Popla

[DastardlyDick]

"Do either of you honestly believe that any legal considerations of fairness are ever applied to parking matters when the BPA and its members get involved?"

No, I don't, but if this was to come to a proper Court, it is important to show that you have acted in a fair and proportionate way and/or that the other party hasn't acted in a fair and proportionate manner. If you can also show that you are using already established legal precedent, then so much the better for your case. Unfortunately  (IMHO) the legal system is becoming more like a PR exercise, rather than a proper legal forum for establishing the rights and wrongs of a case based solely on the facts.

[The Bald Eagle]

BE: Have you seen ANYTHING in the new legislation that mandates that the Registered Keeper must supply details of the driver FREE OF CHARGE? Knowing the extremely shoddy standard of law drafting in Parliament these days, I very much doubt it. But such a charge can hardly be seen as unreasonable, can it?

Bob

My initial look tells me that even if you supply the details of the driver, if the "fine" (let's call it that because that is essentially what it is) is not paid by the driver after a certain period of time, it reverts back to the keeper to pay it.

I can't stress enough though that we NEED PHOTOS of the signs. I am absolutely certain that none of the old signs are enforceable under the new legislation and if that is the case we can tell motorists as much. However, if the old signs are replaced, it is possible that they may be able to establish there is a contract in place, provided they are displayed prominently (there is a specific section on this in the new legislation) and are correctly worded (that's the tricky bit and the very reason why we need to see any new signs).

Just in case any of you want to do some research of your own, below is a link to Schedule 4 (you have to scroll down to it) of the Protection of Freedoms Act (which is surely a contradiction in terms, isn't it? ).

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2012/9/schedules/enacted?view=interweave

[Belplasca]

Interesting:

7(1)A notice which is to be relied on as a notice to driver for the purposes of paragraph 6(1)(a) is given in accordance with this paragraph if the following requirements are met.
(2)The notice must—
(a)specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates;
(b)inform the driver of the requirement to pay parking charges in respect of the specified period of parking and describe those charges, the circumstances in which the requirement arose (including the means by which it was brought to the attention of drivers) and the other facts that made those charges payable;
(c)inform the driver that the parking charges relating to the specified period of parking have not been paid in full and specify the total amount of the unpaid parking charges relating to that period, as at a time which is—
(i)specified in the notice; and
(ii)no later than the time specified under paragraph (f);
(d)inform the driver of any discount offered for prompt payment and the arrangements for the resolution of disputes or complaints that are available;
(e)identify the creditor and specify how and to whom payment may be made;
(f)specify the time when the notice is given and the date.
(3)The notice must relate only to a single period of parking specified under sub-paragraph (2)(a) (but this does not prevent the giving of separate notices each specifying different parts of a single period of parking).
(4)The notice must be given—
(a)before the vehicle is removed from the relevant land after the end of the period of parking to which the notice relates, and
(b)while the vehicle is stationary,
by affixing it to the vehicle or by handing it to a person appearing to be in charge of the vehicle.

It's that very last bit that I like!

(4)The notice must be given—
(a)before the vehicle is removed from the relevant land after the end of the period of parking to which the notice relates, and
(b)while the vehicle is stationary,
by affixing it to the vehicle or by handing it to a person appearing to be in charge of the vehicle.

So, they CANNOT use CCTV at the entrance to the car park recording, by ANPR, the time and details of every vehicle entering and then again when they leave, because (A) - by definition the vehicle will have left the relevant land, even if the machine printed the ticket as the car passed the camera and (B) the vehicle would be moving when the camera tried to serve the notice!

So, only by foot patrols in the car parks, presumably using printed tickets to show when you arrive? My local supermarkets don't have that!

So, unless they put the tickets onto the car and then remove them (not unheard of, of course) there will be notices solely served by post.

Or have I missed something?

Bob

[The Bald Eagle]

Sorry Bob. It's covered under Paragraph 8.

8(1) A notice which is to be relied on as a notice to keeper for the purposes of paragraph 6(1)(a) is given in accordance with this paragraph if the following requirements are met.

(2) The notice must— .
(a)specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates; .
(b)inform the keeper that the driver is required to pay parking charges in respect of the specified period of parking and that the parking charges have not been paid in full; .
(c)state that a notice to driver relating to the specified period of parking has been given and repeat the information in that notice as required by paragraph 7(2)(b), (c) and (f); .
(d)if the unpaid parking charges specified in that notice to driver as required by paragraph 7(2)(c) have been paid in part, specify the amount that remains unpaid, as at a time which is— .
(i)specified in the notice to keeper, and .
(ii)no later than the end of the day before the day on which the notice is either sent by post or, as the case may be, handed to or left at a current address for service for the keeper (see sub-paragraph (4)); .

(4)The notice must be given by— .
(a)handing it to the keeper, or leaving it at a current address for service for the keeper, within the relevant period; or .
(b)sending it by post to a current address for service for the keeper so that it is delivered to that address within the relevant period.

[Belplasca]

Sorry Bob. It's covered under Paragraph 8.

8(1) A notice which is to be relied on as a notice to keeper for the purposes of paragraph 6(1)(a) is given in accordance with this paragraph if the following requirements are met.

(2) The notice must— .
(a)specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates; .
(b)inform the keeper that the driver is required to pay parking charges in respect of the specified period of parking and that the parking charges have not been paid in full; .
(c)state that a notice to driver relating to the specified period of parking has been given and repeat the information in that notice as required by paragraph 7(2)(b), (c) and (f); .
(d)if the unpaid parking charges specified in that notice to driver as required by paragraph 7(2)(c) have been paid in part, specify the amount that remains unpaid, as at a time which is— .
(i)specified in the notice to keeper, and .
(ii)no later than the end of the day before the day on which the notice is either sent by post or, as the case may be, handed to or left at a current address for service for the keeper (see sub-paragraph (4)); .

(4)The notice must be given by— .
(a)handing it to the keeper, or leaving it at a current address for service for the keeper, within the relevant period; or .
(b)sending it by post to a current address for service for the keeper so that it is delivered to that address within the relevant period.

No! That's what I thought at first.

But that clause says:

(c)state that a notice to driver relating to the specified period of parking has been given and repeat the information in that notice as required by paragraph 7(2)(b), (c) and (f); .

and how, on earth, can they STATE that "a notice to driver .... has been given ..." unless this is referring to the notice served as per clause 7???

As I said, not very well drafted! I suspect that we all know what they meant to write. But that is not what is written!

Bob

[Pat Pending]

Photo of the signs in The Borehamwood Shopping Park.  I was stood directly under this sign and could not read the small print.

[Ewan Hoosami]

Blue badge holders only in marked bays.

You do not need to display your blue badge to park in these bays, you simply need to be a blue badge holder. I accept the terms of the contract.

[Pat Pending]

Blue badge holders only in marked bays.

You do not need to display your blue badge to park in these bays, you simply need to be a blue badge holder. I accept the terms of the contract.

I received a ticket at this very establishment for parking in a Disabled bay about 5 years ago.  No excuses offered,  I knew what I did and paid up.  Would I pay now knowing what I know now?  The answer to that is it would not happen now as I think parking in a Disabled bay is a wholly unacceptable way to behave!  See you guys have reformed me.
I saw a nice notice put on a car in a Disabled bay that said "you have my Disabled bay!  Would you like my disability as well?"
The other thing that winds me up is FECKING ABLE BODIED PEOPLE USING THEIR RELATIVES BADGES!!!  Complete and utter WANKERS! 

[The Bald Eagle]

Rogue clampers turning into rogue ticketers? Surely not.

http://www.dailyecho.co.uk/news/9987114.Parking_bosses_call_for_ticketers____code/

http://www.thisislincolnshire.co.uk/Boston-driver-gets-pound-70-Asda-parking-charge/story-17056653-detail/story.html

[Belplasca]

So the BPA wants all ticketers to have to hold some sort of license.

Presumably, a license issued by the BPA after significant amounts of money have been paid to the BPA?

But the BPA stepped back from backing a local authority-based system of licensing which has been called for by the AA,

Of course! Because such a scheme would mean that they didn't get any money out of it!

But then, it is all about the money, isn't it?

Bob

[Ewan Hoosami]

It certainly is bob. Cast iron, copper bottomed, dyed in the wool, 100% fact (for the avoidance of doubt.) What is worrying though is the amount of people, like the ASDA customer, who are not wise to this shabby little scam. They still believe these invoices carry legal weight and that the onus is on them to justify why they should not be 'fined.' It's high time the weasels were outlawed from dressing their invoices up as something they are not. I know if ever I receive one, I shall refer them to the answer given in Arkell v Pressdram. I shan't go into it here but it is well worth a google search.

 

[Kill Switch]

I did a Google search as you suggested, 

[Pat Pending]

I did a Google search as you suggested, 

Oh yes this really does meet with my approval.  Nice find Ewan. 

[The Bald Eagle]

Why beat about the bush guys? Here it is in its full glory

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Solicitors' letter to Private Eye:

We act for Mr Arkell who is Retail Credit Manager of Granada TV Rental Ltd.

His attention has been drawn to an article appearing in the issue of Private Eye dated 9th April 1971 on page 4. The statements made about Mr Arkell are entirely untrue and clearly highly defamatory.
 
We are therefore instructed to require from you immediately your proposals for dealing with the matter. Mr Arkell's first concern is that there should be a full retraction at the earliest possible date in Private Eye and he will also want his costs paid. His attitude to damages will be governed by the nature of your reply.
 

Private Eye's reply:

We acknowledge your letter of 29th April referring to Mr J. Arkell.

We note that Mr Arkell's attitude to damages will be governed by the nature of our reply and would therefore be grateful if you would inform us what his attitude to damages would be, were he to learn that the nature of our reply is as follows: fuck off.
 

No further correspondence was received.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

Don't mess with the Hislop.

[Ewan Hoosami]

You just want a letter from Renshaw-Smith's solicitor now so you can put that to good use, don't you?