Napier Parking

[ericsbrother]

Armadillo71, the PPC's claim the £70 is a contractual charge but they havent proved a right to enter into a contract because they dont have an interest in the land, cannot show that they have offered you anything for you to accept and the breach of contract charge doesnt represent a loss caused by the breach as the contract wasnt crystallised by them giving you something for you to consider.

The signs put up in car parks claiming to be a contract are only illegally placed advertising hoardings and so cannot be used as the basis of a contract anyway. No-one is allowed to profit from criminal activity. so any contrcat that could be formed is negated.

[Homer67]

As to being a troll I suggest you check me out on mse/pepipoo. I am just correcting incorrect statements

 

How can anyone be 'checked out' on an internet forum? You are giving incorrect information pure and simple, that's why you should be ignored.

[armadillo71]

Armadillo71, the PPC's claim the £70 is a contractual charge but they havent proved a right to enter into a contract because they dont have an interest in the land, cannot show that they have offered you anything for you to accept and the breach of contract charge doesnt represent a loss caused by the breach as the contract wasnt crystallised by them giving you something for you to consider.

The signs put up in car parks claiming to be a contract are only illegally placed advertising hoardings and so cannot be used as the basis of a contract anyway. No-one is allowed to profit from criminal activity. so any contrcat that could be formed is negated.

 

Thank you ericsbrother. What I now really understand is that it has nothing to do with parking or any law related to motoring. ..

It is ALL about the law of contract... and that is on the motorists side! If everything was done correctly and, say land owners issued their own tickets, they would only be able to claim about a tenner on average, so no real business there then. Is that right? More worrying is the fact that government is complicit is this whole affair via the dvla... and this is only about parking cars. What about the real serious stuff?*I've never trusted authority anyway, but now....

[kirkbyinfurnesslad]

Right time to correct the information given out on this thread:

 

Popla is run by 4 law students, Popla is a waste of time.

 

Absolute rubbish!, if you structure your appeal properly and include the two main winining items you will almost certainly win. Why would you risked being dragged to the county court if you can get rid of the ticket/invoice with a simple popla appeal. To not do so doesnt make sense.

 

Would you be willing to stake your own money to advise someone else not to do so?

 

You state "all of parking claims have been shot out of the water", Parking eye have issued bucket loads of claims. Lots of people who have come on Pepipoo have either defended the claim, contacted the land owner and seen of PE, defended the claim and been offered by PE to pay costs and they have done so, Defended in full and awaiting court hearings, or have folded and paid up.

 

To simply state that the defence you give out like some magic wand is ludicrous and irresponsible giving people false hope and expectations.

 

Parking eye have won a lot of claims, whether we like it not, this is a fact and is not some kind of ppc myth. This is a fact and not something you can get around.

 

The reason i asked wheather you had actually tested your own defence in the court was to make the point as to whether you knew how District Judges worked, and had some idea of how your defence would work at a hearing.

 

It is obvious that you have never actually acted as a McKenzie friend.

 

Many judges have decided that the charges are ok , legally binding etc etc.

 

This is obviously something i am not happy with and not something i want to see. but to see people spout total rubbish and not have actually used the defence in a court hearing really says quite a lot.

 

Although my profile is fairly new i have been around quite a while., i used to be of the ignore camp but now suggest everyone appeals to Popla. It costs the PPC £32 , the Bpa around £100 and covers your own back.

 

I have had very close encounter with a very nasty ppc owner so dont call me a troll thank you...... I am just giving a balanced view

[armadillo71]

And I thought I was hijacking the thread!

[renegadeimp]

The point we are trying to make is that popla is there, but you dont need to use it. Using the simple defence we advise everyone to use, gets results. If a judge rules in favour of the claimant after it has been used then the judge needs to brush up on his law skills. The law is clear and simple. Unfortunately, there will always be companies such as PE that will try and take advantage of drivers lack of knowledge. If people knew their rights, companies like PE wouldnt exist as drivers would simply laugh at them.

[kirkbyinfurnesslad]

The point we are trying to make is that popla is there, but you dont need to use it. Using the simple defence we advise everyone to use, gets results. If a judge rules in favour of the claimant after it has been used then the judge needs to brush up on his law skills. The law is clear and simple. Unfortunately, there will always be companies such as PE that will try and take advantage of drivers lack of knowledge. If people knew their rights, companies like PE wouldnt exist as drivers would simply laugh at them.

 

So you will happily risk other people's nmoney when they can win at popla risk free?

Crazy advice

[renegadeimp]

Wheres the risk? And popla doesnt ALWAYS find in favour of the driver. If the court finds in favour of the PPC, as i said before, an appeal gets put in and the judge needs to be re-educated. However, the amount of people that actually stick with the defence, and wins is pretty much 100%. The ones that fail is due to an inept judge and the fact that the drivers get cocky and try and modify parts of the defence, or cite random case laws.

 

We've seen it over and over and over. We even have a forum member who has had multiple Claims against him by PE

 

If a different tactic worked for you... Good. But trying to say the defence we advise people to use is rubbish, is laughable.

[kirkbyinfurnesslad]

The risk is where an op looses a court case. So you are risking their money.

 

Again your ignorance to how the court system works is shinning. An appeal does not just "simply get put in", nor does the judge get reeducated

 

I suggest that you have never stepped inside a county court.

[armadillo71]

Surely their own tools should be used against them 1st, at no risk to the motorist.

Win at popla (you should), great. Lose, no worries. The ppc will not follow through with court as it will not be cost effective I believe. .

Popla will implode imo within a year and consequently the 'parking industry'.(hopefully).

[Old Snowy]

Armadillo71, the PPC's claim the £70 is a contractual charge but they havent proved a right to enter into a contract because they dont have an interest in the land, cannot show that they have offered you anything for you to accept and the breach of contract charge doesnt represent a loss caused by the breach as the contract wasnt crystallised by them giving you something for you to consider.

I am afraid that you are incorrect.

 

Napier Parking are that very rare beast in the PPC world in that they DO own the land on which the car parks operate and in a very few cases have a fully operative lease. They are capable of demonstrating a proprietary interest - because they do actually have one - and from that point of view any defence/appeal based on the assumption that they do not or cannot is, I'm afraid, doomed to fail. Additionally, unlike the vast majority of PPC's who rely on breach of contract NP assert that their PCN's are contractual charges (that is, the PCN charge is the rate for parking beyond the time-limit or otherwise than in accordance with their conditions - an entirely different beast from a genuine pre-estimate of loss.

 

The signs put up in car parks claiming to be a contract are only illegally placed advertising hoardings and so cannot be used as the basis of a contract anyway. No-one is allowed to profit from criminal activity. so any contrcat that could be formed is negated.

In the cases I have examined NP had not illegally placed their signage - they own the car parks for a kick off - simply because some PPC's erect their signs without the appropriate planning permission does not mean that the same applies to NP. If the signs are not illegally/unlawfully placed then the suggestion that they are therefore meaningless is somewhat redundant. By all means check my previous posts about NP. From that perspective your assertions whilst entirely applicable to a majority of PPC's simply do not apply to Napier and whilst well intentioned, I'm sure, could seriously mislead.

 

With respect, NP's processes and their reliance on the PCN's being a contractual charge are the angles to attack although to my knowledge NP have launched very few cases but those that they have they have won. Specifically, where a charge is levied for a service then it would be expected that a means of paying it at the car park existed. Was there a means of doing so in this case? If not, then that is the angle to attack I suggest.

 

For the record I am neither a PPC troll (again, please check my previous posts) nor am I seeking to be argumentative.

[Scouse Magic]

Hi all,

 

My Daughter parked in a car park for 5 mins and received a PCN.

 

The company is Napier Parking and the landholders are a company of De Savary, so the same people manage the land as own it.

 

As they own the land and operate the parking is there more of a chance of a court case or is the advice still to ignore?

 

TIA

 

Did the OP state what the terms and conditions were on the signage, the tariff etc

[Homer67]

Parking eye have won a lot of claims, whether we like it not, this is a fact and is not some kind of ppc myth. This is a fact and not something you can get around. Many judges have decided that the charges are ok , legally binding etc etc.

 

Please provide proof of these two statements

 

PE have won in court but only when no defense was submitted or a poor defense submitted and in those cases it has been noted that the defendant had some link to PE (relative of a PE director or ex employee etc)

 

How can a judge decide that it is acceptable for a PPC to charge anything other than a true estimate of losses?

 

I'm pretty sure we would have heard of a any judge stating that the costs PPC's claim reflect their true losses, argue that for a £70 invoice for overstaying in a free car park by 10 minutes which resulted in a couple of letters going out and the £2.50 fee for DVLA - utter nonsense.

[steveod]

I am afraid that you are incorrect.

 

Napier Parking are that very rare beast in the PPC world in that they DO own the land on which the car parks operate and in a very few cases have a fully operative lease. They are capable of demonstrating a proprietary interest - because they do actually have one - and from that point of view any defence/appeal based on the assumption that they do not or cannot is, I'm afraid, doomed to fail. Additionally, unlike the vast majority of PPC's who rely on breach of contract NP assert that their PCN's are contractual charges (that is, the PCN charge is the rate for parking beyond the time-limit or otherwise than in accordance with their conditions - an entirely different beast from a genuine pre-estimate of loss.

 

 

In the cases I have examined NP had not illegally placed their signage - they own the car parks for a kick off - simply because some PPC's erect their signs without the appropriate planning permission does not mean that the same applies to NP. If the signs are not illegally/unlawfully placed then the suggestion that they are therefore meaningless is somewhat redundant. By all means check my previous posts about NP. From that perspective your assertions whilst entirely applicable to a majority of PPC's simply do not apply to Napier and whilst well intentioned, I'm sure, could seriously mislead.

 

With respect, NP's processes and their reliance on the PCN's being a contractual charge are the angles to attack although to my knowledge NP have launched very few cases but those that they have they have won. Specifically, where a charge is levied for a service then it would be expected that a means of paying it at the car park existed. Was there a means of doing so in this case? If not, then that is the angle to attack I suggest.

 

For the record I am neither a PPC troll (again, please check my previous posts) nor am I seeking to be argumentative.

 

 

well if they claim that the parking fees and any parking charges are levied as a service to the driver, then they have to ensure there is a method to pay BOTH of these at the site, and they have to pay VAT to these charges, and thus must issue simplified VAT invoices. do they pay VAT on these? do they issue VAT invoices with all the correct info on them - I would presume not but may be incorrect. if not then they are not charges for services but penalties. evn if charges for services the UTCCR and Unfair Contract terms apply.

[renegadeimp]

Pe probably dont even have authority from the council to be operating a business on the car parks. It's one thing having permission from the landowner, its quite another to get permission from the council to operate the business there and be charged valid business rates. And since the car park is normally larger than the shop itself..... PE could be in a little bit of trouble here, especially if the council decides to go for backdated rates.....

 

Just a thought..

[itstheone]

Well a couple of thread hijacks here

 

All interesting info though.

 

The PCN was for £40, as my daughter had been sacked from her job and is probably going to lose her jobseekers allowance because her employer has put something on the form from the Jobcentre that wasn't upheld at the hearing (i'm going to post elsewhere to get advice on that, she has decided to just ignore it.

 

She is expecting to be bombarded with threats and, if she's very unlucky, a court claim. As she's under a debt management plan at the mo she can't afford to pay it anyway.

 

Thanks all.

[itstheone]

Thought i'd update this thread.

 

She has now received a letter from a 'solicitor'(probably someone on the next desk!), we're continuing to ignore.

 

What i didn't mention in my OP was the times on the ticket. From the car being first observed to issuing the ticket was a grand total of 16 seconds.

 

I 'appealed' and got turned down but i didn't bother appealing to POPLA as i didn't want to show my full hand if it went to court.

 

I'll keep you posted if anything happens.

[itstheone]

double post

[kirkbyinfurnesslad]

Do not ignore the solicit its letter it could be an LBA.

 

Could you post up the letter so we can check? If it is you should reply.

[Benroon]

Sorry but some very poor advice given here.

 

Also Napier own a lot of their car parks. Why risk a court claim up to 6 years after the event?.

 

Popla Is not just 4 law students doing a bit of work on the side.

 

Ignorance is bliss as they say

 

BEWARE - this poster is a Napier employee/sympathiser ! Sorry this is such a late reply - but you Sir are a Napier employee aren't you !! There are several instances of you clearly showing support for the napier [problem]mers and advising against taking them on. On here, on Pepipoo and others - crawl back under your rock chap - you've been rumbled !

[ploddertom]

Old thread - closed.