Off-Topic Questions Thread - closed. Open new threads for specific questions please.

[Guest]

Thanks, I'll check that out.

[Divorced Dad]

Anyone else ever been issued with a Parking Charge Notice before? I parked in a car park a few weeks ago and forgot to pay on my way out so I've been sent the notice by a private company. 

My wife says just to ignore it as it's not issued by the council and isn't enforceable by law. Is this correct?

[waters44]

My only experience with that sort of thing was on “Cant Pay? We’ll Take It Away!” (!!) where they were after money from a woman who ignored the parking notice because someone told them it wasn’t enforceable by law. If I was you I’d pay it. 

[Keith Houchen]

3 hours ago, Divorced Dad said:

Anyone else ever been issued with a Parking Charge Notice before? I parked in a car park a few weeks ago and forgot to pay on my way out so I've been sent the notice by a private company. 

My wife says just to ignore it as it's not issued by the council and isn't enforceable by law. Is this correct?

https://www.moneysavingexpert.com/reclaim/private-parking-tickets This might be of some help, my local facebook group has this asked quite often and the responses tend to recommend this.  The other response is from a right Duane who bangs on about being a freeman of the land and all that bollocks.

[Surf Digby]

10 hours ago, Divorced Dad said:

Anyone else ever been issued with a Parking Charge Notice before? I parked in a car park a few weeks ago and forgot to pay on my way out so I've been sent the notice by a private company. 

My wife says just to ignore it as it's not issued by the council and isn't enforceable by law. Is this correct?

The "ignore it" approach is out of date. Following a change in the law in 2014, ignoring it means that when they sell the debt to a collection agency who issue Court summons en masse, you'll be shown to have been unreasonable and it'll cost you significantly more than the original £60.

Many parking companies don't follow the required conditions to operate such a service, and so there's loopholes that can be exploited. Take a wander over to the Pepipoo forum were there's some seriously knowledgeable people that can help you challenge it.

For shits and giggles, here's the story of me telling a parking company where to stick their parking charge. To be fair, their response was so incredibly horrendous/bizarre, it was like shooting fish in a really small barrel that had no water in it.

 

The appeal

Please accept my formal appeal to the Parking Charge Notice issued against the above vehicle, as I believe it to be without merit.

I was the driver of the vehicle on the date the PCN was issued, and will be declining to provide the sum requested for the specific reasons:

 

1) A lack of signage stating clearly that parking in the area was prohibited at the material time. If such signage exists, it is not easily visible either through insufficient illumination, or it is not prominently placed, and therefore does not comply with the ATA Code of Practice.

 

2) With the nearest neighboring business closed, no custom is offered, and therefore the sum requested cannot be a genuine pre-estimate of loss.

 

3) There is no evidence to support that you are the landowner, and therefore I am unable to accept that you have the standing to offer contracts, or to bring a claim for trespass.

 

The vehicle was parked safely and without causing obstruction, on premises which at the material time a member of the public would have had, or would have been permitted to have access to, thus being recognised as a Public Place under PACE.

 

My contact details are provided for this matter only, and no consent or permission is given for them to be passed to any third party upon payment or otherwise.

 

Yours

S Digby (reverend)

 

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

 

Dear Mr Digby,

Re: Parking Charge Notice Number 12345 (Vehicle: XY12ABC)

Further to your letter of appeal received on 13/01/2015 regarding the above parking charge.

We note your comments; however, when this Parking Charge Notice was issued this vehicle was in contravention of the agreed terms and conditions for all users of this site.

Your appeal has been reviewed the patrol officers photographs and pocket notes have all been taken into account. There are seven (7) signs in this area of the site all complying with current BPA guidelines. The fact that the retail premises is closed is irrelevant the site owner does not wish to have parking on his site when not open. With regards to the amount of the charge, as of October 2014 a pre estimate of loss is no longer a requirement of The British Parking Association. As per BPW guidelines (October 2014, para 34.6) the amount must be proportionate and commercially justifiable. We do hold a contract and this follows the guidelines set by the BPW, however we are not at liberty to provide a copy of the contract between CPS Midlands Ltd and the landowner/appointed agent as the information contained therein is commercially sensitive and exempt under the Freedom of Information Act 2000.
You did not have the landowners permission to park and were therefore in contravention of the terms and conditions for using said site.

We are therefore unable to cancel the Parking Charge Notice as it was issued correctly and you are required to make a payment of £60 to reach us by 02/03/2015 or £100 to reach us by 16/03/2015 in order to avoid Debt Recovery Proceedings; incurring additional costs.

Payments can be made by cash,cheque or postal order – payable to Parking Services, on our website – www.cpsmidlandsltd.co.uk or by phone on 08432 898721.

There is now an independent Parking on Private Land Appeals process for motorists (Parking on Private Land Appeals, PO Box 70748, London EC1P 1SN), however please be aware that if your independent appeal is unsuccessful it will cost you an additional £40 as the reduced rate of £60 will no longer be applicable and you will be required to pay the full £100 within 14 days of the independent decision to avoid further costs being added. If you wish to proceed to independent arbitration the address is above and you must quote the following reference number 1234567890.

 

Yours sincerely,

 

Appeals Department

CPS Midlands Ltd

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

Parking on Private Land Appeals,

PO Box 70748,

London

EC1P 1SN

 

To whom it may concern,

 

POPLA reference: 0898 27 27 27 ooh!

 

Please accept my formal appeal to the Parking Charge Notice issued against the vehicle XY12ABC on 05/01/2015 by CPS Midlands Ltd, as I believe it to be without merit.

I was the driver of the vehicle on the date the PCN was issued, and contest the charge for the following specific reasons:

 

1) A lack of signage stating clearly that parking in the area was prohibited at the material time. If such signage exists, it is not easily visible either through insufficient illumination, or it is not prominently placed, and therefore does not comply with the ATA Code of Practice.

 

2) The amount being requested is not commercially justifiable, proportionate, and is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss. The British Parking Association Code of Practice states in paragraph 19.5 that the amount requested “must be proportionate and commercially justifiable”.

With the nearest neighboring business or businesses closed, no custom was offered and therefore no loss has been suffered.
CPS Midlands Ltd have been unable or unwilling to demonstrate commercial justification or proportionality for the charge, nor have they been able or willing to demonstrate how the amount requested is a genuine pre-estimate of loss.

 

3) CPS Midlands have been unable or unwilling to produce evidence to show that they are the landowner, or that they have standing to offer contracts or bring claims for trespass in their own name.

 

The vehicle was parked safely and without causing obstruction, on premises which at the material time a member of the public would have had, or would have been permitted to have access to, thus being recognised as a Public Place under PACE.

 

Yours

S Digby (the S is for Sexy)

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

This is the letter they sent to POPLA to support the parking charge. The bits in red are my responses. Needless to say, POPLA sided with me and I didn't pay it.

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

Dear Sir / Madam,
Please find below our response to the above referenced appeal.

The Site
This is a large multi use site that is shared between several tenants with the overall ownership with the security company who sub let various sections to different entities, all the entities have their differing problems caused by illegal parking and at the risk of loosing their tenants the security company has contracted us, with the agreement of ALL the entities to monitor the car park to stop all the illegal parking.

Any illegal acts are to be reported to the Police for investigation. CPS Midlands Ltd have not been warranted or designated powers to investigate criminal offenses, nor do they have powers to issue fines on behalf of the Courts.

At one end of the car park is the security company who store vehicles for the owners inside the buildings

In the previous paragraph, CPS Midlands Ltd stated that the security company were the owners, and here they state that the security company is storing vehicles on behalf of the owners.

 and therefore the owners require access to their building entrance 24/7 and they choose to use the front as a pay and display area with their own signs. PLEASE NOTE WE DO NOT MONITOR THE PAY AND DISPLAY AREA for the owner. Their security offices are well lit and manned until 23:00 hours, and as they own the site they would only be to willing to advise a motorist as they do frequently, who are not sure where they can park legitimately.

I was not parked in this area. This information is irrelevant.

The middle section is let to a commercial vehicle hire company, who not only hire out transit size vans but also right up the large commercial lorries, and therefore they require their rented area for the return of vehicles 24/7 and the are free to be able to manoeuvre such vehicles. Their space is so precious that they will not even allow hirers to leave their own vehicles there while they have a hire vehicle and have signs to that effect on display.

I was not parked in this area. This information is irrelevant.

The final entrance third of the site is let to United Carpets a large national company who source most of their carpets from abroad, which are delivered by 40 ton articulated lorries that arrive at any time of the day or night and like to park up on this site ready for off loading, resting before proceeding to their next drop. The parking abuse on this site got so bad that on occasions they have had to seek alternative night parking for which they have had to pay.

CPS Midlands Ltd have provided no evidence in support of any claim that I caused them to incur the costs of overnight parking at other sites. This information is irrelevant.

We are contracted by the owners to patrol 6pm to 6am 7 days a week and call out at all other times. The reason for the abuse of this site is two fold, across the road if a large block of flats (150+) with limited but expensive parking on site and our site entrance is directly across the road from the flats only pedestrian entrance.

I am not a resident of these flats, nor do I work for the property management company of these flats or represent them or the residents in any way. This information is irrelevant, and appears to be nothing more than CPS Midlands Ltd expressing a personal issue against the cost of residents parking.  Any costs incurred by CPS Midlands Ltd staff at their place of residence is not my responsibility, and does not make this charge commercially justifiable.

The other main reason for the problem is the Hooters pub across the road, this is a pub with waitresses dressed in swimwear type outfits this attracts a large clientèle particularly on Mondays and Wednesdays when they have their reduced special offer food nights.

I do not work for Hooters, nor do I represent the company in any way. This information is irrelevant, and appears to be nothing more than CPS Midlands Ltd expressing a personal issue against the company. The manner in which the waitresses are dressed, and the varying cost of food are not my responsibility and do not make this charge commercially justifiable.

We issue on average some 30 to 40 PCN on this site per week, so you can see the scale of the problem the site tenants have.

I am not responsible for PCNs issued to other drivers with whom I have no connection on dates and times where I am not present. This information is irrelevant.

The Appellants Appeal
We would dispute that there is a lack of signage as indicated on the site map, there are 7 signs in the designated no parking area with photos of all signs in situ. The signs are to the ATA Code of Practice guidelines bearing in mind that entrance signs are no obligatory until October 2015, and there is no legal requirements for the signs to be illuminated.

CPS Midlands acknowledge that their signs are not clearly placed or easily visible outside the hours of daylight.

 The onus is on the driver to make himself aware of any signs or restrictions that are in force on any given site and not just assume that if they can’t see or read them then its ok to park, its not. Landowners and tenants have the legal right to decide who when and where people park on their property and take steps to enforce that as any driver at home with a driveway has the same rights. If a driver cannot see or read signs but they are there then they should err on the side of caution and park elsewhere or accept the consequences.

 

With regards to the amount of the charge, as of October 2014 a pre estimate of loss is no longer a requirement of The British Parking Association. As per the BPA guidelines (October 2014, para 34.6) the amount must be proportionate and commercially justifiable. Commercially justifiable is defined as costs and expenses over and above the day to day running of the car park management business,

CPS Midlands Ltd acknowledge that to be commercially justifiable, they will have had to incur costs and expenses over and above the day to day running of the business. No such costs have been incurred.

and where a contravention has occurred for a breach of terms and conditions and an appeal is received this is not day to day running and therefore creates a commercially justifiable additional cost to the company.

CPS Midlands Ltd are here stating that the PCN was issued to recoup the costs of processing the appeal. As no appeal existed before the PCN was issued, these costs cannot have been incurred.

If the driver had heeded the warning signs and the terms and conditions as shown had been complied with, then the incident would not have occurred and an appeal would not be necessary, but because the driver contravened the regulations and did not complied with the terms and conditions the appellant has caused the company to incur additional expenditure over and above the normal day to day running costs, our additional costs are wages and NI

Wages and National Insurance are not additional costs to the company. If CPS Midlands Ltd has issues with National Insurance, it is a matter for HMRC.

for clerks time to input appellants appeal, appeals advisor’s time to read, digest and dictate a response, typist time typing the dictation, stationary postage etc which would not normally have been incurred.

CPS Midlands Ltd are again stating that the PCN was issued to recoup the costs of processing the appeal. As they cannot process an appeal before a PCN is issued to appeal against, these costs cannot have been incurred.

The fact that the businesses were close in the area where the appellant parked is irrelevant as previously stated in the site description the area is required for on going business throughout the night albeit the frontage of the units is unstaffed and it is not for the appellant to make the decision to park as its not his property whether open or closed. The Consumer Contract Regulations states “Companies are free to use whatever contractual terms and conditions they consider reasonable and if prospective customers are unhappy with these they can attempt to re-negotiate the terms in in question at the time or park elsewhere.” By parking your vehicle the consumer is agreeing to the terms and conditions set down by a car park operator when they leave their vehicle. Whilst the following case refers to a vat case on PCN’s it also states as a matter of fact that A CONTRACT IS ENTERED INTO. In the recent case of Vehicle Control Services Limited v HM Revenue & Customs [2013] the Court of Appeal considered whether Vehicle Control Services Limited where liable to pay VAT on parking penalty charges. The Court of Appeal overruled the decision of the Upper Tier Tax Tribunal and found that parking penalty fees are not a taxable supply (and therefore not subject to VAT) but constituted damages in respect of a breach of contract between the appellant and the motorist. This article sets out the facts of the case and the implications of the Court Appeal decision. Value Added Tax or Damages for Breach of Contract?
In this case the appellant provided parking control services to landowners. The appellant put up warning signs on the land for unauthorised use. Where there is unauthorised parking, the appellant would charge the infringing motorist a penalty fee. The appellant retained the charges. The warning signs display the various parking rules and warn of applicable charges relating to unauthorised parking. The signs also contain the wording: are entering into a contractual agreement. Do not park in this area unless you fully understand and agree to the above contractual terms.

This case is based upon different circumstance and is not relevant. Any issues that CPS have with VAT need to be raised with HMRC.

We enclose a copy of our contract with the landowners and whilst the appellant makes note in this appeal to Popla that we have not produced the contract to him, we enclose a copy of the appellants original appeal and you will note that the appellant DID NOT ask for a copy of our contract in his original appeal but merely states that there is no evidence to support that we are the landowner this is a statement NOT a request, so while he makes reference to it in his appeal to Popla he did not request it from us and therefore Popla cannot find in his favour for none disclosure of the contract as it was NOT requested.

This is semantics, and was fully understood by CPS Midlands Ltd. Any alternative phrasing would have made no difference as CPS Midlands responded with “We do hold a contract and this follows the guidelines set by the BPW, however we are not at liberty to provide a copy of the contract between CPS Midlands Ltd and the landowner/appointed agent as the information contained therein is commercially sensitive and exempt under the Freedom of Information Act 2000”

The BPW are mentioned twice in their original response. They do not explain how the BPW or their guidelines are of relevance. I can only assume these are errors on their part, and they actually refer to the BPA.

My statement that “CPS Midlands have been unable or unwilling to produce evidence to show that they are the landowner, or that they have standing to offer contracts or bring claims for trespass in their own name” remains accurate and true.

With regards to causing an obstruction once again its not for the appellant to make this decision regarding someone else’s property that the appellant has no jurisdiction over. As previously explained at the start of this reply the site is required 24/7 every day.

I hold a UK driving license, and no obstruction occurred as defined in the Highways Act 1980. The vehicle was parked between the white lines of a parking bay. The claims from CPS Midlands Ltd that the landowners positioned parking bays in such a way that they would create an obstruction are without merit.

Conclusion
The appellant has put forward no legal reason for his appeal to be accepted, there are adequate signs as can be seen, there not being enough light or not seeing the signs are mitigating circumstances and are not acceptable.

CPS Midlands Ltd acknowledge that there is not enough light to read the signs.

This is, sadly as is so often the case drives not looking for signs that protect law abiding citizen property

This is irrelevant, as no laws were broken. As previously stated, if CPS Midlands Ltd believe that a criminal offense has been committed, it is to for the Police to investigate.

the one aim for drivers that contravene parking regulations is to try and obtain free parking at someone else’s expense and then complain when caught.

This is conjecture and is not relevant.

Our case is that,
There are more than enough signs of regulation size that comply with all guidelines in force.
The site is fairly well lit from the shops, offices, street lighting and the large apartment block across the road that runs the full length of the site.

CPS Midlands Ltd again acknowledge that the site is not adequately lit, relying on indirect lighting from local shops, offices and residential properties.

He did enter into a contract by leaving his vehicle.
He did create a commercially justifiable loss to ourselves

Wages, NI, residential parking, etc… are not costs generated by myself, nor are they my responsibility. CPS Midlands Ltd have not been able to demonstrate any expenses or losses that would make their charge commercially justifiable.

and possibly to returning trucks and deliveries as previously stated.

CPS Midlands Ltd acknowledge that there has been no confirmed loss to the trucks.

He DID NOT ask for a copy of our contract in his original appeal, merely stated at the time there was no evidence to that he was aware off in place for us to conduct our lawful business which is obviously refuted by the copy contract shown to Popla.
We therefore feel that the appellant has put forward no justifiable sound basis for the PCN be cancelled, as this appears to be all about trying to park for free on someone else’s property without permission and now having been caught is complaining and therefore request that his appeal to Popla be rejected.

Yours Sincerely

CPS MIDLANDS LTD

 

[Kaz Hayashi]

Your rebuttal is flawless really @Nostalgia Nonce. 80% of their argument is completely irrelevant, as noted in the letter. What a bunch of mad bastards. I’d have assumed with stuff like this that they would probably use some pretty confusing legal jargon that falls in to grey area, but possibly confusing enough that the everyday driver will assume a lawyer is needed, or to just pay the fee, which would be hoped for. However, their argument is so weak it’s unbelievable. Blaming hooters and using it as a basis for you to pay a charge was the highlight Surf.

Amazing.

[John Matrix]

Gang, I need to Facebook live an event tomorrow and wanted to do so via Video Camera linked to a laptop if possible, rather than mobile phone.

Is this possible?  straightforward?  any idiots guides appreciated, and by idiot, I mean absolute fucking caveman.

Cheers me'dears.

[Rey_Piste]

It depends on if it is the sort of thing that can be done with a webcam or not. If you have to use a video camera, you will most likely need to get a video capture device to plug in between the camera and a computer.

[Onyx2]

@John Matrix If your laptop has an active camera, go to Facebook and at the top of the status update bit is "Live video". Click and off you go. Obviously test first.

You will need to allow Facebook access to your camera and mic, which I'd recommend revoking after.

[John Matrix]

1 hour ago, Onyx2 said:

@John Matrix If your laptop has an active camera, go to Facebook and at the top of the status update bit is "Live video". Click and off you go. Obviously test first.

You will need to allow Facebook access to your camera and mic, which I'd recommend revoking after.

Lovely stuff!! Thank you for that.

[MungoChutney]

Can't go wrong with Nescafe Azera. It's between 2 and 3 quid for the smaller tub but that does about 20 to 25 cups i think. Better than most other instant coffees and none of the faffing about of filter etc.

[Carbomb]

Coffee porridge? Bleurgh.

You can get some nice instants, like Nescafe's fancy-schmancy gourmet instants like Alta Rica or Cap Colombie; by themselves, a little pricey, but I've found most supermarkets will put them on sale every couple of weeks. A second for the Azera too.

Best option, though, is the coffee refill bags. Most big companies do them. Kenco Rich and Kenco Smooth are quite good value for money in that regard. Just hold on to an old jar to keep it in.

 

[Undefeated Steak]

Not a fan of instant coffee but Nescafe Gold is alright for the price. 

[Sergio Mendacious]

Ffs, coffee porridge? I’m not sure if you’re living in the past or way in the future, but either way, you’ve got to love yourself.

[Gus Mears]

The continued popularity of instant coffee in Britain is second only to slavery in terms of our national crimes.