Private Parking Companies - What are you opinions

[sars]

In reality it really isn't worth their while trying it on, the cost significantly out ways the possible breech and damages returned, when it has occurred it has been to make a point. So in the end I didn't respond, I received another letter stating that they were going to start legal proceedings if I didn't pay up and then another two from a debt collection agency (which was actually part of the same company that ran the car park) eventually they got the hint and I never heard from them again.

The point is that it is very difficult for them to make you pay so they just try and scare you into paying.

Just make sure they didn't enter the debt onto your credit file?

Well if they did and I have, it has not impacted on my credit rating at all and it is amazing reading a credit report on oneself, however the report detailed credit activity from mortgage to credit cards, how many times I had applied for credit if and when I was late with a payments etcetera, I would hope that here say is not included. If they could prove that it was me driving the car and they took me to court for breech of contract and won then yes I would expect it to be on a credit report as a county court judgement.

 

[Mafoo]

Obviously there has to be a clear shot of the car/Reg that is used to contact the DVLA for the owner info

Is there not a good chance that the driver would also be in the picture thus potentially making it easy to identify the driver in the unlikely scenario it did go to court for non payment?

 

[Anonymous]

 

[mmm-five]

Don't think they need contact from you, the parking debt is yours. if you choose to ignore it the company has the option to place the debt on your credit file (as long as it's not malicious)

The debt is with the person with whom they say they have an implied contract with (i.e. the person who drove the car into the car park). So if your wife drove it and they sent the bill to you, you wouldn't have a contract with them to pay, so they'd have no way of forcing you to without resorting to court, and then showing the photo which would show a woman.

Even if you were the driver who parked, there's no way they can prove that you saw the 500 word 'contract' written in small print as you passed it at 10mph.

DVLA do not provide a photo of the registered keeper, so even if they had a good enough photo of the driver there would be nothing to match it up to unless they took the registered keeper to court and then showed the photo matched the defendant/RK.

If the photo's are purely from the ANPR and capture plates only, then there's no way to prove who was driving, and thus who the contract was allegedly formed with.

The easiest way for them to get a court order is through the simple small claims procedure, but the fact that they're not even attempting that shows how poor they believe their own chances of getting a judgement to their benefit.

 

[lacroupade]

Don't think they need contact from you, the parking debt is yours. if you choose to ignore it the company has the option to place the debt on your credit file (as long as it's not malicious)

The debt is with the person with whom they say they have an implied contract with (i.e. the person who drove the car into the car park). So if your wife drove it and they sent the bill to you, you wouldn't have a contract with them to pay, so they'd have no way of forcing you to without resorting to court, and then showing the photo which would show a woman.

Even if you were the driver who parked, there's no way they can prove that you saw the 500 word 'contract' written in small print as you passed it at 10mph.

DVLA do not provide a photo of the registered keeper, so even if they had a good enough photo of the driver there would be nothing to match it up to unless they took the registered keeper to court and then showed the photo matched the defendant/RK.

If the photo's are purely from the ANPR and capture plates only, then there's no way to prove who was driving, and thus who the contract was allegedly formed with.

The easiest way for them to get a court order is through the simple small claims procedure, but the fact that they're not even attempting that shows how poor they believe their own chances of getting a judgement to their benefit.

But surely the registered owner is responsible for all tickets (parking or otherwise), doesn't matter who drove with a thing like this surely? And if this logic was sound it would have precluded the whole clamping scenario as well? I think its more about the costs of a prosecution rather than the likelihood of success....

 

[mmm-five]

But surely the registered owner is responsible for all tickets (parking or otherwise), doesn't matter who drove with a thing like this surely? And if this logic was sound it would have precluded the whole clamping scenario as well? I think its more about the costs of a prosecution rather than the likelihood of success....

The registered keeper is responsible for all council/police/court fines & penalties until such a time that the RK can prove to the official body that they were not driving at the time.

It's much 'simpler' when the car gets clamped as they're dealing face-to-face with the driver who's come back to the car, and can demand money 'with menaces' to remove the clamp.

The same does not apply to requests for payment for breaking a contract, which needs to go to court to force payment. It's no different than you ordering something and refusing to pay for it - the retailer would have to take you to court to force payment, and would have to prove that the order was valid (usually by way of a signed order/contract). The parking companies don't have such contracts in place, so have to either clamp and get the money immediately, or send out these speculative invoices.

I bet they'd get a better response if they reduced their 'invoice' to £10 - as it would be so low a 'penalty' as to not be worth the effort of properly researching the subject on the internet.

If this type of 'contract' was enforceable, then the driver/RK could simply counteract it putting a similar 'contract' in their car - stating something like "The driver/RK of this vehicle does not accept the terms of any contract in place at this car park, and will not enter into correspondence regarding this matter. Failure to adhere to the terms & conditions laid out in the 2pt text below will result in a charge of £1000 per occurrence.".

 

[Moffmo]

Im at work so skimmed.

This has happened to me.

I ignored it. I got 2 letters from the company, then two from their "solictors". Then it stopped.

They will never take you to court etc. If they did they would just lose. Its pure scare tatics.