Help with parking tickets

[mystery1]

Re: Help with parking tickets

The appellant's wife appealed this parking charge as the driver and we are not pursuing Mr A for this charge, we are pursuing Mrs A.

So is the wife RK or are you ?

M1

[John675]

Re: Help with parking tickets

Hi M1,

My wife is the registered keeper of the vehicle.

We have also been looking closely at the photo's they submitted to the IAS site and have worked out they have sent pictures or Broadway Business park ... but the vehicle was parked in Broadland business park (picture attached of the sign from the car park where the car was). You can see the signs are named differently. Does this make their photo evidence void ?

Thanks
John

[mystery1]

Re: Help with parking tickets

I shall do this at the weekend. You have 10 working days so that should be fine. Remind me if i get sidetracked.

M1

[John675]

Re: Help with parking tickets

Thank you M1, very much appreciated

John

[mystery1]

Re: Help with parking tickets

I, as registered keeper, wish to appeal on the following basis.

1. The operator states in their prima facie case that "The charge is based in Contract."

When one looks at the basis for the said contract, that being the signs, then one can see that they say "This area is for permit holders only" and that there is no offer to anyone who does not hold a permit. Indeed a sign cannot create a contract with someone who has a permit as this is after the fact Thornton v Shoe lane. As the offer is forbidding there isn't an offer and there is no consideration either as there is no benefit at all being offered. There is simply nothing to agree to. This was indeed found to be the case in Case B6QZ4H3R, before Deputy District Judge Ellington, UKPC v Mr M.

Any remedy for parking without a permit could only lie with the freeholder, under a tort of trespass. Anything else is an unenforceable penalty.

The supreme court in Parking Eye v Beavis said

94. It was common ground before the Court of Appeal, and is common groundin this court, that on the facts which we have just summarised there was a contractbetween Mr Beavis and ParkingEye. Mr Beavis had a contractual licence to park hiscar in the retail park on the terms of the notice posted at the entrance, which heaccepted by entering the site. .......The licence having been terminated under itsterms after two hours, the presence of the car would have constituted a trespass fromthat point on. In the circumstances, the £85 can only be regarded as a charge forcontravening the terms of the contractual licence.

97. ParkingEye concedes that the £85 is payable upon a breach of contract, andthat it is not a pre-estimate of damages. As it was not the owner of the car park,ParkingEye could not recover damages, unless it was in possession, in which case itmay be able to recover a small amount of damages for trespass.

190. ... By promising ParkingEye not to overstay and to comply with its otherconditions, Mr Beavis gave ParkingEye a right, which it would not otherwise havehad, to enforce such conditions against him in contract. Even if no Parking Chargehad been stipulated, enforcement would still have been possible in law, even if aclaim for damages or for an injunction might not in practice have been likely. Withthe stipulated Parking Charge, the nature of the intended contract is even clearer,although the question arises whether the Parking Charge is an unenforceablepenalty. The quid pro quo provided by ParkingEye in return for Mr Beavis’s promisewas the grant of permission to park for up to two hours in its discretion free ofcharge, on conditions. Each party thus gave the other valuable consideration.

192. .... Theposition in tort may one day merit closer examination, since it is not clear to me onwhat basis, other than contractual, the driver of a vehicle can incur any obligation topay a sum in the nature of damages as a result of a trespass or other tort, howevermuch notice was given to him or her when the vehicle was parked. If there is such a Page 86basis, however, I have little doubt that the law would also extend the penalty doctrineto cover it.


It was common ground that there was a contract in Beavis but as is clear from the signs in this car park there is no offer no consideration and nothing to accept. The supreme court is quite clear that this is a penalty and only the landowner/occupier can have a tort in trespass. The charge is an unenforceable penalty and is wholly different to Beavis.





That is the appeal i'd use which i believe to be sound but the IAS not renowned for accepting many good appeals. Make sure you enclose the picture of the sign with the appeal.

M1

[John675]

Re: Help with parking tickets

Thank you M1, that is very kind of you to draft that for us. I'll submit this and see where we go from here.

Still waiting to hear about teh other 2 tickets we got as well. I guess they are waiting for the outcome fromt his one before responding.

Thanks agin
John

[John675]

Re: Help with parking tickets

Hi M1,

I recieved the following from the IAS ... any suggestions. Thank you

Appeal Outcome: Dismissed

The Adjudicators comments are as follows:

"The Operator has provided evidence of the signs at the site, which make it clear any driver parking without clearly displaying a valid permit, or outside of a marked parking bay, agrees to pay the parking charge. The Operator has also provided photographic evidence of the vehicle parked on the land they manage, in close proximity to a sign advertising the terms, and outside of a bay. I am therefore satisfied there is a prima facie case the charge is lawful.

The Appellant claims there is no valid contract, as there is no offer to any driver other than permit holders. This is not correct. There is an offer to park for those not holding a permit. In consideration for so doing the driver agrees to pay the parking charge. The driver is entitled to a grace period to consider the terms and obtain the necessary permit. Only if they remain parked after this time do they agree to pay the charge. The remainder of the Appellant’s claim, with one exception, is built upon this premise; therefore I cannot allow the appeal on this basis.

The Appellant also claims that the Operator’s photographic evidence is false. There is no evidence to support this claim. The appeal is dismissed.
"

[mystery1]

Re: Help with parking tickets

They have no shame.

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co...-court-no.html

It's either pay or ignore and see if they do court. I'd ignore and see if the issue a claim, personally. A court should reach a different conclusion it is clearly only an offer to permit holders. No offer to non permit holders = no contract.

M1

[John675]

Re: Help with parking tickets

Thank you M1, its really appreciated for you to take the time to help us !
I am quite happy to go to court over this one having read your link. I'll keep you posted on how it goes
Thanks again
John

[John675]

Re: Help with parking tickets

Ok, I thought I should give an update as its been a while.
So as you know the IAS dismissed my appeal back in June and I have heard nothing from Norfolk Parking Enforcement since; not a letter, phone call or anything. I am guessing that they wish to quit while ahead as if it goes to court they would loose and this way they can still record a success. Would I be right in saying that.
I don't suppose there is a time limit on these things.
Anyway thank you again for all your help M1, it really has been appreciated ! and if I hear anything new I'll update here.
Thank you
John

[mystery1]

Re: Help with parking tickets

They have 6 years to take court action.

This may interest you though High Wycombe Three Approved Judgment.pdf

M1