Private property parking fines....

[j2 lot]

I still think the small one off tickets are unlikely to be pursued but in this case serial offending over a long period of time is of benefit to pursue as can be seen by the end fine

[Alistair]

I still think the small one off tickets are unlikely to be pursued but in this case serial offending over a long period of time is of benefit to pursue as can be seen by the end fine

Both my wife and MIL have had one of these tickets recently - and I advised to ignore using the same logic - that it costs more to pursue a one off ticket than it's worth.

Let's hope that's right or I'm in double trouble

[tut]

Stupid woman, good to see that she has to pay it.

tut

[David]

I think anyone who has pursued a civil action knows that nothing is certain, and interpretation of the law can be fickle business in the court room. It's not black and white like keyboard lawyers would have you think. Better to take a pragmatic approach, and only go to court if you are prepared to lose.

[Corranga]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-t ... l-39478203

Does this set precedent now?

If it was the large 'car park' near the Unicorn in Dundee, she probably could have got away with it by arguing that the it isn't clear what is and what isn't a car park as the surface makes it look more like waste ground

The flip side of that is it is (or was) only £1.50 all day Saturday..

[tonyg]

Spotted this on the BBC website today

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-t ... l-39478203

[j2 lot]

Spotted this on the BBC website today

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-t ... l-39478203

Keep up at the back - check back 1/2 a dozen posts, you were beaten to it

[BiggestNizzy]

I was suprised by the amount, I thought the company could only claim for lost revenue, i.e the £40 a month.

[jason]

I was suprised by the amount, I thought the company could only claim for lost revenue, i.e the £40 a month.

I posted this back on page 2.

The common held view that any invoice can only reflect a landowner's actual costs was recently dismissed by the Supreme Court http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-essex-34721126

....the Supreme Court is the highest level of civil law appeal throughout the UK (so includes Scotland). An astonishing judgement.

That Nov 2015 Supreme Court ruling takes the side of the parking companies with their high 'penalty' invoices.

[Corranga]

I was suprised by the amount, I thought the company could only claim for lost revenue, i.e the £40 a month.

I posted this back on page 2.

The common held view that any invoice can only reflect a landowner's actual costs was recently dismissed by the Supreme Court http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-essex-34721126

....the Supreme Court is the highest level of civil law appeal throughout the UK (so includes Scotland). An astonishing judgement.

That Nov 2015 Supreme Court ruling takes the side of the parking companies with their high 'penalty' invoices.

I guess the balance between companies who own land taking the piss, and people who park on it over and over taking the piss needed a re-adjustment.
Not quite the same as someone not noticing a sign, or being 15 minutes over and getting a fine bigger than the government hand out for speeding when the person is clearly just disregarding the charge to get their own way? Makes some sense to me...

[RDH]

I was suprised by the amount, I thought the company could only claim for lost revenue, i.e the £40 a month.

I think it's the fact she, by parking there, was deemed to have accepted the terms of the contract- the ones on the signs. Nothing really to do with lost revenue in this case, given the contract she enters by parking there.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[BiggestNizzy]

I was suprised by the amount, I thought the company could only claim for lost revenue, i.e the £40 a month.

I think it's the fact she, by parking there, was deemed to have accepted the terms of the contract- the ones on the signs. Nothing really to do with lost revenue in this case, given the contract she enters by parking there.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Surely this opens everyone up to the company taking the piss? What if it said if you part here you promice to give us £100 a week for the next 5 years

[Shug]

I was suprised by the amount, I thought the company could only claim for lost revenue, i.e the £40 a month.

I think it's the fact she, by parking there, was deemed to have accepted the terms of the contract- the ones on the signs. Nothing really to do with lost revenue in this case, given the contract she enters by parking there.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Surely this opens everyone up to the company taking the piss? What if it said if you part here you promice to give us £100 a week for the next 5 years

By awarding the case, the law regards that contract to be fair and enforceable. I don't think for a second it would apply to a clearly ridiculous example, like that, and would be thrown out when challenged.