Parking charges

But the council hasn't been "prevented from issue". And there's no reason to use a court.

If it did, then defence in court would be that there was no contract and the court would either rule that there had been a contract or there hadn't. And give its reasons!! If it was me - then it wouldn't get to a court. I'd simply tell the council I had no contract with them and the council would then have only two options. Cancel the PCN or follow it up using normal procedure - the next step is called a Notice to Owner. The council has no other option - certainly not yet a court.

I would then tell the council I had no contract with them. Following the established procedure - the council has no choice in the matter - it would eventually end up on the Traffic Adjudicator's desk where he would look at Nick Freeman's - and the MP's - argument and decide if there was a contract or there wasn't. No court involvement. There was no court involvement in the Lendal Bridge fiasco and the council had to repay £millions.

If there is no contract then the council has no appeal. So far as I know his ruling is binding on the council. If he rules that there is a contract - and he'll have to give reasons, possibly precedents -then you can decide if you want a court involved under the judicial review procedure but I don't think the council has that luxury.

No risk. No cost apart from the £60(?) penalty charge. Who wants to test the theory? Any strong minded people here?

Bromsgrove Council Bromsgrove council hits out at Mr Loophole's 'free parking' claim (From Worcester News) said that Nick Freeman was being irrespnsible - and a couple of other adjectives too - but it didn't say how it would answer the argument.

Worth a try in these times of council repression of motorhomers? No risk; almost no cost. No criminal conviction. Who wants to try?

EDIT - ADDITIONAL

It seems from that link above that the no contract reasons came from the council itself. No wonder it can't find an argument against it.

"Bromsgrove resident Paul Raybould wrote to town MP Sajid Javid questioning why travellers who occupied the Stourbridge Road car park in September, were not fined.

A district council reply to Mr Javid was then passed on to Mr Raybould, clarifying the authority’s position on the matter."
 
Last edited:
James said:
Our local council will deal with these notices, and the 'freeman of the land' type ones, by entereing the code on the ticket which says 'prevented from issue' They then send the ticket by post to registered owner and pursue through courts. They dont lose.

If the keeper wont pay or id the driver it just goes to court and they pass to bailliffs. £80 fine goes into the £'000s.

They have done this with travellers as well, before anyone says anything! The issued a ticket on each veh every 24 hours until they left and got it all back through the courts.

I worked for them for a bit, and spoke to the girl who handles appeals so this is all first hand

Hope ths helps

James
Click to expand...

They lose all the time. A huge number of appeals are lost by councils. Something like 80 or 90%.
 
I don't like that argument. You want to give the police freedom to act in whatever way they like in whatever arena they like and then justify it by saying that there is a potential for criminal damage. “Get rid of that shopping bag madam, you could hit someone with it”. “Move along there, you look as though you have the potential for criminal damage” But, but ... “Yes, I know you haven't broken any law - but you might”
 "Mind your fingers, you're nicked for looking as though you might commit criminal damage."

Ah, the joys of a police state. Prevent all crime before it happens.
 
Well, this very case proves they're a bit lacking in the brain cell department.. They say they can't serve PCNs on Travellers because they have no contract with them. It's difficult to see how that particular council could win an appeal by insisting that the council does have a contract with me. (Edit - ... in identical circumstances)
 
The thing is:

Councils are pretty much the same all over the country. Bromsgrove thought it could answer a query from a citizen by giving out the usual thoughtless (I mean without much thought) guff. Some council lawyer said, “Let's tell the public these lawbreakers deny they have a contract with us. Our hands are tied so we can't give them PCNs. On the plus side, It'll stir up a bit of outrage among our residents against Travellers and Motorhomers. and that'll make it easier for us to enact even more draconian parking rules - put up height barriers maybe.”

Then Mr Loophole exposed their argument and used it against them.

Councils do this all the time. To cause outrage about Motorhomers, all (ok, nearly all) councils say we are freeloaders who discard our waste all over the place so even more draconian parking rules are needed. Residents are anxious, for whatever reason, to believe this and go along with the council. Even we, who should know better, agree that we leave our waste all over the place. We nod wisely and say that it's only a few who do but they spoil things for the rest of us.

Now, the thing is ... (again) ... that this is never true. Councils, when asked under the FoI, invarialy cannot come up with the goods. There is never a problem with motorhomers leaving waste. The complaints from the public are never there. Not in N Yorks, not in Lincs, not in Kent, not in Somerset ... I could go on.

Now, why on earth are we defending councils? We're a bunch of freeloaders - the council says so. We should be defending our own rights - not supporting councils trying to deprive us of them.

Colin's Interview 1 - YouTube
 
maureenandtom said:
They lose all the time. A huge number of appeals are lost by councils. Something like 80 or 90%.
Click to expand...

Id be interested to know where that figure comes from, wasnt the impression I got when I asked that department for advice about something similar. I think the confusion may occur when councils employ contractors: our lot use in house bods who are paid well and salaried so it makes no differenec at all to their pay / performance how many tickets they issue. The problem comes (which leads to the figure above) with councils who use contractors. The operators are low paid but given a bonus for pergomance which is related to the number of tickets issued. Therefore they ticket for everything they think they can get away with. A lot of these will appeal, and are subsequently cancelled, by the appeals dept in house. The stupid thing is the bonus relates to the nunber issued and doesnt look at cancelled tickets! This is very common in London boroughs.

My comment which was from info provided by our local council was about legitimately issued tickets

The 'prevented from issue' status is what they use for any circumstances where the ticket cannot be fixed to the vehicle ie CEO threatened; drive off; unsafe circs etc etc.

If they issue under these circumstances, the ticket is sent by post to registered keeper who usually then loses the right to pay half the fine within so many days due to time elapsed. I think its £80 but £40 if you pay within a week or something similar.

I had a ticket similar to OP but from McDonalds, who said Id overstayed. The parking company were no use but I complained to the franchaise who then got it sorted. May be a better line of attack for OP?
 
parking charges

The only problem I have encountered since going full time 3 years ago, is the need for a bigger litter bin in the van for all the ripped up charges, not just alleged parking fees, but all manner of things which various organisations send to my correspondence address and say I owe. Not sure exactly what I will do if I decide to buy somewhere permanent eventually.....might just rent a room for my final epoch, so I can stay under the radar............steve bristol
 
Having had this argument over the past couple of weeks I can assure you that I brought up every argument in favour or them being moved on. As a matter of interest what training in law do you have please I'd love to be able to quote you next time this happens.
 
I was only talking about figures for council issued tickets. The majority of PCNs won't be appealed so the huge successful percentage figures apply only to those we do appeal. The figures are published all over the place and I took my figures right out of my head. A quick google - and I looked at only one reference - picked up this one Fight your parking ticket - how to appeal your fine | This is Money
cq807.jpg


Private car parks do not issue Penalty Charge Notices. They will use similar wording like Parking Charge Notices. To confuse you and make themselves look authorative.

If you don't appeal your parking ticket then you have accepted that you're in the wrong. The council then applies to the court - not to establish your guilt (you have admitted that by not appealing) - but for non-payment of a debt.

Our appeals must be on the grounds that, in some respect, the ticket was not legitimate. There is a list of the grounds - beginning with the one that says "the offence did not occur" and this would be the one, I guess, you would use if you tried the non-contract thing.

Always appeal - the odds are in our favour.
 
Te same thing happened to us, we wrote to the company explaining why we went to sleep i.e. not safe to drive and pointed out very politely that service areas were designed to give rest to drivers to make the road safer, they cancelled the fine - worth trying
 
Just received email from Edinburgh council regarding my appeal of 2 recent PCN . 2 pages of telling me how the warden was correct but as the yellow lines were partially (completely) illegible they were cancelling the tickets . Why don't they ever admit they are actually wrong ?
 
these days its easier with telephones and a camera built in . take pics .
just about ever authority in uk doesnt follow the rules that they should . be it council speed camera partnerships , police . all break the rules .
there are rules we should follow but always make sure they are following the rules as well. nine times out of ten the use frightening techniques to get their own way even if they are wrong in the beginning . even when we win and prove them wrong the arent hurt personally they dont lose their jobs or have less money. yet we can be .
 
pughed2 said:
The only problem I have encountered since going full time 3 years ago, is the need for a bigger litter bin in the van for all the ripped up charges, not just alleged parking fees, but all manner of things which various organisations send to my correspondence address and say I owe. Not sure exactly what I will do if I decide to buy somewhere permanent eventually.....might just rent a room for my final epoch, so I can stay under the radar............steve bristol
Click to expand...

After 6 years on the road Full Timing (mainly Wild Parking) we have not had a ticket of any kind. Tickets do not go with the lifestyle, so you must have been doing something to initiate them.

Neither have we tried to be under the radar. We were even on the last census and electoral roll as "Living on a boat or other movable dwelling".
 
I haven't read the whole thread so apologies if this has been said before.
Scottish rules are different. Don't pay, don't communicate with them at all.

I get these at work (Gartnavel Hospital) where CP plus operate and get ticketed frequently. ( some of the nursing staff have decorated with their tickets!) you will get 2 or three letters threatening CCJ's, (which do not exist in Scottish Law) and that's it.
The only way for them to get the money from you is to take you to court, and they won't because 1. they need to prove you were the driver and they can't. 2. It would be too costly for them.
 
runnach said:
They wont even admit the trams were a total fiasco!

Well done on gaining a reprieve, it is hard work, I know this from personal experience.
Click to expand...

I've only lost one appeal (I'm very appealing)l and that went to a tribunal . In this most recent incident(s) I actually told them in my appeal that I had photos (ref vwalan above) but I wasn't including them as the wardens pictures proved my case ! Bizarrely the daytime wardens didn't ticket me , they agreed it was OK to park . The mobile guy out at 7am ticketed me both times . East Market street where all the work is going on , check it out . I'm back in 3 or 4weeks think lines will be repainted by then
 
right, i asked a solicitor whether driving into a car park with signage could be considered entering into a contract with the owners,private or council. the one word reply was bolox.
how could a contract be entered into with no negotiation between the parties ?
how could they possibly prove , in court, the 'intention to be legally bound '?
the system is based on the percentages, most people, a] through fear of greater expense and hassle and b] having been offered the carrot of paying less if paid within 2 weeks etc, will pay up. taking the others to court would be too risky and too expensive
so if i get a penalty notice, i'll ignore it
 
n brown said:
right, i asked a solicitor whether driving into a car park with signage could be considered entering into a contract with the owners,private or council. the one word reply was bolox.
how could a contract be entered into with no negotiation between the parties ?
how could they possibly prove , in court, the 'intention to be legally bound '?
the system is based on the percentages, most people, a] through fear of greater expense and hassle and b] having been offered the carrot of paying less if paid within 2 weeks etc, will pay up. taking the others to court would be too risky and too expensive
so if i get a penalty notice, i'll ignore it
Click to expand...

But not a council one. Ignoring that one means you're admitting guilt and they'll pursue you for non-payment of a debt - not a parking offence.

About council car parks Nick Freeman says that you have to make clear by putting a notice on your van that you are not entering into a contract with the council and you do not accept their terms and conditions. Here's the links again:

New Parking Laws UK | PCN Contravention Codes - Offence Codes

MP Opens Door To Motorists Flouting ALL Parking Restrictions, Says Mr Loophole | Nick Freeman Solicitors | Expert Road Traffic Solicitors | The Home Of Mr Loophole

Bromsgrove council hits out at Mr Loophole's 'free parking' claim (From Worcester News)

I guess the disclaimer would take care of the intention to be legally bound question.

And, don't forget it was the council (not Nick Freeman) who came up with the idea that some car park occupants weren't bound by their contract - and they decided not to issue PCNs because of that. It would be hard for that council to then say all users are subject to their terms and conditions when it has accepted that some are not.

What we need is someone with nerve willing to get a PCN intentionally and test it.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who viewed this discussion (Total:0)

Back
Top