It therefore came as a surprise to The Prankster to find they had been issuing tickets on land where they had no authority. Although they have signage in the vicinity and have been issuing tickets since 2012, this week they started to trespass on private property and issue one resident multiple tickets on his own driveway.
Thankfully a robust letter sorted the problem out and UKPC have cancelled the charges and promised never to issue tickets there again.
The landowner is now happy. Happier than his neighbours in fact, some of who have paid up for these bogus charges in the past as this was the only way to stop the threatening letters.
Prankster Note
Issuing parking charges without authority is a breach of the code of practice.
7.1 If you do not own the land on which you are carrying out parking management, you must have the written authorisation of the landowner (or their appointed agent). The written confirmation must be given before you can start operating on the land in question and give you the authority to carry out all the aspects of car park management for the site that you are responsible for. In particular, it must say that the landowner (or their appointed agent) requires you to keep to the Code of Practice and that you have the authority to pursue outstanding parking charges
Happy Parking
The Parking Prankster
The code is more what you'd call "guidelines" than actual rules.
ReplyDeletehttp://notomob.co.uk/discussions/index.php?topic=4635.msg29739#msg29739
Not any more. This is fron PE vs Beavis in the Supreme Court;
Delete"And, while the Code of Practice is not a
contractual document, it is in practice binding on the operator since its existence and
observance is a condition of his ability to obtain details of the registered keeper from
the DVLA. "
But ParkingEye were in major breach of the code of practice on the site and Lord Neuberger admitted that in his judgment. So we are back to Pirates of the Car-I-be-one, and the CoP is more what you'd call guidelines
DeleteYes, this whole concept of a binding code and rigorous sanction scheme is often quoted in the courts and in parliamentary debate. Whatever you may think of the BPA, you have to admire their PR skills.
Delete.......also, if a two-bob outfit like Park Direct appear Teflon coated, how impervious are Parking(sh)Eye(sters) who have a senior exec (Mark Anfield) on the board of directors at the BPA?
DeleteAnfield has recently removed the gratuitous bragging of being the father of bulk county court claims from his Linked-In profile.
The Supremes are too cunning to be understood.
DeleteIs their position that the contract is in practice binding, unless you happen to breach it and get keeper details, in which case in actual practice it's not?
Page 12 might be of interest
ReplyDeletehttp://nebula.wsimg.com/e3da92cb966c72de63ec1f98605c2954?AccessKeyId=4CB8F2392A09CF228A46&disposition=0&alloworigin=1
It was of interest back in the day but when Judges began telling parking weasels to bring their toothbrushes to court, the parking, ahem, 'professionals' resorted to heavily redacting or hiding the contracts and/or using witness statements (We do have a contract guv, honest. I've never seen it but we do have one).
DeleteThat said, a lot of the comedy operators are still supplying their full, un-redacted contracts. When I say full, I mean half A4 size.
DeleteI currently have one from P4Parking (L4LMAO I say) that entitles them to beg for change and nothing more.
Max sanction points eh!!!! Well lets hope some greedy operative gets caught and drops them in it.
ReplyDeleteThe other landowners should raise an invoice for the use of their land so they can reclaim the charges that have already been paid.
ReplyDeleteIndeed, if I were handed a bill for parking on my own land (from a private firm of muggers, I'm aware of the hilariously perverse Camden vs Dawood) I imagine I'd do nothing but keep updating my counter-claim to cover my increasing costs.
Delete