Parking Eye, Excel, UKCPS and a number of others take regular court action now.
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
Asda Car Park Fine (Brighton Marina)... Any Tips?
- Thread starter wardy wonder land
- Start date
Parking Eye, Excel, UKCPS and a number of others take regular court action now.
Dr. Notthenineo'clocknews
Remainer
Fair dinkum, I can only speak from my own experience
BensGrandad
New member
Have any ever won on private land.
Yes, some by default ( i.e. the person didn't defend ), some because the person put forward an utterly poor defence and a few because the judge had a funny turn. Someone last month got hit with a £450 charge from the court which shows why using POPLA is sensible.
GingerBeerMan
3-0
- Dec 29, 2011
- 8,024
Interesting, after reading this post I done some research. This seems to be one of the first documented cases of PE taking someone to court over and unpaid fine:
http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=60343
It's a long thread, but the final outcome (if you don't want to read) is:
BensGrandad
New member
Was that £450 after losing POPLA.?
Parking Eye currently win around 60% of their court cases - that's 600 a month.
Nope, the person didn't even bother with POPLA.
BensGrandad
New member
Fool, had he done so and lost he would have been given the reason so better placed to put up a defence covering the point he lost his POPLA appeal on.
METALMICKY
Well-known member
- Jan 30, 2004
- 6,060
That changes nothing. As fruitnveg states the moment you engage is when they sniff you might pay. Just hold your nerve and ignore. The only thing you ever should not ignore is a bona fide court claim issued from Northampton which they will rarely bother with and even they do you simply submit a standard defence which are all over the internet.
METALMICKY
Well-known member
- Jan 30, 2004
- 6,060
Yes but you are missing the point. Those court actions invariably fail because the basis of their claim is invalid on so many accounts. The only action to succeed is where they do bother to get a proper claim issued and if you ignore that they can apply for judgment by default.
Chinman3000
Well-known member
- Sep 28, 2011
- 1,267
Originally Posted by Chinman3000
"Has anyone ever claimed that a £70 council ticket is too expensive and won then? Great example of how a guy claimed and won on the POPLA site."
"Has anyone ever claimed that a £70 council ticket is too expensive and won then? Great example of how a guy claimed and won on the POPLA site."
Errrr...Notice that question mark I used? That indicates the end of a sentence. I was making two different points here
Errrr...Notice that question mark I used? That indicates the end of a sentence. I was making two different points here
Well it was a very poorly constructed post. As for there being an example of someone winning on POPLA - care to post the link ?
LadySeagull
Well-known member
I think it's that boring case the Lead Adjudicator made a test decision on as far as trying to teach the scum firms what a 'genuine pre-estimate of loss' is. Months later they still haven't a clue have they, it's quite amusing to read all the recent POPLA decisions again and again on MSE, all won by the forum poster newbies who've read & understood the guidance.
There are only a handful of private parking firms which would need a different POPLA appeal from the norm, and then there are some in the IPC where the appeal is different too but on the forum we have started to suss the winning formula for that new appeals service, as well, haven't we?!
People thinking this must be too good to be true and it's easier to ignore, should read recent POPLA decisions in 2014 (read back from the latest post) and a pattern is very evident. Bear in mind this is a summary thread for ALL POPLA decisions, not just reporting wins!:
http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=4488337&page=46
Smart Parking will cancel an Asda ticket the minute they see the template first appeal here - 90% certain this OP won't even need POPLA and if they do it's 100% guaranteed to beat Smart Parking if the registered keeper appeals because Smart aren't very smart and don't even use the legal wording in their 'tickets' that would let them have keeper liability - doh!
To save the OP searching for it, this is the template I wrote on MSE a while back; a version of this sees off many PPCs without POPLA. 100% guarantee that this ticket won't have to be paid:
http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?p=65994090#post65994090
Dear xxxxxxxx
re PCN number xxxxxxx
I have received your parking invoice impersonating a 'parking ticket' and will be complaining in the strongest terms to your client. No doubt you convinced them that your operation is some sort of 'parking space maximisation scheme' when it is nothing of the sort and is simply there to maximise your own profits.
I decline your invitation to pay or name the driver, neither of which are required of me as the keeper of the vehicle. This is my appeal and all liability to your company is denied on the following basis:
A The amount is neither a genuine tariff/fee for parking, nor is it based upon any genuine pre-estimate of loss.
B You are not the landowner and do not have locus standi.
C Your signage was not sufficiently prominent nor clearly worded and consideration did not flow from both parties, so there was no contract.
D Your Notice to Driver/Keeper does not comply with Schedule 4 of the POFA 2012 so you cannot establish liability for me, as keeper.
If you choose not to cancel this invoice you must issue a rejection letter in reply to my appeal, explaining:
1 The legal basis of your charge (i.e. breach, trespass or contractual fee). As keeper, I cannot be expected to guess the basis of your allegation.
2 Proof of your locus standi to offer contracts to drivers at this site.
3 Your explanation of the consideration that you believe flowed from the driver, and from yourselves.
4 A copy of the signage site map and close-up pictures of the signs in situ at the time, taken at a comparable time of day in similar light conditions.
5 The means to make an appeal to POPLA.
A certificate of posting will be obtained for all my written responses and I intend to claim my costs when I prevail.
yours,
{registered keeper's name - never tick any box to say who was driving! The driver should be kept unidentified, as is your right, unless as keeper you've missed the appeal deadline. For postal PCNs it can be an option because the driver can still appeal...but that's not needed here}
And please, don't ignore a fake PCN like thesebecause if some of these firms copy ParkingEye's approach, people who have ignored a fake PCN will be first in the queue to be sued and these are not 'easy' to defend except against the really stupid firms. The most litigious monster of a firm, ParkingEye, sue ignorers NOT just those who put their head above the parapet by writing to them. In February they filed nearly 4000 court claims, in March nearly 3000, all targeted against ignorers (we don't lose POPLA cases v PE so these are people who didn't search & find the MSE template appeals). And most people settle or give up and hide even though they'll definitely lose a hearing if they don't show up. And in court PE send a law firm and often win. It's a no-brainer to beat ParkingEye at POPLA.
Last edited:
Chinman3000
Well-known member
- Sep 28, 2011
- 1,267
I feel it was understandable in its context however I also appreciate how easily it could have been misread. Anyway here is the link to the POPLA case
http://www.popla.org.uk/keycase.htm
The 'Appealent' successfully claimed the amount was dispropotionate to the actual loss and won his appeal.
LadySeagull
Well-known member
Yep as I said, it is the fairly old case where the Lead Adjudicator showed the scum firms, who kept losing any well-written POPLA appeal, what a Genuine Pre-estimate of Loss was. And they promptly forgot and carried on losing, as they have the concentration span of a flea, most of them being thick ex-clamper thugs.
Bold Seagull
strong and stable with me, or...
So, 75 posts later, what are you going to do - pay the £40, go at them with everything you've got, or ignore them?
Publius Ovidius
Well-known member
I know we are talking a slightly different scale here, but it appears to me that by avoiding paying a fine for parking where you should not have and a sign is available saying " please don't park here as we have a car park that is for the use of our patrons, and if you park here and the car park is subsequently full you are taking up a space that should be used by our customers" , then what is the difference between what the bar room lawyers on here are advocating and what Starbucks and amazon get away with that people are so indignant about?
Shirley they are using exactly the same logic of avoiding paying a levy/ tax/ fine/ whatever to what is being proposed here.
It smacks a bit like someone getting off a crime that everyone knows he/ she is guilty of, but because an officer of the law sneezed on his notebook therefore making it unreadable, his evidence is in admissible or someone getting caught doing 100 mph and them getting off as the device had the wrong type of paint on it...a bit far fetched but you know what I am getting at.
Shirley they are using exactly the same logic of avoiding paying a levy/ tax/ fine/ whatever to what is being proposed here.
It smacks a bit like someone getting off a crime that everyone knows he/ she is guilty of, but because an officer of the law sneezed on his notebook therefore making it unreadable, his evidence is in admissible or someone getting caught doing 100 mph and them getting off as the device had the wrong type of paint on it...a bit far fetched but you know what I am getting at.
But it's not like that at all. The people who get these "fines" usually do so without any intention of breaking any "rules". There are very rarely any clear signs. I got a parking "fine" when I visited my friend in Hove and parked in a bay marked "V" assuming this meant it was a visitor space. Apparently it doesn't actually mean anything and is just there to trick people.
Publius Ovidius
Well-known member
But the opening poster suggested just that. He parked in asda knowing that it was a car park for people using asda.
People on here are suggesting to use the law to avoid paying what may or not be a valid fine/ levy etc.
Starbucks and amazon et al break no law, they just use it as it is to avoid/ evade paying any where " morally" they should.
One could argue that the OP should morally pay the fine, as he parked where he shouldn't have?