Parking Fine.

Hasn't this changed recently as of May 1st with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 gaining royal assent?

Schedule 4 in particular:

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2012/9/schedule/4/enacted

Of particular note is the definition of damages as the fee or charge which the driver agreed to upon entering the property, and also the right of the owner to pursue damages against the keeper of the vehicle.

Epic politics - who would have thought that private parking enforcement would be given some teeth in the 'Protection of Freedoms Act' lulz

*edit*

Actually tbf it looks like that is council-land so no real change - that said if the general flagrant abuse of private parking continues I wouldn't be surprised if that gets amended by SI at some point though to include 'authorised parking enforcement firms' or something - it's pretty much laid all the groundwork after all (in fact it specifically includes that 'relevant land' can be amended by SI alone)

*edit2* Hm there is this, but I still think it refers to council-land and not private parking

(3) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (1)(c) the parking of a vehicle on land is “subject to statutory control” if any statutory provision imposes a liability (whether criminal or civil, and whether in the form of a fee or charge or a penalty of any kind) in respect of the parking on that land of vehicles generally or of vehicles of a description that includes the vehicle in question.

(4)In sub-paragraph (3) “statutory provision” means any provision (apart from this Schedule) contained in—
(a)any Act (including a local or private Act), whenever passed; or
(b)any subordinate legislation, whenever made,

and for this purpose “subordinate legislation” means an Order in Council or any order, regulations, byelaws or other legislative instrument.
Click to expand...
That seems delightfully vague :p
 
Last edited:
Dolph said:
ahhh, the wonderful morality of ocuk shines through again. abusing the rights of others is ok if you can get away with it...
Click to expand...

Nonsense, these "warnings" are placed in hard to see areas and the fines are clearly too much, £50 for 30 minutes parking?

They deserve to get abused.
 
B&W said:
Nonsense, these "warnings" are placed in hard to see areas and the fines are clearly too much, £50 for 30 minutes parking?

They deserve to get abused.
Click to expand...

They are usually placed in very easy to see areas and in most cases impossible to miss areas. And as mentioned earlier the £50 (I thought it was usually around £30 tbh, that's what TCP charged when we were using them) includes the cost of retrieving details from the DVLA/whoever, sending the bill, the money owed for the parking and any associated admin costs.
 
lee32uk said:
Or he could just save himself the bother and throw it in the bin.
Click to expand...

Oh he should do that anyway, my point is to put pressure on the businesses that employ these firms to realise what disreputable companies they are and hopefully stop them fleecing people who aren't aware of the "throw it in the bin" advice.
 
Dimple said:
Why is it hypocritical?
What has Dolph done?
Click to expand...

Because in every thread relating to tax avoidance (or other socially unethical but legal actions), Dolph is the first to defend those people by saying that what they are doing is legal and therefore perfectly justifiable.

Now he's questioning other forum members' morality for doing exactly the same thing.
 
Panzerbjorn said:
Because in every thread relating to tax avoidance (or other socially unethical but legal actions), Dolph is the first to defend those people by saying that what they are doing is legal and therefore perfectly justifiable.

Now he's questioning other forum members' morality for doing exactly the same thing.
Click to expand...

If that's true then hmmm...

Anyway, i'm going to echo what everyone else has said.

Bin it. Seriously.

I have received 3 of these tickets over the past 7 years of my driving career and all have been followed up with scary letters about how they are getting their "debt collection agency" to come around, or how legal action is pending etc etc etc.

You'll receive about 3 of these scary letters and they'll give up. This is not some OcUK myth. This is what happens.
 
Panzerbjorn said:
Because in every thread relating to tax avoidance (or other socially unethical but legal actions), Dolph is the first to defend those people by saying that what they are doing is legal and therefore perfectly justifiable.

Now he's questioning other forum members' morality for doing exactly the same thing.
Click to expand...

:D
5 stars.

I look forward to him getting out of that one.
 
[TW]Fox;22141392 said:
He won't, he'll just sulk off and pop back in another thread later when there is another dead horse to flog with 800 fallacy references :p
Click to expand...

Or just any thread where there is a chance to throw in an obscure latin phrase.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom