|
Skyedriver
Original Poster
4,181 posts
151 months
|
Guess this has come up befoe but I'll put forward the scenario.
Car park attached to a well known high street automotive and bike products store. Was free at one time but for the last year or so there is a sign that gives you a limited time free. Wife believes it's 3 hours. Or was maybe. She has just received a £50 "penalty" for staying there for between 2hours and 3 hours. (won't give too many exact figures as that may pin point her on their system). I am going to check the car park sign next week but assuming it is 2 hours now, where does she stand legally and what options has she got? She was in the store but not for the full time of her stay, the letter shows photos but the number plate is not clear. The letter says if she wasn't the driver then name the driver. Her isurance names more than one person.
To some £50 is not a huge sum of money, but to someone working part time between bring up a little boy, it's half her weeks wages.
|
|
|
orangesrule
218 posts
17 months
|
|
|
PurpleMoonlight
1,328 posts
26 months
|
Skyedriver said: (won't give too many exact figures as that may pin point her on their system) Seriously? You think that parking companies are spending hours and hours on the net in the vain hope that they may recognise one of their targets on a message board?
|
|
|
blueg33
10,728 posts
93 months
|
Ignore ALL correspondance.
That's all you need to do. It may get increasingly threatening, in may pretend to be from a solicitor or from a debt collector. You need to ignore it all.
The question is: whoose balls are bigger, theirs or yours?
They rely on people breaking, legally the have no grounds to charge a penalty
|
|
|
littleredrooster
1,448 posts
65 months
|
Yes, it gets done to death once a week in here.
Do not answer or communicate with them in any way whatsoever. Bin all correspondence.
They have no legal right to know who was driving the car (therefore who broke their 'contract to park') and no legal basis for imposing a punitive penalty which exceeds their losses.
Ignore, ignore ignore.
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
aw51 121565
2,696 posts
102 months
|
FILE correspondence SAFELY, do not bin  . Just in case 'they' do take this to court (extremely rare, but not unknown, and 'they' will never win if the case is defended  ) you have 'their' letters and can work out a timeline etc etc. Note that this advice will change in some as-yet-unknown aspects at some as-yet-unspecified point later this year.
|
|
|
grumpyscot
470 posts
61 months
|
Just remember tat, even if they do take you to court, they can only sue for their incurred losses. If only one parking bay was available during the whole period (it doesn't have to be the same one - there just has to be one somewhere), then they have no losses to sue for! Which is why no one gets taken to court, as their evidence showing you parked there will also show that there were empty spaces! The judge would throw the case out, and they would have to bear the costs!
|
|
|
Pcot
668 posts
51 months
|
blueg33 said: Ignore ALL correspondance.
That's all you need to do. It may get increasingly threatening, in may pretend to be from a solicitor or from a debt collector. You need to ignore it all.
The question is: whoose balls are bigger, theirs or yours?
They rely on people breaking, legally the have no grounds to charge a penalty ^This^ Is exactly what i done, 2/3 yrs ago.
|
|
|
Black can man
10,956 posts
37 months
|
Skyedriver said: Guess this has come up befoe but I'll put forward the scenario.
Car park attached to a well known high street automotive and bike products store. Was free at one time but for the last year or so there is a sign that gives you a limited time free. Wife believes it's 3 hours. Or was maybe. She has just received a £50 "penalty" for staying there for between 2hours and 3 hours. (won't give too many exact figures as that may pin point her on their system). I am going to check the car park sign next week but assuming it is 2 hours now, where does she stand legally and what options has she got? She was in the store but not for the full time of her stay, the letter shows photos but the number plate is not clear. The letter says if she wasn't the driver then name the driver. Her isurance names more than one person.
To some £50 is not a huge sum of money, but to someone working part time between bring up a little boy, it's half her weeks wages. Put the parking peoples name into google & read the experiences of other people hit with one of these fines , trust me it will put your mind at rest . I had one last year & i just ignored it , they soon give up sending letters
|
|
|
Zeeky
1,717 posts
81 months
|
grumpyscot said: Just remember tat, even if they do take you to court, they can only sue for their incurred losses. If only one parking bay was available during the whole period (it doesn't have to be the same one - there just has to be one somewhere), then they have no losses to sue for! Which is why no one gets taken to court, as their evidence showing you parked there will also show that there were empty spaces! The judge would throw the case out, and they would have to bear the costs! This is incorrect. At least for England and Wales. Damages can include the costs of enforcement. The main reason people don't get taken to court is that those attempting to recover these charges do not know who was driving and any claim in contract or tort will generally be against the driver not the RK.
|
|
|
blueg33
10,728 posts
93 months
|
Zeeky said: This is incorrect. At least for England and Wales. Damages can include the costs of enforcement. The main reason people don't get taken to court is that those attempting to recover these charges do not know who was driving and any claim in contract or tort will generally be against the driver not the RK. I am not sure I agree. The cost of enforcement is irrelevant if the damage is negligable. In this case the car park is free, so proving any value to the dame is difficult. The car park company then (as I understand it) has to take steps to mitigate the loss of the person they are claiming against, bringing a court case where there are no damages except the cost of bringing the case does not strike me as being well recieved by the courts
|
|
|
streaky
18,232 posts
118 months
|
blueg33 said: Zeeky said: This is incorrect. At least for England and Wales. Damages can include the costs of enforcement. The main reason people don't get taken to court is that those attempting to recover these charges do not know who was driving and any claim in contract or tort will generally be against the driver not the RK. I am not sure I agree. The cost of enforcement is irrelevant if the damage is negligable. In this case the car park is free, so proving any value to the dame is difficult. The car park company then (as I understand it) has to take steps to mitigate the loss of the person they are claiming against, bringing a court case where there are no damages except the cost of bringing the case does not strike me as being well recieved by the courts Where did a female Peer come into this? Was she the driver? Does she own the clamping company?  ;) Streaky
|
|
|
blueg33
10,728 posts
93 months
|
streaky said: Where did a female Peer come into this? Was she the driver? Does she own the clamping company? ;) Streaky Blackberry induced typo. Anyway, you know private parking legislation is being considered by Govt, maybe a female peer is reading it as I type
|
|
|
blueg33
10,728 posts
93 months
|
streaky said: Where did a female Peer come into this? Was she the driver? Does she own the clamping company? ;) Streaky Blackberry induced typo. Anyway, you know private parking legislation is being considered by Govt, maybe a female peer is reading it as I type
|
|
|
oldsoak
5,585 posts
71 months
|
blueg33 said: streaky said: Where did a female Peer come into this? Was she the driver? Does she own the clamping company? ;) Streaky Blackberry induced typo. Anyway, you know private parking legislation is being considered by Govt, maybe a female peer is reading it as I type blueg33 said: streaky said: Where did a female Peer come into this? Was she the driver? Does she own the clamping company? ;) Streaky Blackberry induced typo. Anyway, you know private parking legislation is being considered by Govt, maybe a female peer is reading it as I type Use a proper computer.... 
|
|
|
blueg33
10,728 posts
93 months
|
oldsoak said: blueg33 said: streaky said: Where did a female Peer come into this? Was she the driver? Does she own the clamping company? ;) Streaky Blackberry induced typo. Anyway, you know private parking legislation is being considered by Govt, maybe a female peer is reading it as I type blueg33 said: streaky said: Where did a female Peer come into this? Was she the driver? Does she own the clamping company? ;) Streaky Blackberry induced typo. Anyway, you know private parking legislation is being considered by Govt, maybe a female peer is reading it as I type Use a proper computer.... Blackberry induced double post FFS! Now on a proper computer so all typo's are due to my own ineptitude
|
|
|
kidasan
21 posts
15 months
|
I received similiar notice demanding payment for exceeding time in motorway stop on A1, ignored it that was 6 months ago, if you require some assurance go on to Ann Robinson on U Tube regarding parking charges.
|
|
