Great Western Coffee Shop

Recently received an APCOA  parking ticket for "parking over two bays".  Usual situation, ^80 reduced to ^50 if paid within 14 days, if not paid refer to debt collection, CCJ etc. etc.

I will accept that the car was not parked exactly straight.  The rear wheel was on and almost over the line (but it wouldn't have been a goal if you know what I mean). The car already parked next to me was parked at an angle and close to its line so the inaccurate parking was exascerbated by me.  I would also add that at some point another car was able to park in the space on the other side OK.

Anyhow, I took some pictures when I got back, wrote to APCOA appealing and explaining that in my opinion I was not "parked over two bays" and offered my picture evidence.

They've come back (polite letter) having considered saying the ticket still stands, quoting what appears to be a rule about parking in marked bay and that if the driver cannot properly park within a marked bay he should find an alternative space etc. (I say "quoting" but there is no actual reference to any specific bye law)

I have looked at the parking terms displayed at the car park and the online parking season ticket terms and conditions and cannot see this "bye law".

I recall a previous topic on the matter of APCOA's "made up rules" and that the ^50/^80 is a load of rubbish and all they can do is charge their "loss" which I would contend it nil as a car was able to park next to me and there is a taxi area after that.  (Twyford Season Car Park outside the taxi office for anyone who knows the area)

http://www.firstgreatwestern.info/coffeeshop/index.php?topic=8235.0

Interested in views on where I stand - ignore them or pay up and look big?

Thanks

Ignore.

Follow my advice on that earlier thread. I'll just reiterate though that I Am Not A Lawyer.

If you continue getting letters demanding payment, with dire threats of debt collectors, CCJs etc, then you could write back saying you consider this 'demanding money with menaces' and are considering launching a counter-claim for harassment. For APCOA to take you to court they'd have to prove a 'loss' by your actions. As far as I can tell from your post there is no loss as someone was able to make use of the car parking space next to you. Even if you were occupying two bays the only 'loss' APCOA can reasonably claim would be the charge for using that space, i.e. the relevant tariff for the length of time you were parked.

As said in that earlier thread, there is some great advice on this forum:

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?s=248edcf433452ed0deec8e57512e917d&showforum=60

Of course, accepted  :)

Thanks

I personally will quote a popular movie.....

it doesn't matter if you win by an inch or a mile.... winnings winning

that being said i'm sure that alot of the spaces are too small tbh.... then again im an ex delivery driver....nuff said  ::) ;D

At Hanborough the car park was extended a few years ago but the marked spaces in the extension are very narrow. When I complained I was told that they were the recommended minimum width. However as the car park is filled up by 06.30 with all those wealthy city workers commuting to London who have very large cars (Mercs, big BMWs, Jags, Chelsea Tractors etc), any one parked in a space next to another large car could not actually exit the car because there would only be a few inches between each car. As a result the white line markings are practically ignored with, say, 3 cars occupying 4 marked spaces. Fortunately there is no enforcement because it is currently a free car park and local FGW management have a bit more sense than to even think of ticketing such cars. Mind you, they have actually ticketed a very badly parked car left for a long time when it made sense to do something.

I notice lots of bad parking at Twyford so this doesn't surprise me at all :)

I mean not surprised in the sense that you had to park a bit over to take into account somebody elses parking.

If you are certain of the above, then the case of Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking may be relevant.  It concerns a customer who used an automatic car park and subsequently damaged his car on those premises, I think, due to badly placed concrete pillars.  The company tried to rely on conditions printed on the ticket, issued after payment. There were no Ts and Cs displayed at the point of sale. Although it dealt with damage to property, the nub of the case is that Ts and Cs cannot be imposed after a contract is formed, (in this case, by purchase of the ticket).

A quote by Lord Denning from the case

"The customer pays his money and gets a ticket. He cannot refuse it. He cannot get his money back.  He is committed beyond recall. He was committed at the very moment when he put his money into the machine. The contract was concluded at that time. It can be translated into offer and acceptance in this way: the offer is made when the proprietor of the machine holds it out as being ready to receive the money. The acceptance takes place when the customer puts his money into the slot. The terms of the offer are contained in the notice placed on or near the machine stating what is offered for the money. The customer is bound by those terms as long as they are sufficiently brought to his notice before-hand, but not otherwise."

Now I know that there may be lawyers who follow these pages and who will have a far better understanding of these issues than I do.

Although I am certainly not a lawyer, I did bumble my way to an LLB, but never used it :-(  and this case sticks in my mind from far off contract law lectures.


Possibly worth at least a read around, as AFAIK, the case is still 'valid' ref Ts & Cs and parking.  From your post, It appears that the company in question may be trying to impose additional terms after the contract has been completed.

(Again not a lawyer..)

Ignore all further correspondence from them. Do not admit you were the driver. All they have sent you is a speculative invoice. It is not a fine. Only councils and the Police can issue fines. The only letter you should respond to is one from the Magistrates' Court (which you will never get). Fines are never payable to private companies, only to the courts.

You will get a pseudo legal letter from "Roxburghe Debt Collectors". Ignore it. They are scam artists currently under investigation by the authorities. The letters may seem quite serious, but if you read them carefully, they are worded to sound threatening but actually do not say anything of substance.

You will then get another one. Ignore as well.

Then will come a letter from "Graham White Solicitors" threatening to take you to court, send the boys round, damage your credit rating etc etc. It's all a load of hogwash that they do not have the legal power to do. Ignore again and don't panic. Graham White Solicitors is one man called Michael Sobell, just another trading name for Roxburghe, and do not do court as their alleged trading practices are far from squeaky clean, as well as there not being a case to answer.

I had fun by sending letters back goading them, but really the best advice is to shred them and ignore!! Never phone them- once they have your phone number, they will keep calling you.

To be honest I could send you a letter tomorrow telling you to pay me ^80. I'd have legally just as little chance of getting it off you as APCOA.


Google "Graham White Solicitors APCOA Moneysavingexpert" and have fun!!

Does beg the question why FGW allow this to go on effectively in their name?

Annoyed I made the initial "appeal" as they now have an address. But will ignore all correspondence from now on and at some point no doubt they'll go to DVLA to get the registered address - shame I have now part-ex'ed the car for a new one!

Cheers

I was wondering that too ... it really can't do First's name much good.

Yet ... I'm really not totally sure as to what the best alternative way is to enforce car parking protocols and charges in car parks which are normally unmanned, and not run by councils.  It's all very well flagging a damaged approach, but what's the constructive element we should be offering.    I'm not a lawyer either, but argg has a case which sounds morally a good cause for his complaint ... but how do you stop anyone and everyone deliberately parking unticketed without a follow up with teeth?

the t&cs regarding parking within the marked bays are displayed on the apcoa signs, so are available prior to purchasing a ticket...

Barriers on entrance - pay to enter. Pressure pad on exit, which lifts other barrier when driven over.

Reading has pay (on foot) before you exit.  Seems to work OK and in a way is more customer friendly.  You pay for the time you have actually parked and it is less likely you will be rushing when exiting the car park than when entering it and having to pay and display with the minutes ticking away to your train.

I much prefer this method anywhere, it means not worrying if your held up that you may overstay your pay and display ticket.

the car park t&c's mean nothing legally. There is no evidence that you have either read or understood them. Again they are full of pseudo legalese that has absolutely no legal standing. However I do not condone non payment of parking, so I agree that an alternative must be sought.

Oh they do! For example, it has been proven that they can clamp, then remove your car for non-payment/abandonment....case @ court went to the car park operator

This used to be the case in the massive Charlotte St Car Park in Bath - however, oddly enough, pay-on-foot-before-you-exit has just recently been removed and the more common "cash and flash" machines re-installed instead. Not sure what the council (BANES)'s thinking was - obviously there must be a good reason for it. Delays at the barriers on exiting perhaps? Malfunctions with the barriers? (you had to feed your receipt into the machine to make the barrier pop up).

There was something similar in Chippenham station car park YEARS ago, with a physical barrier popping up from the tarmac which prevented you from leaving unless you fed a receipted ticket into the machine. That idea didn't last long either. I suspect it's the maintenance and repair cost which puts the mockers on these schemes. Or maybe it damaged one too many cars - they looked pretty blooming lethal.

Towing abandoned vehicles is fine, as would towing any vehicle causing an obstruction, but Private Parking Companies are on very shaky legal ground seizing a vehicle for a civil debt without a court order. Do you have details of this case where the PPC was successful in court after towing a vehicle?

The cynic in me suspects it's probably that people will play it safe and pay for time they probably won't use, thereby raking in a little extra cash than if they only paid for the length of time they'd been there.

Very shaky indeed. The "debt" is owed by the driver of the vehicle at the time it was parked, not the actual vehicle. It is very possible that the driver is not the same person as the vehicle's legal owner or keeper. The legal owner could report the towing of a vehicle as taking without consent, ie theft.

Also, a debt in the case of parking issues would be monies owed as the result of entering into a contract (ie parking in their car park) to the landowner (FGW) or their agent (APCOA) that have not been paid. So in effect, if you fail to pay to park, you owe them the parking fees, plus reasonable costs to reclaim them, not an inflated amount like ^80, as that would be considered punitive. By offering to reduce the amount for quick payment, they are shooting themselves in the foot.

If you have parked over two spaces, you have effectively denied them the business of one other vehicle, so thoeretically you owe them the parking fees for that bay as well. Nothing more. But the PPCs don't see it that way.

I'd love to know how the courts see it, but APCOA don't do court.

I suspect it was because BANES had a very unrealiable system.  It was supported by a call centre in Holland who were unable to release malfunctiing barriers.  It was known for frustrated parkers to drive into barriers until they snapped or get their spanners out and mismantle them.

If you had a malfunctiing ticket there was no way to prove that you had paid.  You just had to phone them up and they took your word for it and opened the barriers for you,.

Agreed.  However it refers to being in a marked bay, which I was although, I admit, one wheel on the line and one just over (but still touching).

The guff quoted on the letter I received about a driver needing to find a suitable alternative space cannot be seen on the sign or online.

I shall sit tight and see what happens - I shall let you know

James
(Need a new screen name - no relation to and not to be confused with "Arg" from The Only Way is Essex)

I've never paid an APCOA parking fine in my life - and never intend to

They'll chase you and chase you and finally get bored after about the 12th threatening letter

I worry they may of done this to increase revenue by increased fines for exceeding parking time etc

As an update - now got to the phone call stage.   Need to work up some clever "unhelpful responses".  Any suggestions?
 :)

do not acknowledge the debt under any circumstances, as soon as you acknowledge the "debt" in any way shape or form, it extends how long they can harrass you for. assuming they are chasing a "debt" they will be governed by FSA rules or something similar, which has a regulation of a maximum number of times they can call each day.

"We have registered with the Telephone Preference Service and therefore we do not take any unsolicited phone calls", and put the phone down.  :-X

*** Mods, please feel free to delete this post if you decide I am being a little too cheeky... ;) ***

Although a little cheeky... When one of my friends was being harrassed daily by Barclaycard, He passed me the phone when they rang and I answered with: "Good Morning you're speaking to Dave at Dildo's Direct, may I take your order number please...?!" The caller promptly put the phone down!

Or if you're feeling really brave... There is always this... Scares the cr$p out of them ;D

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jwHbOtQCHPk (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jwHbOtQCHPk)

The other one that works is every question they ask, just say "Yes" nothing else, just "Yes" odd as it sounds it quite quickly closes the conversation down and it ends up going nowhere ;D

We have an excellent little device called "Truecall" that is plugged into our telephone line before it reaches our main receiver and intercepts all incoming calls. You can program it to let your friends come through as normal but to refuse any numbers you do not want to call and also asks any numbers not in either category to announce themselves and this is recorded and played to you before allowing them through. You just press "1" on your receiver to let the call through or "#" to refuse and the Truecall gives a message to the caller saying that the call is not wanted (you can program it to say what you want). It removes all the foreign numbers that seem to call nowadays and any telephone pests. You can also press a button on the Truecall and it sends all the details of calls made and received to a personal account at Truecall offices and then download the details so you have a detailed permanent record of all activity on your line.

Highly recommended in your circumstances!