Would you willingly pay £85 if you were 1 minute late, parked one inch over a line, or returned to a car park after 59 minutes instead of one hour? Lord Neuberger thinks you would willingly pay this. However, he is on a salary of over £200,000, so £85 to him is like £8.50 to a person on £20,000 a year. He may therefore have got it horribly wrong.
Would you pay £8.50? Probably, because it would not be worth the hassle of complaining. But £85? Probably not. But this is only The Prankster's opinion. Perhaps you are one of those people who think rules are rules and so would willingly and happily pay £85 if you broke them, even if you were a pensioner and this was almost your entire weekly pension and left you without food or rent.
Of course, knowing how greedy parking companies can be, you would also have to happily and willingly pay if you broke down and so physically could not remove the car. ParkingEye have taken people to court for this. You would have to happily and willingly pay if you had an accident and injured yourself and could not remove your car. ParkingEye have taken people to court for this. You would have to happily and willingly pay if you stopped parking within the time allowed, but traffic congestion prevented you from leaving the car park for a few minutes. ParkingEye have taken people to court for this. You would also have to happily and willingly have to pay if you took a few minutes to park and pay for a ticket, and the operator's opinion of when your parking period began differed from yours. ParkingEye have taken people to court for this. You would also have to happily and willingly have to pay if you purchased a ticket, stuck it on your windscreen, but the glue the operator provided was not sufficient for the summer sun and the ticket fell off. Armtrac regularly issue tickets in these circumstances. You would also have to happily and willingly have to pay if you purchased a ticket, but the machine neither gave you the ticket nor you money back. Armtrac issue tickets in these circumstances.
Knowing how incompetent or corrupt some parking companies are you would also have to be prepared to appeal a parking ticket even if you did not break the rules. If you visited a car park twice but a not-fit-for-purpose ANPR system recorded you as visiting once, you would have to appeal. ParkingEye have taken people to court for this. If you sold the car before the parking event, but the DVLA did not update their records, you would have to appeal. ParkingEye have taken people to court for this. If the parking company were incompetent and did not put cameras on all entrances and exits of the car park, thereby missing the fact you left the car park, you would have to appeal. ParkingEye have taken people to court for this. If the warden doctored photos to make it seem you were parked for longer than you were, you would have to appeal. If you use the non-standard IAS appeal system, you would have to pay £15 to appeal, and when you lose you would also have to pay the parking charge and debt collector fees with no recourse to the courts. UK Parking Control have won appeals even though they doctored photographs.
You should also bear in mind that if you would like to renegotiate the charge to be, say the same level as council charges (£50/£25), that although this is a proven level of deterrence for council car parks, this level of charge may may not be enough to deter people in the car park you are currently in. Large numbers of people may be perfectly happy to pay £50 to park all day, which would leave you no place to park. This is an important point to bear in mind.
So, whenever you visit a car park where the parking charge is £85 or more, if you are willing to pay this in the above circumstances, tweet @parkingcontract #accept.
If you would have preferred to renegotiate, given the chance, tweet @parkingcontract #decline
This twitter campaign is being run by Barry Beavis. For more information see this link.
http://www.brentwoodgazette.co.uk/Billericay-chippie-wants-hear-motorists-losing/story-28142772-detail/story.html
@parkingcontract #accept
@parkingcontract #decline
Happy Parking
The Parking Prankster
The Parking Prankster
Putting the fun back into parking
Click for guide to fighting ParkingEye court claims
Click for help with low-cost appeals and court defences
Genuine question, did the beavis case confirm that parking tickets on private land are legal ?
ReplyDeleteIf yes what is to stop me putting a sign in my car window saying all tickets will be charged at £85 for payment by myself, surely then by ticketing my car they would be accepting the terms of my contract ?
So, so many things
DeleteParking charges in principle were always legal. It is the level of charge which was in dispute.
DeleteAs to your other question, see Mick's answer.
Oh well was worth an ask I suppose
DeleteI've also thought this. I picked it up as a contract is a contract regardless of whether it is fair and reasonable.
ReplyDeletePop a contract in your car window that states PPC's are bound to that contract and if a parking charge is issued then your contract states the charge is automatically cancelled or a £100 charge is payable by the PPC if they do not cancel the charge.
It works for the PPC so why can't it work for us?
I would assume that because you willingly enter the land to park you have chosen to enter the contract which allows them to issue tickets whereas your contract is forced upon them whilst enforcing their rights under the contract you willingly agreed to enter.
DeleteIs there any way for us mere (no tweeting) mortals to see the progress of @ParkingContract
ReplyDeleteNot minute by minute but I'm sure Barry will provide some stats soon
DeleteFollow @parkingcontract where there will be regular updates RE numbers and whether they be #accept or #decline
DeleteAnd remember to tell everyone to add their vote!
Ah. Sorry - should have read the question. The bit about no tweeting. I'll provide stats for Pranks to publish
DeleteThank Barry and PP
Delete" If you use the non-standard IAS appeal system, you would have to pay £15 to appeal, and when you lose you would also have to pay the parking charge and debt collector fees with no recourse to the courts" Are you sure? How would they enforce that?
ReplyDeleteYou have to agree to these terms if you want to use the appeal service. If you don't pay, they could then presumably take you to court for breaking your agreement, although this is early days so no-one knows yet.
DeleteIndeed, but if you can show they haven't satisfied the contract via an inept ruling with no basis in law (this is the IAS, so not hard) then the contract would be a nullity. I also thought the ADR regulations required that the ultimate arbiter was still a court, so yet another failing by the IAS.
DeleteI really don't want to sound sour and I tip my hat to Barry for his action so far, but this is a mere diversion. There's no real scientific basis for this and it'll be way short of the mark anyway since most drivers don't know what it's all about, and probably won't even care.
ReplyDeleteWe all know the damned stupid assertions that came from the SC are without merit and even made on assumption only rather than known fact but it is what it is. It's set a precedent and unless it goes to the next stage it'll be the fast route for PPC's to become rich even without things like altering photo's, ghost ticketing etc.
I for one would throw a few quid into a kitty for an ECHR appeal. Can't we find a lawyer to do it pro-bono?
On what possible basis do you see an appeal to the European Court of Human Rights?
DeleteIf it went to Europe, it would be the ECJ not the ECHR. But you can't just appeal a decision of the UKSC to the ECJ as if it were the next higher court in the chain, it doesn't work like that. The UKSC themselves would have to make a referral to the ECJ if it was felt that guidance was needed on interpretation of an EU Regulation. But they didn't, so it won't go to Europe.
DeleteDamned shame.
DeleteSo we're all doomed then.
It's another S172 sort of situation. It's reached a conclusion and is now set in stone
To burn fat while at the same time building muscle This is physically impossible I am here to tell you the truth about putting on muscle your body Pro Muscle Fit has to respond when you follow these tips You Have to eat enough of the right things to turn fat into muscle I cannot tell you how many times a friend or client had told me they cannot gain weight no matter.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.healthybeats.net/pro-muscle-fit.html
What is the wider picture? Does PP and/or Beavis think public opinion is strong enough to alter government policy? The same government that introduced PoFA? Unlikely.
ReplyDeleteBy all means moan when PPCs act unlawfully, however the time to insist they're all cowboys or shysters has passed. Those who throw stones etc.; an upset PPC defamed by this site may just have it silenced, which would be a bad thing and an expensive one for PP. I hope he has better defamation lawyers than parking ones. ;)
Have you any evidence of a PPC ever being defamed by an incorrect assertion here? But please don't stress over the consequences if it should ever accidentally happen. Just as Barry was able to raise £8000 from supporters in just 24-hours, PP can undoubtedly rely on similar support to fight the cowboys and shysters which he continues to expose here on a daily basis.
DeleteI wonder what the IP address of unknown is? Any clues?
DeleteI don't have any irons in the fire. If you want to check my ck address, it'll be something BT Fon related in Leeds. Anyway.
DeleteThe defaming on this site is plain and no doubt designed to provoke- see references to fraudulent behavour, for example.
Can't say I really care.
However.
I've always said be careful what you wish for. I used to say that when people played the 'not the driver' game, and along came PoFA. I used to say it when people played the GPEoL game, and along came Beavis.
All you parking evangelistas would have been better served keeping your loopholes in your pockets ans staying under the radar. As it is you bring the loopholes to the attention of people who are not sympathetic tonyour cause. Not a clever idea.
Word to the wise, M'learned Pranky has all the evidence to back up his, ahem, defamatory posts. I appreciate you don't have any irons in the fire but if any weasels who do have irons in the fire wanted to threaten the Prankster, they might want to be minded of The Prankster's reply to Hill Dickinson,
Deletehttp://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2014/05/the-prankster-asks-parkingeye-to-cease.html