£70 parking fine for 15 mins.
Discussion
zarjaz1991 said:
Ignoring it doesn't work.
Except when it does. Ignored my ticket that I got in similar circumstances this time last year. "Fine" went up, when to "debt recovery" / "legal enforcement", fine went down. Letters stopped after about the 6th one.I'm not suggesting this is good advice at all (IANAL), but ignoring it can work.
What I will say is that the grief I got from the missus for my "principles" wasn't worth it and part of me wishes I'd paid up for a quiet life. But then that's how they work so...
wiggy001 said:
zarjaz1991 said:
Ignoring it doesn't work.
Except when it does. Ignored my ticket that I got in similar circumstances this time last year. "Fine" went up, when to "debt recovery" / "legal enforcement", fine went down. Letters stopped after about the 6th one.I'm not suggesting this is good advice at all (IANAL), but ignoring it can work.
What I will say is that the grief I got from the missus for my "principles" wasn't worth it and part of me wishes I'd paid up for a quiet life. But then that's how they work so...
zarjaz1991 said:
Seriously, just write to Sainsburys immediately. It'll all be over within days. Forget all this "ignore it / wait for them to take you to court" nonsense. Unless you enjoy big legal fights with powerful parking management companies and a lot of stress on top.
Write to Sainsburys, right now.
They're not powerful (eg their 'solicitor' sits at the next desk in the portakabin to the person who writes the "notice to keeper", which is why all the letters generally have the same postcode Write to Sainsburys, right now.
). Rather, they are bullies (eg see how the OP's wife feels she must pay this 70 groats even though she is under no obligation to do so, also some of them threaten to - and then do - take a lot of people to court and rely on the stress this causes the uninformed to make them pay quite a bit over the 70 quid to avoid the court action...).
They are also cowards (they will stop bullying and withdraw their case if a properly written defence is submitted for the case in small claims court, should it get that far - they don't have the cojones to allow a properly written defendant's defence to be heard before a court because it will blow the gaff
). Legally, they are perhaps entitled to a few quid to cover losses arising from the alleged incident (the so called "not a genuine pre-estimate of loss arising from the alleged incident" argument) - but only if they have sufficient interest in the land to offer contracts for parking at all (they usually don't because they are not the landholder of the car park in which they are enforcing parking)
.And it's not stressful to any meaningful degree once one realises this
.Agree
, though - OP, write to Sainsbury's at the first opportunity, then only engage with the private parking company if this isn't successful (this second option isn't difficult, as others have alluded to - but we'd recommend a few visits to 'pepipoo', 'money saving expert'and 'parking prankster' websites to get up to speed with the nonsense and to ask if in doubt).Blown2CV said:
wiggy001 said:
zarjaz1991 said:
Ignoring it doesn't work.
Except when it does. Ignored my ticket that I got in similar circumstances this time last year. "Fine" went up, when to "debt recovery" / "legal enforcement", fine went down. Letters stopped after about the 6th one.I'm not suggesting this is good advice at all (IANAL), but ignoring it can work.
What I will say is that the grief I got from the missus for my "principles" wasn't worth it and part of me wishes I'd paid up for a quiet life. But then that's how they work so...
I wouldn't get mad- I'd get even - take receipt and document to customer service and seek help. No joy, then it's letter to local paper mentioning abortive visit to local store and circumstances.That usually gets a reaction from store bosses. (Or has done so locally with another store). My case- I got an invoice for parking for several hours in a well known store park. In truth,I'd shopped in store in the morning and left by another exit. Later that day I returned to shop at a store in the complex. My entry in the morning was recorded. Not so my exit,or my entrance via the same cameras that saw me enter in the morning. My exit was recorded, hours later and that was the basis for the "invoice". I handed it to customer services telling them the facts and .mentioning that ,perhaps ,I might suggest to local press that their ANPR system was faulty. PANIC: I never heard any more.
Dad's army quote from CPL JONES "THEY DON'T LIKE IT UP EM - OR bad publicity.
Dad's army quote from CPL JONES "THEY DON'T LIKE IT UP EM - OR bad publicity.
Edited by Who me ? on Monday 29th December 23:59
Just got these CCTV parking malarkey up here in our local Sainsbury's, which incorporates a petrol station as well, with a "No return within 2 hour rule".
So after my "Allowed stay", I decide to return to visit the petrol station, I have to pass the same camera as for the car park, not good.
What if I drop the OH off, so I am clocked IN,/OUT, then return in 45 mins to pick,her up, will the 2 hour rule apply, all very confusing.
So after my "Allowed stay", I decide to return to visit the petrol station, I have to pass the same camera as for the car park, not good.
What if I drop the OH off, so I am clocked IN,/OUT, then return in 45 mins to pick,her up, will the 2 hour rule apply, all very confusing.
Stinkfoot said:
Had this several times and have always ignored their 'demands'. They eventually stop writing but they certainly wont waste money trying to go to court over it.
Will you pay the OP's parking bill and costs if he takes your advice and it does get taken to court?After all, it's a no brainer because they "certainly won't" do that will they?
zarjaz1991 said:
Seriously, just write to Sainsburys immediately. It'll all be over within days. Forget all this "ignore it / wait for them to take you to court" nonsense. Unless you enjoy big legal fights with powerful parking management companies and a lot of stress on top.
Write to Sainsburys, right now.
This.Write to Sainsburys, right now.
I'd write to both Sainsburys and the PPC, with largely the same content. Point out that the amount invoiced is far in excess of any likely loss, and is therefore an unenforceable penalty. You don't really need to say much more than that, because in this instance you did exceed the time limit so you can't really argue that you were within the terms of the 'contract'.
Either the PPC will climb down, or Sainsburys will instruct them to do so. Then you get on with your life. Simple.
IANAL, but I have successfully taken exactly this approach with Parking Eye.
Edited by Dr Mike Oxgreen on Tuesday 30th December 10:44
silverfoxcc said:
It is not a fine. It is a speculative invoice
Get onto pepipoo.com, register, and explain the situation ( under the private parking tickets section) and do exactly as they say copy of ticket with details redacted will be required
and you will get a decision in your favour based on Genuine pre estimate of loss.
Exactly this. "Advice" on here (even from supposed lawyers) should be taken with a pinch of salt, since some of those giving said "advice" are not in fact trying to help you, even if they pretend otherwise. They like to take a "moral stand" or some such nonsense when it comes to parking restrictions and "fines", reasonable or not; getting a "fine" means you must have been "selfish" in some way and therefore you should pay. (They are less bothered about genuinely selfish behaviour like lane-hogging; it seems to be mostly about how much the "perpetrator" benefits, rather than the impact on anyone else.)Get onto pepipoo.com, register, and explain the situation ( under the private parking tickets section) and do exactly as they say copy of ticket with details redacted will be required
and you will get a decision in your favour based on Genuine pre estimate of loss.
Claims that appealing to POPLA is not worth the candle because it's a "nothing body" are particularly dangerous, and provably so. So yes, do please come back to rub it in once you've won on "genuine pre-estimate of loss" and therefore made the "ticket" go away, because we all know that victory is all the sweeter when some people (other than the opponent) don't want you to win.
It's amusing to hear somebody criticise a barrister for advising to concentrate on the only tribunal that can enforce a claim from a PPC; a court. Then in the next breath recommend an appeal to POPLA, a quasi-judicial panel of no legal standing, which sets its own rules, on a point of contract law.
By all means follow through on POPLA, but in the grand scheme of things it's a fairly irrelevant tribunal if your argument is that the charge is a penalty.
If POPLA keeps on the same lines, ruling against PPCs, they can up sticks and leave that and the BPA and join another one. Even create their own, to their own rules.
They cant do that with court, and its court who would ultimately rule on any dispute, so why waste time worrying about POPLA?
By all means follow through on POPLA, but in the grand scheme of things it's a fairly irrelevant tribunal if your argument is that the charge is a penalty.
If POPLA keeps on the same lines, ruling against PPCs, they can up sticks and leave that and the BPA and join another one. Even create their own, to their own rules.
They cant do that with court, and its court who would ultimately rule on any dispute, so why waste time worrying about POPLA?
allergictocheese said:
It's amusing to hear somebody criticise a barrister for advising to concentrate on the only tribunal that can enforce a claim from a PPC; a court. Then in the next breath recommend an appeal to POPLA, a quasi-judicial panel of no legal standing, which sets its own rules, on a point of contract law.
By all means follow through on POPLA, but in the grand scheme of things it's a fairly irrelevant tribunal if your argument is that the charge is a penalty.
If POPLA keeps on the same lines, ruling against PPCs, they can up sticks and leave that and the BPA and join another one. Even create their own, to their own rules.
They cant do that with court, and its court who would ultimately rule on any dispute, so why waste time worrying about POPLA?
Because a POPLA win makes it go away instantly. It a no-brainer because is binding on the PPC (but not the RK). So in the event of a loss at POPLA the later can still defend any court claim the PPC may bring. Ignoring is a higher risk strategy. It very much depends on which PPC you are up against. Some still do not bother with court action. PE otoh are litigious and issue claims in bulk. The number of people who cave at that point means it is is still a profitable tactic for them. By all means follow through on POPLA, but in the grand scheme of things it's a fairly irrelevant tribunal if your argument is that the charge is a penalty.
If POPLA keeps on the same lines, ruling against PPCs, they can up sticks and leave that and the BPA and join another one. Even create their own, to their own rules.
They cant do that with court, and its court who would ultimately rule on any dispute, so why waste time worrying about POPLA?
Edited by Red Devil on Thursday 1st January 20:49
GPSHead said:
They like to take a "moral stand" or some such nonsense when it comes to parking restrictions and "fines", reasonable or not; getting a "fine" means you must have been "selfish" in some way and therefore you should pay. (They are less bothered about genuinely selfish behaviour like lane-hogging; it seems to be mostly about how much the "perpetrator" benefits, rather than the impact on anyone else.)
If you have ever had the misfortune to manage a property which has a car park that people abuse, or have an allocated parking space that others park in etc you would be well aware why some people take a moral stand when it comes to these charges for parking.I had the misfortune during a one year placement at an insurance company to manage 3 properties where unauthorised parking was an issue. We spent £1,000s of pounds on all manner of enforcement including barriers, stickers etc. The reality though was that the only thing that worked was clamping, and of course that is not allowed now. But I probably spent 20% of my time just dealing with parking complaints at these 3 properties.
So I am all for parking enforcement and believe that reasonable charges of up to say £100 should be enforceable.
Chrisgr31 said:
GPSHead said:
They like to take a "moral stand" or some such nonsense when it comes to parking restrictions and "fines", reasonable or not; getting a "fine" means you must have been "selfish" in some way and therefore you should pay. (They are less bothered about genuinely selfish behaviour like lane-hogging; it seems to be mostly about how much the "perpetrator" benefits, rather than the impact on anyone else.)
If you have ever had the misfortune to manage a property which has a car park that people abuse, or have an allocated parking space that others park in etc you would be well aware why some people take a moral stand when it comes to these charges for parking.I had the misfortune during a one year placement at an insurance company to manage 3 properties where unauthorised parking was an issue. We spent £1,000s of pounds on all manner of enforcement including barriers, stickers etc. The reality though was that the only thing that worked was clamping, and of course that is not allowed now. But I probably spent 20% of my time just dealing with parking complaints at these 3 properties.
So I am all for parking enforcement and believe that reasonable charges of up to say £100 should be enforceable.
Chrisgr31 said:
GPSHead said:
They like to take a "moral stand" or some such nonsense when it comes to parking restrictions and "fines", reasonable or not; getting a "fine" means you must have been "selfish" in some way and therefore you should pay. (They are less bothered about genuinely selfish behaviour like lane-hogging; it seems to be mostly about how much the "perpetrator" benefits, rather than the impact on anyone else.)
If you have ever had the misfortune to manage a property which has a car park that people abuse, or have an allocated parking space that others park in etc you would be well aware why some people take a moral stand when it comes to these charges for parking.I had the misfortune during a one year placement at an insurance company to manage 3 properties where unauthorised parking was an issue. We spent £1,000s of pounds on all manner of enforcement including barriers, stickers etc. The reality though was that the only thing that worked was clamping, and of course that is not allowed now. But I probably spent 20% of my time just dealing with parking complaints at these 3 properties.
So I am all for parking enforcement and believe that reasonable charges of up to say £100 should be enforceable.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff