, he may just put end to it and put on his credit card and move on.. It's only if people ignore requests to pay after judgement/decree that things go into this.

 

I have said before but remember he was the author of his own misfortune, no one made him park in those private car parks ignoring the clearly states charges - he did it thinking he was above the law and he had a right to park for free on others land.

[englishsummer]

I fully agree with the comments by crem in post 48

 

I also agree the ppc industry needs to be regulated and to ensure consistency .. An independant appeals scheme and a clear set of rules.

 

Despite what people think, the courts do know the law and ppc invoices are fully enforceable if issued correctly, with all signage etc.