Private parking companies

index

PPCs commit criminal offences
The contract element
To summarise -

PRIVATE PARKING COMPANIES

A guide to an effective defence.
I posted this on the Consumer Action Group and a number of members urged that I post it here also. Thus, if a document exists here containing this information in one place I apologise for the duplication. Otherwise I'm delighted to present my guide.
Firstly the important thing to remember is that Private Parking Companies are not backed by any aspect of criminal law. Tickets from Traffic Wardens working for the police or local authorities or tickets issued by police officers are (this guide also excludes those tickets issues pursuant to the Transport Act 2000 governing tickets issued to vehicles on behalf of railtrack or rail operators). There are provisions for them in the Road Traffic Act 1991 and these provisions allow sanctions that the issuing authority can take.
THIS IS NOT THE CASE FOR PRIVATE PARKING COMPANIES.
I'm sure any number of readers will be familiar with such facilities, from your local pay and display to any number of 'multi deck' car parks and even, more recently, the car parks for many stores.
PRIVATE PARKING COMPANIES RELY ON THE LAW OF CONTRACT

Continued here......http://www.logiclaw.co.uk/pages/PJ.html

and http://www.logiclaw.co.uk

 Comment.

A suggestion.

In general you can either ignore such a purported  agreement to a contract,

or else write something like.

Dear Sir/ Madam,

In reference to your letter / invoice XXXXX

As we both know , such parking penalties, require all relevant parties to have entered into a contract, and to have agreed its terms.

Would you please be so kind as to inform me on what basis, you feel you have 'offered' the contract; ( with guarantees that I have been made fully aware incontrovertibly ),  to park with penalties, and most importantly and crucially, on what grounds you aver you have received my 'acceptance' either verbally or in writing.

When you have responded with evidence to support your assertion I shall be happy to examine its grounds, and comment or indeed controvert them.

Failing the above, I aver you have no contract with myself, let alone a contract that is legally enforcible.

As such, please take notice, that in the absence of such a contractual basis aforementioned, then your first letter is the first act of vexation towards myself under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, and a second would render the prohibition completed as to the  the two ocurrences of vexation within  the meaning of the aforesaid Act making it actionable on my side.

Thank you for your courteous and prompt response in anticipation.

Salutation.

Then watch the semantic fun begin, IF they feel that confident to try it on.

For the  act, go to http://www.logiclaw.co.uk/Acts/acts.html

and scroll down to see what exactly constitutes the offence. ALARM and vexation on two ocassions.

 Harassment has a penal force of up to £5,000 and 6 months custodial. The nice term for at Her Majesty's leisure.

challenger wrote Thyanks for posting the info.Anthony for all to see.here are 2 more laws that can be used against ppc's.....the fraud act 1970 and the administration of justice act 1997.ppc's have to adhere to the dvla code od practice that is there only "law".They also have to have sia accreditation.

If you still get demanding letters try this one.It works a treat:Dear sir/Madam, as you seem to think yo are correct in your demands for money from me, let me now add that any further contact from you or your agency on behalf of yourselves or any agency to which you pass your alleged debt to will result in me charging you an administration fee of £25.00 for each contact.This will cover my time,research costs, stationary costs, and postage costs.I will accept 2 letters free,but a third or any subsequent letter received would trigger the acceptance of the fact that you would have to pay me an admin.fee of £25 per letter.I would invoice them and request payment within 7 days otherwise court action would ensue on the 8th day.The terms are fair under the UNFAIR TERMS ACT 1999 as this is for my time and expenses.By making further contact in the above forms you shall be entering into a contract with myself and agreeing to its terms.I would remind you that not merely the companies involved would be liable under SECTION 51 of the SUPREME COURT ACT 1981,the court has discretion to make a costs order against a person who is not even a party to the court proceedings.A key factor,according to the privvy council,is wether the third party does not merely fund the proceedings,but substantialy controls them or will benefit from them:.in such cases,the third party is the "real party" to the litigation.As such I fully expect the "controlling minds" be held liable for costs.Under the provisions of SECTION 4(2) of the BUSINESS NAMES ACt 1985 I require you to provide me with the following information;If you are trading as a partnership,the names of each partner.If you are trading as an individual,your name.If you are trading as a company,the full name of that company,as registered at companies house.If you are trading as a limited liability partnership,the names of each member and the corporate name of the partnership.In relation to each name(wether person,company or partnership),an address in Great Britain at which service of documents will be effective.PLEASE NOTE.FAILURE OR REFUSAL TO PROVIDE THE REQUIRED INFORMATION IS AN OFFENCE TO WHICH YOU CAN BE HEAVILY FINED.!! I hope I have made myself clear in this matter. Send one to the ppc and one to the agency trying to get the debt for them, then sit back and wait to see if anything happens.Either you will get a letter saying this matter is now closed or you will hear nothing more.