Woman ordered to pay £24,500 in parking fines

Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
She missed a few tricks in court : under Scots law , signs such as those posted by the parking company are meaningless , unless the owner can prove they were brought to the attention of the defendant before any alleged contravention took place . Since the supposed contract is based on reading of and accepting the conditions outlined on the sign , no contract can have existed in the first place and therefore no case to answer.
While that may have been arguable for the first ticket, it's ridiculous to argue that you don't know anything about the restrictions by the time you receive the second ticket, let alone the 200th, so I don't see that that argument would have got very far in this particular case.

If she does elect to appeal the case, one can only hope that she has learnt her lesson and that she engages a suitably qualified legal professional to conduct it for her.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
For all the Daily Fail reader types who are inclined to the view that this woman deserves everything she gets, it's worth remembering that in the murky world of Private Parking Companies not everything is always as it appears. For example, VCS (the PPC that won the case) has previous form for operating without the authority of the landowner and instigating action that they are not entitled to take. The Ibottson case is one example that springs to mind. Not saying that this is the case here, but bearing in mind the shambolic defence, I don't think it was ever tested in this case.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
I don't read the Daily Mail but I believe that she got what she deserved.

Must try harder to fit stereotypes.
 
^ Not aimed at you, but rather at some of those who commented on the story on the DM website.

I think it's safe to assume that they really are DM readers, and that I wasn't stereotyping :thumb:


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Look at this the other way round - from the point of view of the flats' residents, who have engaged the parking firm to sort out wayward parking where they live. (And note that the firm has, as its means of enforcement to achieve what the residents want, the ability to make naughty parkers pay.)

The woman "parked in front of her step father's garage". If that is indeed the garage in the photos, then her car was either blocking the cobbled pavement, or parked on a double yellow line (or, unless it was VERY short, a bit of both). You don't need any special briefing about contracts to understand why that's not right!
 
Look at this the other way round - from the point of view of the flats' residents, who have engaged the parking firm to sort out wayward parking where they live.
I think it's quite reasonable to take appropriate action to prevent or discourage unauthorised parking on private land, but it's self evident that in the instant case a PPC has deliberately taken a particular course of (in)action "pour encourager les autres" rather than address the problem by other more effective means.

That they stood to profit by not taking more appropriate action to prevent the abuse speaks volumes about the business model of the PPC industry.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Well I have read the article in the link (and others). All are clear, in that they state, she did not pay, because she believed (wrongly in this case) that any penalty would be unenforceable!!

The ruling is that it is "a contract" and by her not paying the charges within that conteact? she is in breach of contract.

Everything else is moot. She entered into a contract by parking there and she breached the contract by refusing to pay when requested to do so.


Her defense appears to be (the Facebook defense) that it was a Private Parking Firm then any charge was unenforceable and in believing that to be true, she continued accruing charges, believing that she could simply successfully challenge their legality.

A £20 solicitor or a visit to CAB, rather than a search on Facebook, may well have saved her fortunes.

One wonders if the floodgates will open now? I know of many who operate in the same belief that this lady did.
 
I have no doubt that the woman in question "misdirected herself" as the Sheriff put it, but due to her sloppy (actually non-existent) defence, the contract - or more specifically the right to enforce it - wasn't tested.

It wouldn't be the first time that a PPC has put up signs without a viable chain of authority back to the landholder which means that any contract cannot be enforced. We only have the PPC's word for it that a contract allowing them to take enforcement action exists, and they are known to have lied on this very point in the past.

It's a bit like you entering into a contract with me to buy Buckingham Palace. That contract may be legal of itself, but it doesn't change the fact that I could not legally execute it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
... it's self evident that in the instant case a PPC has deliberately taken a particular course of (in)action "pour encourager les autres" rather than address the problem by other more effective means.

I'm wondering what powers the firm would legally have, beyond making the charge.
 
I'm wondering what powers the firm would legally have, beyond making the charge.

I think we are about to find out :^) or the lady in question is.


I suspect that now it has been levied in court, it will be collectable by the courts.
 
While that may have been arguable for the first ticket, it's ridiculous to argue that you don't know anything about the restrictions by the time you receive the second ticket, let alone the 200th, so I don't see that that argument would have got very far in this particular case.

If she does elect to appeal the case, one can only hope that she has learnt her lesson and that she engages a suitably qualified legal professional to conduct it for her.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Plus IF she appeals and fails she can stick another wad of debt in legal fees and court costs onto her already 24k debt.
 
I think we are about to find out :^) or the lady in question is.


I suspect that now it has been levied in court, it will be collectable by the courts.

I meant: what are the powers that would allow the firm to use (earlier on) the "more effective means" that st13phil thinks they could have used, rather than pursuing charges.

I suspect that they would have no such powers - but am interested to know. (And to know what those "more effective means" might have been :) )
 
I meant: what are the powers that would allow the firm to use (earlier on) the "more effective means" that st13phil thinks they could have used, rather than pursuing charges.

I suspect that they would have no such powers - but am interested to know. (And to know what those "more effective means" might have been :) )
Let's assume that the PPC has been lawfully engaged by the landholder to manage parking at the site. They "manage" parking by issuing Parking Charge Notices to errant parkers, as a means to discourage them from parking in future. One particular "repeat offender" chooses to ignore the Parking Charge Notices and, indeed, tells the PPC that they will continue to ignore all tickets "because they're unenforceable".

At that point would the PPC best manage the parking (i.e. discourage the "repeat offender") by:
  1. Immediately commencing enforcement action against the person in question through the courts, or...
  2. Continuing to ticket the car daily for the next (say) 6 months until such time that a ludicrous level of "debt" was built up and only then commence action through the courts?
If they were truly managing the situation then they would of course have either taken option #1, or have reported to the landholder that a "repeat offender" was ignoring the landholder's rules and the landholder could have sought an injunction to prevent the behaviour by that individual.
 
I believe that they offered to provide her with a permit but she declined.

In some ways the size of the debt is irrelevant as she's unlikely to be in a position to pay it back in full.

My bet is that the parking firm now face an uphill struggle to enforce the judgement via the usual avenues until she declares herself bankrupt and walks away from the whole sordid affair.
 
The parking firm could well have acted earlier against her but they were under no obligation to do so. They don't have to conduct their affairs to cause the least bother for others.
 
My bet is that the parking firm now face an uphill struggle to enforce the judgement via the usual avenues until she declares herself bankrupt and walks away from the whole sordid affair.
I suspect you may well be right.

Another rather more cynical view is that it's a setup with her as the patsy, and that "an accommodation" will be reached.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Not paying for parking is a gamble which sometimes pays off.

Until a recent redevelopment in our village I would almost daily park in a council owned car park and not pay for a ticket.

I worked out that paying £1 for 10 minutes a day (minimum charge) would cost me about £200 a year, some years I wouldn't get caught and some I would.

I never spent £200 on fines and I always say that I don't gamble.:dk:
 
Plus IF she appeals and fails she can stick another wad of debt in legal fees and court costs onto her already 24k debt.
That problem is solved by declaring bankruptcy. - Not ideal for her future credit history, but I'd guess all creditors would received ~10% of the amount they claim.
 
Not paying for parking is a gamble which sometimes pays off.

Until a recent redevelopment in our village I would almost daily park in a council owned car park and not pay for a ticket.

I worked out that paying £1 for 10 minutes a day (minimum charge) would cost me about £200 a year, some years I wouldn't get caught and some I would.

I never spent £200 on fines and I always say that I don't gamble.:dk:


Some take the same view with train fares ;^)
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom