Probably been asked a thousand times.....parking ticket woe!
Discussion
Received an invite to send £75 to some delightful company in Liverpool for the 'crime' of parking for just over three hours on a retail park recently! 
(Apparantly the signs limit you to three hours and her car was there for 3hrs and 13mins!)
It's addressed to my wife who wasn't driving. Where do we stand?
(Apparantly the signs limit you to three hours and her car was there for 3hrs and 13mins!)It's addressed to my wife who wasn't driving. Where do we stand?
So long as it's not council or Police just ignore it.
It's an invoice from a greedy company to the registered keeper regarding a contract that he/she didn't enter into.
The registered keeper doesn't know who was driving the vehicle that day either does he/she.
You'll get a few letters but eventually they'll go away.
DO NOT APPEAL. To do so admits that a parking infringement actually happened.
Google/Youtube Parking Eye.
If she's getting stressed and wants to reply PM me and I'll send you a copy of a letter that gets rid of them.
It's an invoice from a greedy company to the registered keeper regarding a contract that he/she didn't enter into.
The registered keeper doesn't know who was driving the vehicle that day either does he/she.
You'll get a few letters but eventually they'll go away.
DO NOT APPEAL. To do so admits that a parking infringement actually happened.
Google/Youtube Parking Eye.
If she's getting stressed and wants to reply PM me and I'll send you a copy of a letter that gets rid of them.
Edited by B17NNS on Friday 26th October 23:40
g3org3y said:
Before you ignore, do a search over on the SP&L forum. Iirc, the laws re these type of tickets have changed since Oct 1st giving ticket companies more powers to chase fines.
I've tried searching to no avail. So what specifically changed? After half an hours frantic googling, the overwhelming advice is to chuck it in the bin whilst cackling like a madman!But that was before October 1st....
www.pepipoo.com - look on their 'private parking' forum.
The 'private parking companies' now have no more right to be punitive than before October 1st (what are their actual losses??? clue: not £90 or whatever they state. [See Ibbotson vs VCS for a taster!!! although £2.50 for their obtaining the registered keeper's details is allowed, plus a notional admin cost it's not £90 in total or whatever they are asking/asserting
!]
Although they might like one to think (and they state) that the 'law' has changed from October 1st and that one MUST pay up, the only apparent change is a ban on clamping by them...
Cue the expected flaming from a couple of the usual suspects
.
The 'private parking companies' now have no more right to be punitive than before October 1st (what are their actual losses??? clue: not £90 or whatever they state. [See Ibbotson vs VCS for a taster!!! although £2.50 for their obtaining the registered keeper's details is allowed, plus a notional admin cost it's not £90 in total or whatever they are asking/asserting
!] Although they might like one to think (and they state) that the 'law' has changed from October 1st and that one MUST pay up, the only apparent change is a ban on clamping by them...
Cue the expected flaming from a couple of the usual suspects
.aw51 121565 said:
www.pepipoo.com - look on their 'private parking' forum.
The 'private parking companies' now have no more right to be punitive than before October 1st (what are their actual losses??? clue: not £90 or whatever they state. [See Ibbotson vs VCS for a taster!!! although £2.50 for their obtaining the registered keeper's details is allowed, plus a notional admin cost it's not £90 in total or whatever they are asking/asserting !]
Although they might like one to think (and they state) that the 'law' has changed from October 1st and that one MUST pay up, the only apparent change is a ban on clamping by them...
Cue the expected flaming from a couple of the usual suspects .
Thanks mate.....Pepipoo looks like a good source of info.The 'private parking companies' now have no more right to be punitive than before October 1st (what are their actual losses??? clue: not £90 or whatever they state. [See Ibbotson vs VCS for a taster!!! although £2.50 for their obtaining the registered keeper's details is allowed, plus a notional admin cost it's not £90 in total or whatever they are asking/asserting
!] Although they might like one to think (and they state) that the 'law' has changed from October 1st and that one MUST pay up, the only apparent change is a ban on clamping by them...
Cue the expected flaming from a couple of the usual suspects
.aw51 121565 said:
www.pepipoo.com - look on their 'private parking' forum.
The 'private parking companies' now have no more right to be punitive than before October 1st (what are their actual losses??? clue: not £90 or whatever they state. [See Ibbotson vs VCS for a taster!!! although £2.50 for their obtaining the registered keeper's details is allowed, plus a notional admin cost it's not £90 in total or whatever they are asking/asserting !]
Although they might like one to think (and they state) that the 'law' has changed from October 1st and that one MUST pay up, the only apparent change is a ban on clamping by them...
Cue the expected flaming from a couple of the usual suspects .
I'm not one of the usual suspects The 'private parking companies' now have no more right to be punitive than before October 1st (what are their actual losses??? clue: not £90 or whatever they state. [See Ibbotson vs VCS for a taster!!! although £2.50 for their obtaining the registered keeper's details is allowed, plus a notional admin cost it's not £90 in total or whatever they are asking/asserting
!] Although they might like one to think (and they state) that the 'law' has changed from October 1st and that one MUST pay up, the only apparent change is a ban on clamping by them...
Cue the expected flaming from a couple of the usual suspects
.
I'm certainly no expert either but until there's been a few court cases I'm not gonna be so quick to bin these things like I have done many times in the past. People are saying that they can only claim minimal admin fees etc, well my bank charges about 30 quid a letter I believe so it won't take long for any starting price to escalate. But I don't know how it's going to unfold in future months, what I do see is a lot of speculation with very little evidence to persuade me that getting a ticket is still nothing to be concerned about. The original argument was that the contract was with the driver and not the keeper The alw now says the parking company can sue the driver.
The agruments now put forward are
1) the charges are penalties
2) the parking company has no right to sue for tresspass or enter into contracts for the landowner and sue for breach of cotnract
The agruments now put forward are
1) the charges are penalties
2) the parking company has no right to sue for tresspass or enter into contracts for the landowner and sue for breach of cotnract
Mojooo said:
The original argument was that the contract was with the driver and not the keeper The law now says the parking company can sue the driver.
The agruments now put forward are
1) the charges are penalties
2) the parking company has no right to sue for tresspass or enter into contracts for the landowner and sue for breach of cotnract
Surely you mean registered keeper?The agruments now put forward are
1) the charges are penalties
2) the parking company has no right to sue for tresspass or enter into contracts for the landowner and sue for breach of cotnract
Did you actually shop at any of the shops? If so it might be worth showing the stores you spent money in, the ticket and seeing if they'll do the job of getting waived for you. If you've kept the receipts it will help.
The same happened to a mate of mine at Xmas last year. Spent hundreds on presents only to come back to his car with a parking invoice because he had gone over the 3hr limit. I think I would have asked the store to waive it and if they didn't, I would have been tempted to take all the stuff back.
The same happened to a mate of mine at Xmas last year. Spent hundreds on presents only to come back to his car with a parking invoice because he had gone over the 3hr limit. I think I would have asked the store to waive it and if they didn't, I would have been tempted to take all the stuff back.
TheTurbonator said:
If so it might be worth showing the stores you spent money in, the ticket and seeing if they'll do the job of getting waived for.
Do not engage in conversation with them with a view to appealing. Your appeal will not only not be successful but you are also admitting guilt.B17NNS said:
TheTurbonator said:
If so it might be worth showing the stores you spent money in, the ticket and seeing if they'll do the job of getting waived for.
Do not engage in conversation with them with a view to appealing. Your appeal will not only not be successful but you are also admitting guilt.At what point did I tell the OP to personally engage in conversation with the parking company?
Cheers guys. Yeh, I wondered if I get in touch to appeal I am gonna open the floodgates to all manner of threatening letters. I'm just gonna sit on it I think..
Here is the letter and the signage at the scene of 'the incident'!
Any legal experts on here?
I doubt the stores would have any influence at all to waive the charge.....I work on the railway and we have no say in what goes on in the car parks at the stations. It's all managed by another outfit.
Here is the letter and the signage at the scene of 'the incident'!
Any legal experts on here?
I doubt the stores would have any influence at all to waive the charge.....I work on the railway and we have no say in what goes on in the car parks at the stations. It's all managed by another outfit.
I am certainly no expert so please don't take this as gospel, but I thought now the laws/rules have changed they are supposed to contact the registered keeper asking who was driving on the date/time of the parking offence. Then if the registered keeper does not respond within 28 days then they could pursue the registered keeper.
The letter you've received just seems like the usual nonsense they have always sent. I personally would ignore that, at least for the time being, & see what happens next. I'm not saying you should ignore it, I'm saying I would ignore it
The letter you've received just seems like the usual nonsense they have always sent. I personally would ignore that, at least for the time being, & see what happens next. I'm not saying you should ignore it, I'm saying I would ignore it
Firstly, ignore what you read on pepipoo. Much of it is misinformed.
I am assuming your wife is the RK.
As the RK, she could be liable to CEL for money owed to it by the driver. She cannot be liable if the driver does not owe CEL any money.
The driver can only owe CEL money if he has :-
a) agreed to pay £150 to park at the car park,
b) agreed not to park for longer than three hours and the £150 is an agreed sum for damages for breaching the agreement,
c) the driver has agreed to pay £150 in damages for trespass.
The purported agreement is based on the driver having read or ought to having read the sign and then parking the car.
The wording of the sign, on the face of it, looks like an offer to park for upto three hours for free and longer than three hours in return for payment of £150. If that is the case the driver cannot argue the amount claimed is too much.
If it is the case that the driver is liable to CEL for payment of £150 then your wife is only liable pursuant to the new legislation if CEL has followed the statutory procedure.
The letter sent to your wife does not appear to comply with the statutory requirements. It doesn't refer to either the driver or the keeper. It doesn't request the identity of the driver. It simply makes a general demand for payment.
Can you rescan so the small print at the bottom is legible?
I am assuming your wife is the RK.
As the RK, she could be liable to CEL for money owed to it by the driver. She cannot be liable if the driver does not owe CEL any money.
The driver can only owe CEL money if he has :-
a) agreed to pay £150 to park at the car park,
b) agreed not to park for longer than three hours and the £150 is an agreed sum for damages for breaching the agreement,
c) the driver has agreed to pay £150 in damages for trespass.
The purported agreement is based on the driver having read or ought to having read the sign and then parking the car.
The wording of the sign, on the face of it, looks like an offer to park for upto three hours for free and longer than three hours in return for payment of £150. If that is the case the driver cannot argue the amount claimed is too much.
If it is the case that the driver is liable to CEL for payment of £150 then your wife is only liable pursuant to the new legislation if CEL has followed the statutory procedure.
The letter sent to your wife does not appear to comply with the statutory requirements. It doesn't refer to either the driver or the keeper. It doesn't request the identity of the driver. It simply makes a general demand for payment.
Can you rescan so the small print at the bottom is legible?
Edited by Zeeky on Saturday 27th October 19:47
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff