Oh Shi******** private enforcement parking ticket.

[colonelsensibl]

Re: Oh Shi******** private enforcement parking ticket.

Thanks for fixing my post, it reads so much better now!

The (very long, some 400+ posts) thread I took the above quotes from is by housealwayswins, and titled: £300 ticket for stopping on a retail park .

[joshing]

Re: Oh Shi******** private enforcement parking ticket.

Well iv sent the letter and been and took photos. The only way you can access the disabled ramp is by the path, you cannot go into the car park or else you have to come all the way out and then walk along the path to the ramp, what would be the point in that if you cannot walk far. This is all just stupid, it says nothing about not being able to use disabled badges. They have spent a fortune on signs though, there are so many! My only argument would be , disability badges perhaps they cant be used there, well why put a ramp in then. and unfair costs for damages... What ******* damages there were none. DICKHEADS!!!!!

[CleverClogs (RIP)]

Re: Oh Shi******** private enforcement parking ticket.

The £150 they demanded would greatly exceed anything they could hope to be awarded in compensatory damages, whilst punitive damages are rarely - if ever - awarded by English Courts.

On the matters of the "disabled ramp" and of the signs, the land owner and/or ScrewFux may have contravened planning laws; if they have, they're likely to be fined rather more than £150.

[julian]

Re: Oh Shi******** private enforcement parking ticket.

Beware Westminster. The ONLY place you can park with a disabled badge is in a disabled parking space. Park anywhere else and you get a ticket, even though there is no signage to indicate otherwise.

On appeal you are referred to the statement in the booklet that indicates that certain councils have special regs. Only when you look at Westminster council web site do you get the detail. Fine if you get the detail living in Westminster when you get the badge, tough for everyone else in the world that can park on yellow lines etc. They state it is because there are so many visitors they can't cope. They should try Blackpool where everyone seems to have s badge and park anywhere.

[colonelsensibl]

Re: Oh Shi******** private enforcement parking ticket.

Please keep calm Joshing, and wait for the outcome of ProServe's appeal on 24/10/14.

[joshing]

Re: Oh Shi******** private enforcement parking ticket.

[QUOTE=colonelsensibl;441172]Please keep calm Joshing, and wait for the outcome of ProServe's appeal on 24/10/14.[/QUO IM calm..........ish.

[julian]

Re: Oh Shi******** private enforcement parking ticket.

You have left your name on it. Plus date so easy to trace.

If you say his name quickly Ma Clown. Tee hee!

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: Oh Shi******** private enforcement parking ticket.

Hi - thanks for your email Julian. I've deleted the whole post with the upload as it contained identifiable information as reported.

Thanks again.

Please reupload after editing any identifiable details.

[colonelsensibl]

Re: Oh Shi******** private enforcement parking ticket.

And please don't reveal the driver. A good summary of their business model is at:

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co...rch?q=proserve

Let's hope they get their just deserts on Friday, 24th.

[joshing]

Re: Oh Shi******** private enforcement parking ticket.

Hi - thanks for your email Julian. I've deleted the whole post with the upload as it contained identifiable information as reported.

Thanks again.

Please reupload after editing any identifiable details.

Sorry such a cluts.

[joshing]

Re: Oh Shi******** private enforcement parking ticket.

And please don't reveal the driver. A good summary of their business model is at:

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co...rch?q=proserve

Let's hope they get their just deserts on Friday, 24th.

Do you think I should reply yet or wait to see what happens on the 24th?

[colonelsensibl]

Re: Oh Shi******** private enforcement parking ticket.

I would certainly wait for the outcome of the appeal on the 24th.

[CleverClogs (RIP)]

Re: Oh Shi******** private enforcement parking ticket.

(Demand by Pro Swerve that the driver be named even though they have not quite complied with the terms of the damn fool "Protection" (sic) of Freedoms Act and a repeated threat to sue the Registered Keeper of the vehicle for alleged trespass.)

Capita eorum sunt plenis stercoris.

[Still Waving]

Re: Oh Shi******** private enforcement parking ticket.

[colonelsensibl]

Re: Oh Shi******** private enforcement parking ticket.

The appeal was heard on Friday, 24th. This is Parking Prankster's take:

"As reported on pepipoo, on Friday 24 Octover 2014, HHJ Moloney sitting in the small claims appeal court in Norwich heard the appeal of Ransomes v Anderson.

Ransomes hire Proserve to patrol their business park and hand out trespass notices to drivers who stop in the road. Proserve invoice Ransomes between £150 and £250 for each vehicle they manage to photograph while stationary. Ransomes were suing Mr Anderson to recover this money for 10 minutes while he was parked on a double yellow line,
In his judgment HHJ Moloney rules that the signs Ransomes were relying on were gibberish, and could not form a contract with the motorist. However, he did rule that a trespass had occurred. He ruled there was no justification for charging £150 and invited counsels for both parties to agree on a figure.
Sadly Mr Anderson's counsel, with little experience of parking companies, did not realise that the average cost of processing the paperwork in such an event is around £20. This was established in ParkingEye v Beavis, where HHJ Moloney also presided. Mr Anderson's counsel therefore settled on £60, which HHJ Moloney ordered Mr Anderson to pay.
In a bizarre ruling, he also ordered Mr Anderson to pay half the appeal and transcript costs, totaling £570 (so £285 for Mr Anderson). Thus, even though Mr Anderson established Ransomes were not allowed to charge him £150, he still lost more money than if he had simply paid up. Such are the perils of the small claims court."

The consensus on PePiPoo seems to be that this is a confusing decision. One poster suggests:

"In short, were I a defendant in a current 'live' case, I would be tempted to offer the actual legitimate parking charge, if incurred, plus a small additional sum to cover DVLA fees and other costs, on the basis that their claim will probably be withdrawn or defeated, and that any appeal would, with luck, at least in my part of the country, be to a judge who is less sympathetic to PPCs.
If, as I suspect, there is no legitimate parking charge, then I would offer a token sum plus the additional amount to cover DVLA fees (etc)."

The "token sum" is said elsewhere to be about £20.

I would be extremely wary about contacting ProServe again, as they suggest. You must not reveal the driver, and you shouldn't expand on the driver's actions/reasons for being there (I say this because they may hurl these actions back if the case gets to court). They (ProServe/Ransomes) have a lot of thinking to do, and may be in no rush to add to their losses by taking others to court.