private parking firms now CAN fine you

by Worldpower Fri Jun 02, 2017 9:49 pm

Britain's biggest parking fine: woman given £24.5k fine as judge scotches online myth that private parking fines are unenforceable

A woman has been given Britain's largest ever parking penalty of £24,500 by a judge who warned against the myth that private parking charges are unenforceable.

Carly Mackie, 28, parked outside her mother's home and ignored the almost-daily parking charge notices on her windscreen.

She wrongly believed she was entitled to park her Mini on the spot in front of her family's garage near their Dundee home and the tickets were unenforceable.

But private firm Vehicle Control Services took her to court last year when she racked up an £18,500 bill for ignoring more than 200 penalties.

The firm said Ms Mackie has not challenged a single fine and was not entitled to leave her car there without a permit.

In a written judgment Sheriff George Way said Ms Mackie had "entirely misdirected herself on both the law and the contractual chain in this case" and ordered her to pay £24,500.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/04/03/britains-biggest-parking-fine-motorist-told-must-pay-24500-ignored/

by petesomething Fri Jun 02, 2017 10:48 pm

If you have got to go to court , do your home work this is just one case , she will need to take to appeal court,

maybe this judge been on the vodka , any solicitor worth his pinch of salt will tell you these judges get it wrong scratch

assassin will tell you it a game of words , not about right and wrong

by **andybreck** Fri Jun 02, 2017 10:57 pm

petesomething wrote:If you have got to go to court , do your home work this is just one case , she will need to take to appeal court,

maybe this judge been on the vodka , any solicitor worth his pinch of salt will tell you these judges get it wrong

yeah thats true pete the judge must of been on it

by jockenglish Fri Jun 02, 2017 10:59 pm

Or a bent judge, just the faintest possibility that there may be one in Scotland !!

by **LionsShare** Fri Jun 02, 2017 11:03 pm

Rermember whole system is bent WHY should 1 par-take?

by **andybreck** Fri Jun 02, 2017 11:05 pm

yes lion thats ture Evil or Very Mad

by **LionsShare** Fri Jun 02, 2017 11:16 pm

andybreck wrote:yes lion thats ture

Tell you what, get them ferkers come round my 'ouse, me az a base ball bat ur waitin'

by **andybreck** Fri Jun 02, 2017 11:24 pm

LionsShare wrote:
andybreck wrote:yes lion thats ture
Tell you what, get them ferkers come round my 'ouse, me az a base ball bat ur waitin'

just let me know and will pop round and with my dog alfie moon Very Happy

by **andybreck** Fri Jun 02, 2017 11:26 pm

i think alfie would like a bent judge lol!

by **LionsShare** Fri Jun 02, 2017 11:28 pm

Glad we are all back together! laughing too much lol!

by **andybreck** Fri Jun 02, 2017 11:35 pm

well we have to laugh coz the world is so messed up Smile

by **LionsShare** Fri Jun 02, 2017 11:43 pm

agree!

by Ausk Sat Jun 03, 2017 2:09 am

I dont think this is right. Sure the court sided with the car park but private companies cannot fine anyone, only governments can levy a fine.

What UK law was the car park relying on to claim that it had authority to levy fines? Did that law say private companies can levy fines? Their only real arguement is that a breach of contract occured which is difficult to prove. This is due to issues such as full disclosure, proving full disclosure and proving agreement to the contract by the driver etc.

Any 'charges' that are excessive are fines in disguise, so the lady could have argued this line and perhaps if she didint it indicates a lack of awarness of these issues. If she did not know about these isuses then the court wont tell here consequently the court will rule against her.

Did the lady argue this in court? Did she appeal this? The magrsitrate may have been found to in error by a hgher court.

by Jinxer Sat Jun 03, 2017 3:52 pm

I think the problem here was, she admitted being the driver and admitted she knew what the terms and conditions of parking was. From what I could see from the reports her only argument was that she thought she had the right to park outside her fathers garage and didn't agree with the rules for parking in that area. I personally don't think she would stand a chance if she went to appeal with those reasons.
She wasn't fined by the private parking company, it was a penalty charge which has already been to the Supreme Court and ruled on in the Beavis case. The best chance she would of had in winning this in Scotland would of been by refusing to name the driver.

by petesomething Sat Jun 03, 2017 5:27 pm

Hi jinxer

This is why i said you must always do your home work,

by **andybreck** Sat Jun 03, 2017 10:43 pm

yes pete thats ture

by Ausk Sun Jun 04, 2017 10:47 am

We can from this that there were many factors that led to the conviction. This ladies case was different to any other and cases with many similar circumstances would likely result in a similar court finding. However, its really not wise to make make sweeping claims about an issue of interest to many members, based on one case.

The real learning from this case is that a court issued a finding in relation to a particular matter and then dsicuss the key aspects of the case.

Many people read a head line and take that as gospel.

What we need to do on this forum is say yes this finding was given but it should not deter others from forcing the other side to take us to court and argue our case.

This achieves several goals for all members.

It gives people expereince at defending themsevles in court
It helps to clog up the courts forcing the govt to rethink their grab for money from this particular source as it makes it less profitable.
The success of others will inspire others to have a go.

Of course it goes without saying that we should try to teach others that by learning our rights we can succesfully defend ourselves.

I think its essential in this day and age that people learn legal self defence skills just as we lean our own job skills and our home handly man skills.

Just in case I given some the wrong impression here, one is not required to use a lawyer in court when the other side takes us to court and defending oursleves costs us little or nothing.
cheers

by petesomething Sun Jun 04, 2017 2:10 pm

HI Ausk

I agree with you , each case is not the same and it could down to the judge on the day , and people unfortunately read headlines and do take as gospel they should not, you just cant bury your head in the sand , if you have got to go to court , best go , but do your home work if you want a chance to win and yes it hard work.

by Sponsored content

private parking firms now CAN fine you

private parking firms now CAN fine you

Re: private parking firms now CAN fine you

Re: private parking firms now CAN fine you

Re: private parking firms now CAN fine you

Re: private parking firms now CAN fine you

Re: private parking firms now CAN fine you

Re: private parking firms now CAN fine you

Re: private parking firms now CAN fine you

Re: private parking firms now CAN fine you

Re: private parking firms now CAN fine you

Re: private parking firms now CAN fine you

Re: private parking firms now CAN fine you

Re: private parking firms now CAN fine you

Re: private parking firms now CAN fine you

Re: private parking firms now CAN fine you

Re: private parking firms now CAN fine you

Re: private parking firms now CAN fine you

Re: private parking firms now CAN fine you

Re: private parking firms now CAN fine you