#parking : OPC taking me to court...

[earthquake]

Looks like I am going to be one of the lucky ones to face OPC in court.

 

Is AL27 available to help me organize my defense?

[Al27]

Post a few details for us first

 

New member, 1 post and all that

[Cardiff Devil]

Could you scan the POC for us?

[earthquake]

As its going to court I am rather wary about putting too much information up on here. But the basic details are:

 

Parked in what i believed was Watford underground station car park. (as advertised by pay and display signs on the way in.) It turns out that the space that I parked in was residents visitor parking space for the block of flats there. I had paid and displayed, as that was what i believed was required of me.

came back about about 5 hours later to find a parking ticket on my car.

 

I'm away on business at the moment, so it will be Sunday before I get to the actual bits of paper myself. My wife has seen it, and it does have a case number on it, and a password for the court website, rather than the pretend ones that some PPC have been accused of sending in the past.

 

Looking at the threads on here I have seen that AL27 is the key person in preparing for court, so now its my turn, I'm relieved to see its not the middle of his holiday, leaving me caught short..

[Al27]

Interested in the outcome of OPC cases from now on, considering they owe £26k and the DVLA have banned them from their database.

[asmodeus]

Interested in the outcome of OPC cases from now on, considering they owe £26k and the DVLA have banned them from their database.

 

Perhaps it is desperation trying to get enough cash to pay their fine - all or broke - hopefully the latter and this will be the final straw

[earthquake]

I have failed to figure out how to upload the court stuff onto the website, but its emailed across to AL27, so they may be able to help with that.

[earthquake]

The trading standards case does make interesting reading, as do a few other stories on here. How that actually affects OPC, time will tell.

[earthquake]

This case is going to court next week. We had a preliminary hearing in June, in which the Judge strongly hinted to OPC to drop the case.

 

Fingers crossed!

[BASFORDLAD2]

Good luck!. I believe al27 is alexis so you should be in safe hands:). Let us know

[esmerobbo]

Good luck, you would think OPC would be fed up of court buildings by now! Specially as it often turns out badly for them!

[Al27]

OPC are now trying to juggle things more between 'OB Services' and 'Nationwide Parking'.

 

They've tripped themselves up over a few bits of paperwork though.

[BASFORDLAD2]

AL27 your message box is full!

[Al27]

Fixed!

[earthquake]

OPC lost their parking ticket claim today, in Sheffield district court, and have been ordered to pay me aproximately £120 in costs.

 

What was unexpected was the legal approach taken by OPC. In court, their possition was that there was no contract between myself and OPC and that they were collecting a debt. By claiming no contract, it effectively sidestepped the arguments about unfair contract terms, and OPC's entitlement to offer a parking contract. However it did leave open the question then about how the debt came into existance for which OPC failed to provide clarity on.

 

The judge decided that the signage was not sufficient, both on there being no signage at the boundary between the two car parks, and secondly, that the principle signs where not clear in making it clear that this was not part of the pay and display car park.

 

Without a contract, there was still the issue of the debt comming into existance as a valid pre-estimate of loss for trespass. The Judge stated that the logic used by the appeal case in worcester was legally binding on her as law, and so she had to apply the same logical reasoning to this sign, and in this case the judge decided it was an unenforcable penalty.

 

In otherwords, on every issue of substance before the court, the judge decided in my favour.

[DBC]

It's always strange that PPCs and their tame debt-collectors talk about a "debt", when no money has been lent, no service has been paid for, and no credit agreement has been signed

[earthquake]

If you look at it from the other (dark) side, they are trying to enforce parking restrictions, which do need enforcing, but fairly. The problem seems to be their business model. At the carpark in question, under the existing contract OPC would not be able to cover their monitoring costs by the revenue streams from the landlord for their parking control services or from the sale of resident visitor permits. The only thing that would make their service contract financially viable is a regular supply of people to issue parking tickets to, which OPC has discovered cannot be a source of profit, because that immediately makes them a penalty and unenforceable.

 

One could argue that this is proof of intent to defraud the public, but on reflection I actually think that in this case, it was incompentance in researching and validating the business model.

[BASFORDLAD2]

Yay another opc defeat!

[pin1onu]

Good result!!! OPC give it up your business model is flawed.

[earthquake]

It's always strange that PPCs and their tame debt-collectors talk about a "debt", when no money has been lent, no service has been paid for, and no credit agreement has been signed

 

Talking of debts, there is one debt that i do have from this case, and that is to AL27. With her skill she manged to turn my indignation and ramblings into a coherent argument which carried sway with the judge.

[diskmandave]

Well done, and another feather for Alexis!

[Old Snowy]

If you look at it from the other (dark) side, they are trying to enforce parking restrictions, which do need enforcing, but fairly. The problem seems to be their business model. At the carpark in question, under the existing contract OPC would not be able to cover their monitoring costs by the revenue streams from the landlord for their parking control services or from the sale of resident visitor permits. The only thing that would make their service contract financially viable is a regular supply of people to issue parking tickets to, which OPC has discovered cannot be a source of profit, because that immediately makes them a penalty and unenforceable.

 

One could argue that this is proof of intent to defraud the public, but on reflection I actually think that in this case, it was incompentance in researching and validating the business model.

Your overall point is, in my opinion, absolutely on the money and could not illustrate in starker form the fundamental nonsense at the heart of the PPC business model. And it is hardly unique to OPC as there are a whole rake of others are ploughing the same furrow.

 

I do however take issue with one of your comments and that is the suggestion that OPC failed to research or validate the business model. This, I respectfully suggest, is to misunderstand the point that the business model is not and never was intended to be long-term. There are several PPC's who on the quiet will admit that they fully expected the bubble to burst some years ago and are happily surprised to see it continue. The model was originally intended as a "Get in quick; get out equally as quick" scheme and nothing more.

 

Although the market is not yet saturated the vast majority of prime spots - supermarkets and retail parks have been snapped up and there is a decided currency in having as many "pitches" as possible even if there are those that do not pay as well as others and even some that do not pay at all - simply on the basis of market denial/domination.

 

If one was to try to apply a standard business model to the portfolio's, particularly of smaller PPC's, one instantly sees the nonsense of it. The whole thing can only be predicated on making revenue from fake tickets and the "self-ticketing" schemes offered by some PPC's is actually the ultimate giveaway.

 

The greatest shame is that Parliament has yet to see through it and all the time the BPA bang the "unity of approach" drum they'll be deflected from the truth.

 

Other than that, very well done.

[Al27]

I'd possibly like to get a transcript of this case. Could mean needing some help from forum members to get together the seventy odd quid.

 

On a final note, transcripts from old Combined Parking Solutions cases were submitted by OPC in their bundle weren't they?

[earthquake]

I'd possibly like to get a transcript of this case. Could mean needing some help from forum members to get together the seventy odd quid.

 

On a final note, transcripts from old Combined Parking Solutions cases were submitted by OPC in their bundle weren't they?

 

a company called PtolSOFT is happy to sponsor the cost of this. (okay, its my company). AL27 what do i need to do to get the transcripts?

checked the bundle from opc, and i missed that delight. However they were quoting from the protection of freedoms bill that is not yet law. when that bill does become law, the penalty argument may be removed from AL27's weapons kit.

[earthquake]

I do however take issue with one of your comments and that is the suggestion that OPC failed to research or validate the business model. This, I respectfully suggest, is to misunderstand the point that the business model is not and never was intended to be long-term. There are several PPC's who on the quiet will admit that they fully expected the bubble to burst some years ago and are happily surprised to see it continue. The model was originally intended as a "Get in quick; get out equally as quick" scheme and nothing more.

 

Old Snowy,

 

Do you have any evidence that OPC knew the parking ticket was legally unenforcable in court? If so, the demands for payment and then suing me amounts to an attempt to defraud me, and i am quite happy to sue for harrasment and for being the victim of this crime. My judgement, at the moment, based on what I have seen would suggest that OPC believed their tickets were generally enforceable, with occasional judges that made wrong decisions. thus no intent to decieve.

 

However, as of today, that changed. OPC have been told by the judge in today's case that they are only entitled to loss and damages, and that the application of the thurlow case, heard at appeal in Feb 2011 is binding case law for district courts. In short, a PPC ticket price needs to be based on a valid pre-estimate of damage or loss - otherwise it is a penalty and not enforcable.

 

By extension, if OPC continue to issue tickets, they are very vunerable to being sued for harassment. They now know they are not legally entitled to this money, so attempting to demand it is fraud.

Edited August 10, 2011 by earthquake
clarity