Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Paid for Parking & still fined!
FightBack Forums > Queries > Private Parking Tickets & Clamping
CHRISAND
Good morning all,


I have just received a parking fine thought the post from ParkingEye (see below). I am not sure if this is a council monitored parking ticked or a private company ticket so please forgive if I have posted this in the wrong forum thread.





Whichever it is though I feel very hard done by.

On the 26th August I was in Newquay for a weekend surfing. The weather was shocking all weekend but we popped down to Fistal Beach for a quick surf.

We entered the very busy car park and got park after about 15 minutes of waiting then got kitted up which must have taken at least 25 mins. I then paid for 2 hours parking to have a quick surf. The surf was terrible so we were only out there for about an hour and returned to the van well within the 2 hours paid for. We then got dried off, kit put away and had a quick bite to eat and cuppa while in the van the proceed to leave the car park.

It’s states on the fine that we were in the car park for 2 hours 37 minutes which is probably right but the van was only actually parked up for alone for just over 1 hour. The other 1 hour + was spent waiting for parking, kitting up, kitting down, drying, eating and trying to leave the busy car park.

There is nothing else provided with the fine as proof of time etc.. and would appreciate any help at all in appealing against this fine.

Thanks
Chris

The Slithy Tove
No mention of any council, no mention of any Traffic Act legislation, payment address is not council, it's called a Parking Charge Notice

All = PRIVATE, and therefore ignore it (and in the wrong forum - the mods will move it). Don't appeal, don't correspond with them in any way.

[While irrelevant to the argument, why is kitting up, kitting down and eating somehow NOT an activities done while parked?]
Chaseman
This is a Private Parking Contractor ticket. Nothing to do with the council. So you should probably be posting on a different part of the site - I expect a moderator will move it. There is a big section on "what to expect from a PPC ticket" in that part of the website. In brief if you don't pay they will send you ever more threatening letters talking about court action, CCJs, damage to your credit standing etc etc. However, the fact is, until the law changes on (I believe) 1 October, you can safely ignore such PPC tickets.

The reason for this is that the driver of the vehicle is liable only for breach of contract which is a civil matter. The consequences are:

1. It is the driver of the vehicle, not the owner/registered keeper, who is liable
2. The registered keeper has no obligation to reveal who was driving the van
3. THe onus is on Parking Eye to identify the driver
4. There is no concept of a penalty in civil law, only damages for loss. As such, if parking cost say £2 for 2 hours,

[sorry - hit the wrong button before I was ready - full post is below]
Chaseman
This is a Private Parking Contractor ticket. Nothing to do with the council. So you should probably be posting on a different part of the site - I expect a moderator will move it. There is a big section on "what to expect from a PPC ticket" in that part of the website. In brief if you don't pay they will send you ever more threatening letters talking about court action, CCJs, damage to your credit standing etc etc. However, the fact is, until the law changes on (I believe) 1 October, you can safely ignore such PPC tickets.

The reason for this is that the driver of the vehicle is liable only for breach of contract which is a civil matter. The consequences are:

1. It is the driver of the vehicle, not the owner/registered keeper, who is liable
2. The registered keeper has no obligation to reveal who was driving the van
3. THe onus is on Parking Eye to identify the driver
4. There is no concept of a penalty in civil law, only damages for loss. As such, if parking cost say £2 for 2 hours,
and you overstayed for 37 minutes, you could argue that the owner of the car park (remember Parking Eye are
just their contractor) had suffered a loss of (generously) £1 because you had denied a space to someone else who
would have paid the standard rate.
5 THe terms and conditions under which the driver enters into a contract with the carpark owner must be displayed
prominently at the point at which he is deemed to have entered into the contract, typically by buying the ticket. If
the T&Cs are on the back of the ticket this is too late because you can't shove the ticket back in the machine and
get your money back. If they are on a notice board right by the ticket machine this would be acceptable but points
1 - 4 still apply.

The standard advice is just to ignore such tickets. If you want to bung the ball back in to Parking Eye's court then just write to say that you have received a notice as the registered keeper. Make no admission as to who was the driver and do not deny being the driver (if you were), but invite Parking Eye to identify the driver, with whom they have a dispute as a matter of civil law. Explain that if you receive further letters you will consider it harrassment for which there are various legal protections.

I believe that as from 1 October the law will change to force the owner to reveal who was the driver (as is the case with camera speeding tickets for instance) but for now I think you are safe. If I am wrong, others on this site will correct me. In passing, I can't see that an argument along the lines of "I was only getting kitted up to go surfing, I wasn't really parked" would ever succeed! An argument that says "I may have entered the carpark but didn't find a parking space for 15 minutes so wasn't parked for the whole time" has rather more merit.
Gan
The legislation's changed so "i wasn't the driver" isn't much use now.

The recent VCS v HMRC and the DfT guidelines have however clarified that any claim is limited to the land-owners's (not Parking Eye's) losses.

They wouldn't get far in court claiming that they have themselves lost £120 because you stayed an extra 37 minutes.
Ignore them
Chaseman
Gan - are you able to confirm when the change of law applied from and give a reference? I thought it was 1 October but I may be wrong.
CHRISAND
QUOTE (The Slithy Tove @ Mon, 17 Sep 2012 - 12:12) *
No mention of any council, no mention of any Traffic Act legislation, payment address is not council, it's called a Parking Charge Notice

All = PRIVATE, and therefore ignore it (and in the wrong forum - the mods will move it). Don't appeal, don't correspond with them in any way.

[While irrelevant to the argument, why is kitting up, kitting down and eating somehow NOT an activities done while parked?]



I think the approved logos and place of park must have thrown me in regarding to the Council / Private fine. Will try and move now.


Your quite right kitting up / down is done while parked but would usually class being parked in a carpark as such when i am away from the van and not still in it.

Cheers for the advise.

QUOTE (The Slithy Tove @ Mon, 17 Sep 2012 - 12:12) *
No mention of any council, no mention of any Traffic Act legislation, payment address is not council, it's called a Parking Charge Notice

All = PRIVATE, and therefore ignore it (and in the wrong forum - the mods will move it). Don't appeal, don't correspond with them in any way.

[While irrelevant to the argument, why is kitting up, kitting down and eating somehow NOT an activities done while parked?]



I think the approved logos and place of park must have thrown me in regarding to the Council / Private fine. Will try and move now.


Your quite right kitting up / down is done while parked but would usually class being parked in a carpark as such when i am away from the van and not still in it.

Cheers for the advise.
Gan
My understanding is that the "pursue owner if driver not disclosed" runs from 1st October

Nothing else has changed and the introduction to the DfT Guidelines states it

The Guidelines refer to signs that are displayed but also mention Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts.

What I particularly like is how they make clear that the charges must represent a genuine loss.
This has always been the case but it's been necessary to raise the Dunlop case to argue the point.

In other words - it doesn't matter if "not the driver" is no longer a show-stopping defence.
DfT have produced something close to a Pepipoo defence that NOBODY is liable for these absurd charges

Even the judges in Bournemouth who have been rubber-stamping the Devere claims might struggle to dismiss the DfT guidance on new legislation.
emanresu
QUOTE
DfT have produced something close to a Pepipoo defence that NOBODY is liable for these absurd charges


Gan. Is there a link to the DfT guidance?
Gan
It's in this thread that's just started running in the Government Policy Forum

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=73120
CHRISAND
QUOTE (Chaseman @ Mon, 17 Sep 2012 - 12:18) *
This is a Private Parking Contractor ticket. Nothing to do with the council. So you should probably be posting on a different part of the site - I expect a moderator will move it. There is a big section on "what to expect from a PPC ticket" in that part of the website. In brief if you don't pay they will send you ever more threatening letters talking about court action, CCJs, damage to your credit standing etc etc. However, the fact is, until the law changes on (I believe) 1 October, you can safely ignore such PPC tickets.

The reason for this is that the driver of the vehicle is liable only for breach of contract which is a civil matter. The consequences are:

1. It is the driver of the vehicle, not the owner/registered keeper, who is liable
2. The registered keeper has no obligation to reveal who was driving the van
3. THe onus is on Parking Eye to identify the driver
4. There is no concept of a penalty in civil law, only damages for loss. As such, if parking cost say £2 for 2 hours,
and you overstayed for 37 minutes, you could argue that the owner of the car park (remember Parking Eye are
just their contractor) had suffered a loss of (generously) £1 because you had denied a space to someone else who
would have paid the standard rate.
5 THe terms and conditions under which the driver enters into a contract with the carpark owner must be displayed
prominently at the point at which he is deemed to have entered into the contract, typically by buying the ticket. If
the T&Cs are on the back of the ticket this is too late because you can't shove the ticket back in the machine and
get your money back. If they are on a notice board right by the ticket machine this would be acceptable but points
1 - 4 still apply.

The standard advice is just to ignore such tickets. If you want to bung the ball back in to Parking Eye's court then just write to say that you have received a notice as the registered keeper. Make no admission as to who was the driver and do not deny being the driver (if you were), but invite Parking Eye to identify the driver, with whom they have a dispute as a matter of civil law. Explain that if you receive further letters you will consider it harrassment for which there are various legal protections.

I believe that as from 1 October the law will change to force the owner to reveal who was the driver (as is the case with camera speeding tickets for instance) but for now I think you are safe. If I am wrong, others on this site will correct me. In passing, I can't see that an argument along the lines of "I was only getting kitted up to go surfing, I wasn't really parked" would ever succeed! An argument that says "I may have entered the carpark but didn't find a parking space for 15 minutes so wasn't parked for the whole time" has rather more merit.


Hi Chaseman

Thanks for the advise and comments below. Sorry its taken so long to get back to you.


Totally understand what you are saying about my parking argument comments but i was simply trying to explain everything how it happened to get the best advise on the forum. But i can safely say a lot of time was wasted waiting to park and leaving the car park.


Although there are a load of comments regarding the law am i write in thinking that i can saftly 'Ignore' the PCN due to the fact that this claim for 'losses' would not stand up in court?


Thanks


Chris
Basfordlad
You safely ignore as Parking eye dont do court
Lynnzer
Exactly
CHRISAND
Thanks for all you help so far.

Been away for the last week and came home to find a 'final notice' waiting on the floor.



But from this consensus it looks like i can saftly disregard what every they send.

CORRECT?

Thanks chris.
prosnap
"legal department" Parking Eye.

That's the YTS kid sat in the corner of their office. He/she has been instructed to send the same crap to everyone.
Jlc
Oh no, not the final but not so final demand... Expect 'debt' collectors letters next and then extra special discounts...

Ignore.
SchoolRunMum
Here is the same letter issued and ignored in January:

http://i1065.photobucket.com/albums/u394/A...Hibby/PE001.jpg

Taken from this MSE thread:

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=2214803

Looks like you can expect any 3 or 4 from half a dozen or so well-known Roxburghe and Graham White letters now. See the Parking Eye entry on there but also see other PPCs on that thread who use the same letter chain, because we can assure you that any Roxburghe or Graham White letter is on there somewhere. Seen 'em all!

Completely safe to ignore this rubbish (in the absence of real sealed Small Claims Court papers, which won't ever come).
Jlc
It's such a shame stamps are so expensive...
whitewing
"Notice to Owner"..? Are BPA still allowing terms deliberately intended to deceive people into thinking it's a real ticket?

Could use of this term be bordering on a fraudulent attempt to obtain money by deception..?
hcandersen
OP - read this final notice closely and tell me where you can find any reference to them saying that you are liable for the charge.

Para. 1 - statement of facts that the parking charges remain outstanding. Nice little scene setter.

Para. 2 - the period during which the reduced charge may be paid has expired. Jolly good.

Para. 3 - if the charge is not paid they may have to instruct solicitors and "in order to avoid unnecessary extra costs" to them please pay, or arrange for the driver to pay. Or maybe a benevolent grandparent?

Para. 4 - the consequences of not paying (who not paying, you, the driver, your grandmother..) are that judgment may be entered (implicitly against the debtor) and bailiffs may attend etc.

But where does it state that you are liable to pay?

It doesn't, and for very good reason.

HCA
CHRISAND
TOP WORK!

Thanks guys.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2019 Invision Power Services, Inc.