If you wait for a letter surely it will never arrive as when they input the reg off the ticket with DVLA it will come up with a different car or no car at all. If they have a photo as well ask for a copy send it back and say the ticket and photo dont match case over.
Parking Ticket
- Thread starter Popey
- Start date
A few years ago my wife accidentally parked her car in a wrong marked bay by one space for her hairdressers, it was pouring with rain & the sign marking out the hairdressers bays had fallen down, she came out of her her appointment to find her car clamped.
The result, £160 release fee, plus VAT (17.5% at the time), plus a £5 credit card fee (debit card used) which had to be paid to release the car, despite a follow up letter with pictures they wouldnt budge on the cost.
It still niggles me up to this day, especially as the car wasnt even really worth the total of £193 to release (S reg Ford KA)
The result, £160 release fee, plus VAT (17.5% at the time), plus a £5 credit card fee (debit card used) which had to be paid to release the car, despite a follow up letter with pictures they wouldnt budge on the cost.
It still niggles me up to this day, especially as the car wasnt even really worth the total of £193 to release (S reg Ford KA)
pvr said:
Hmmm. In a private car park the penalty notice is an invoice not a fine, only enforceable under breach of contract rules. I cannot see how the owner of the car who did not park it could of possibly entered into a contract with the car park. No contract, no breach, no need to pay up. There is also no law that means the owner has to disclose who the driver was to the car park. Of course if they have video or other evidence that the owner was the driver then you are a little stuck but burden of proof would be on them to prove you were the driver not that you were not. However they could maybe get smart and check insurance databases to see who is insured, if you are only person then they could argue that you must of been driver, but plenty of people have drive another car third party clauses on thier insurance so that won't wash.
Council car park have bye laws and therefore criminal offences rather than civil so chasing the driver might make more sense.
Liverpool
The new rules (as part of the ban on cowboy clamping) was that the parking companies could go after the registered keeper instead of the driver.
I wonder how many on here would bother even thinking about fighting a ticket if they were only asking for £20 instead of £100.
Maybe these parking companies should change their business model so that they go after the 75% of people who'll begrudgingly pay the £20, rather than the 0.1% who'll pay the £100?
I wonder how many on here would bother even thinking about fighting a ticket if they were only asking for £20 instead of £100.
Maybe these parking companies should change their business model so that they go after the 75% of people who'll begrudgingly pay the £20, rather than the 0.1% who'll pay the £100?
johnnymarrsbarres
Member
Sketchley said:
+1
Rightly or wrongly I've had quite a few private parking "tickets" over the years. Ignored them all. Even if now they can go after the registered keeper, it's still the driver who enters the "contract", which is impossible to prove.
F**k em.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
That's the issue right there though.johnnymarrsbarres said:
The new laws allow the parking company to go after the registered keeper as being responsible for any charges/penalties related to their vehicle. It's up to the RK to prove that they were not the driver, or it was not their car that contravened the parking rules.
In most cases the parking companies are just sending threatening letters - usually with fake, but convincing phrases about county courts, credit rating damage, etc., but are now taking more people to court when they think they've got enough hard evidence than they used to. The current defences - if it gets to court - are around arguing the amount of 'penalty' is not appropriate to the offence; the fact that the parking company does not have specific rights from the landowner to take the driver to court on their behalf (after all it's the landowners losses they're trying to recover); or that the parking company has not presented its case properly.
Personally I would also ignore them, but if a court summons (a real one, not one of their mock-ups) comes through then make sure you start negotiating and have copies of all correspondence, so that you can show your willingness to negotiate/settle before the court date. Then the court can see that it was the parking company who has not been reasonable.
johnnymarrsbarres
Member
mmm-five said:
Not sure I agree.
E.g.
I have another driver insured on my car - what is to stop them parking in a private car park, entering the 'contract'. As the RK, I did not enter that contract, and did not see the contract sign.
You can't enter a contract you've never even seen :?
Unfortunately, the government has changed the rules that you as the RK are guilty unless you hand over the "real" guilty party.
More in line with European laws where the owner of the car gets all the fines, it is up to them to claim it back from whoever they granted permission to drive the car at the time.
More in line with European laws where the owner of the car gets all the fines, it is up to them to claim it back from whoever they granted permission to drive the car at the time.
You've got to prove that the signs are obscured/hidden/missing. Otherwise the fact that you/the driver didn't/couldn't read/see them is not a defence.johnnymarrsbarres said:
If you're the RK and someone else has parked 'illegally' then it's up to you to pay the fine and recover it from the driver.
Imagine if your car was in a hit & run - you didn't sign any contract with that person but as the RK you're still the one on the hook for it unless you can prove otherwise.
As I said, I don't agree with the policies & practices of these parking companies, I'm just trying to explain how the new (October 2013) legislation/regulations have impacted private parking.
mad4slalom
Senior member
AT the moment I have three threastening notices to pay for one of these private carparks , the camera on the entrance photographs yr reg no on entry and leaving ,if you overstay the 30min time you get a ticket. I drove over the carpark in a removals van to gain access to a covered loading bay that serviced the flats above the shop that the carpark is provided for, we at no time were parked ON the carpark. unloading the van took over two hours as it was an upstairs flat , we then drove over the car park to leave, i was sent a pcn showing my van entering and leaving over two hours apart . I appealed to the company explaining why we werre there for so long and if they were a legitimate and fair minded company and not ex cowboy clampers would they please repaeal the ticket. ... they would not entertain it under any circumstances which confirmed my suspicions that they were indeed a firm of ex cowboy clampers now using intimidation and threatening letters to bully people into paying. every 30 days roughly I have received a more threatening notice to pay , warning of courts and bailiffs. I have not and will never under any circumstances pay that pcn. will quite happily go to court to put my case, right is right and wrong is wrong. :thumbsdown:
mad4slalom said:
Nor should you, stick to your guns!
pvr said:
Correct. The Protection of Freedoms Bill has made wheel clamping illegal but given landowners the right to pursue registered keepers to recover losses/reasonable costs.
So whilst you can't use the 'prove I was driving the car on that day or go forth and multiply' defence anymore the landowner or parking control cowboys still have to prove in court that a contract was made between them and the driver and that the costs being claimed are reasonable and justified. They will be reluctant to do this as they may not win and even if they do there'll be little or no profit in it for them given the time and effort they would have to put in. They make their money from the quick payers as there is no overhead for them - just a standard letter and the cheque comes in.
I fail to see how £85 upwards can be justified in court as a reasonable charge when a typical car park may charge only 80p an hour. Plus if the car park is never busy or full then they couldn't even prove loss of earnings.
Parking charge notices are not penalty charge notices. Parking charge notices are effectively invoices. If they send you a bill for £85 or so for overstaying by an hour just send them a cheque for what you deem to be a reasonable assessment of their loss (say 85p?). If it gets to court you will be shown to have been reasonable.
The other side to this is if a landowner deems it so critical to prevent people parking on his land then has he taken reasonable steps to prevent it in the first place (gates/barriers etc.). If a landowner is just putting up a few little signs and trying to make money off people who park on his land without trying to stop it in the first place I believe you will beat him in court. If they dress up their their parking charge notices to look like penalty charge notices you will beat them in court as they are deliberately trying to deceive you.
Fight them beat them eradicate them. They serve no purpose in today's society. There are plenty of ways of controlling parking on private land without deliberately setting out to extort disproportionate sums of money from unsuspecting people.
shotbybothsides
Member
So do I take it that these firms are able to trace the registered keeper from the registration number of the vehicle?
How do they do that? I assumed only the 'authorites' had access to DVLA. info ?
I might start obscuring my reg number on pictures posted on the interweb now, as many others do already.
How do they do that? I assumed only the 'authorites' had access to DVLA. info ?
I might start obscuring my reg number on pictures posted on the interweb now, as many others do already.
+1cossied said: