Private Parking Ticket

Small claims cases don't set precedent.

Do you really see a parking company applying for a Norwich Pharmacal order over such a (relatively) trivial sum?

And quite rightly so (that they had failed to pay, I mean).

Absent claimants are not looked upon favorably, and costs cannot be recovered in small claims.

With the varying results in the widely publicised PPC court cases, I can't see it being worth the time or risk.

PPC business models only work where they can generate a large income from very little work. IE running a letter factory from their kitchen table.

They are Sheffield based, and their MD is well known on Pepipoo forums. He pays himself £400,000 per annum and I'm sure a google search will reveal them.

How often do they take people to court? Well they had a team of 8 people involved in case management e.g. writing to people, getting evidence together etc. At the time I was interviewed, there were 2 litigation assistants and some cases were being farmed out to solicitors. I spoke with their new director and she said they made the decision that if they were going go down the enforcement/legal path, it was time they did it properly. They were bringing it all in house, hence the job being made available. They had just hired one of the 2 litigation assistants, and the head of litigation was at the interview stage. So they'd be expending £53,000 in salary costs just for those people who were going to act as advocates in court proceedings. I think they were tired of people evading the parking charges - hence the numberplate recognition stuff as well. Bear in mind this is only a relatively small regional parking company - not one of the bigger ones.

Small claims don't set precedent, however it does give strength to any argument advanced, and shows that it is, and has been possible to do this previously. I'd happily go for a Norwich Pharmacal if needed. It causes a hearing and requires work from the defendant/registered keeper. Many people, faced with a day off work and some legal stuff they aren't sure of would cough up the cash. Others would reveal who was driving the car. I can't imagine many hearings being needed once it was known parking firms would seek such an order.

Costs can be recovered (in full) in small claims if the other side acts unreasonably. Costs can also be levied if contractually stated (subject to UCTA) and a fee is payable for attendance (£50).

They obviously disagreed with your explaination of the time/risks/business model.

I also don't think it's right people evade THOUSANDS of pounds of parking fines. It doesn't take much to pay a few quid for using a car park; everyone else pays it.

A very interesting insight into the world of PPCs, Tom.

It's certainly not right not to pay for the use of a carpark.

Can you tell us what legislation private companies can use to issue "fines", and also how the fact that you overstay 5 minutes in a free carpark can make them entitled to £100, or some other large sum?

How would the regulations on unfair contract terms affect this?

I disagree that people were "evading" anything. You can only evade a debt which you legally owe, especially if you were genuinely not the person who parked the car.

I imagine they were simply irritated that their cash cow was being derailed because more and more people were realising their "tickets" were not official.

If Excel parking wanted people to pay, perhaps they should make charges that genuinely represent their losses, rather than attempting to penalise people with penalties.

No private company can penalise anybody.

In your view, is it simply a coincidence that PPC invoices are referred to as PCNs?

Also, did they give you an idea of how many people actually pay their tickets?

Well, it has probably been argued (and I would argue, if it was my job to do so) that the charges were reasonable. A 5 minute overstay is the devils advocate position. How about (equally devil's advocate position) that every car can overstay its paid period by 1 hour. That's a lot of revenue lost - and reasonable reumeration revenue.

A parking firm needs to employ people to enforce the length of time people stay. It is reasonable the cost, or some of this cost is passed on to those who break the rules, often on a habitual and intentional basis. There is also the cost of amassing evidence so as to seek the unpaid money, and the costs of writing to seek it, and potentially man hours involved in writing particulars, filing the case and attendance at court. £100 is not therefore unreasonable, and has been accepted in several cases. Some cases accept much more than this; the £100 is just the industry standard.

Justin is quite correct that the 'penalties' (defendant's word) or 'costs' (claimant's word) are now being ingrained into the contract to park in the car parks. The banks succeeded on this basis; it does not take a vast leap of imagination to consider that the car parking company may well also succeed on that basis.

The parking firms have also (to a large extent) backed away from charging ridiculous and clearly unsupportable charges. They have also backed away from charging people for overstaying 5 minutes. When I went for the interview, I brought up this point, and was told unequivocally that I would have the sole decision over what cases to bring, and that such a scenario (as the 5 mins, disabled users, good excuses) would not need or be expected to be brought as claims. It was thought (rightly) that the damage to the firms (already not very good) reputation would be terrible. However when people have evaded paying on many occasions, that these people were 'fair game'. I agreed on that point.

What is your view on the tickets being made to resemble "official" tickets - such as calling them "PCNs"?

They have been used in BOC cases (Ashworth Hospital v MGM [2002] 1 WLR 2033).

If an order is made, the claimant is usually to pay the innocent parties costs; however this is recoverable against D. (SmithKline v RD Harbottle [1980] RPC 363.

Edit: It is also usually unreasonable for the third party respondent to defend the application; SES contracting v UK Coal [2007] 33 EG 90

...and in the case of time limited free parking at (a) shop(s) there is no loss unless the carpark is completely full thus preventing shoppers shopping.

Given that Excel PS are Sheffield-based it may well be that TomJS is already familiar with the case quoted.

Regardless of the foregoing a contract still has to be established to have been agreed. It has also been held that as there is frequently no charge for the initial parking period (of 1.5 hours or whatever) that the fact that the charge for the period beyond that rises to £50, £100 etc is clearly intended to deter parking and can only be interpreted as a penalty and therefore unenforceable.

No PPC is entitled to levy a "fine" and their tickets represent little more than speculative invoices. One must seriously question whether the practice of describing the parking charges as "fines"; the use of the acronym "PCN" and the fact that tickets are clearly simulacra of genuine Penalty Charge Notices (often including the legend warning that removal of them by someone other than the driver of the vehicle concerned is an offence) isn't intended to induce the recipient to regard them as having the backing of legislation such as the Traffic Management Act. If they aren't why design them this way?

I have no problem with landowners seeking to regulate the use of their land nor with companies operating to fulfil this need but the way in which it is currently being done is far too lazy and allows those who are less than scrupulous to exploit the all too ignorant motorist and thus make a killing.