Help with Parking Fines

[GolfR12]

Hi guys,

So I received a few parking fines from a private company. I tried to do the old trick (stupidly?) of returning all the letters as gone away.

I didn’t hear anything for a month or two but now I have received two letters from Gladstone Brookes Solicitors. I have not opened the letters yet but I know they are in relation to the parking fines.

Is it a bad idea to return these as ‘gone away’ too? (Expecting some stick here)

The one thing I do not want is my credit rating to be affected in any way but I also don’t want to pay what I guess will be around £400-£500 worth of parking fines.

Any advice would be much appreciated.

[bad company]

Are you sure their solicitors letters?

Gladstone Brooks are a PPI claim firm:-

https://www.gladstonebrookes.co.uk

[HD Adam]

GolfR12 said:

Hi guys,

So I received a few parking fines from a private company. I tried to do the old trick (stupidly?) of returning all the letters as gone away.

I didn’t hear anything for a month or two but now I have received two letters from Gladstone Brookes Solicitors. I have not opened the letters yet but I know they are in relation to the parking fines.

Is it a bad idea to return these as ‘gone away’ too? (Expecting some stick here)

The one thing I do not want is my credit rating to be affected in any way but I also don’t want to pay what I guess will be around £400-£500 worth of parking fines.

Any advice would be much appreciated.

Quoted for posterity.

[GolfR12]

bad company said:

Are you sure their solicitors letters?

Gladstone Brooks are a PPI claim firm:-

https://www.gladstonebrookes.co.uk

Yes they also deal with parking fines.

http://www.parkingcowboys.co.uk/gladstones-solicit...

Apologies, I meant Gladstones Solicitors!

[bad company]

If you send the letters back ‘gone away’ there’s a chance they may cut their losses and go away. On the other hand if there’s several tickets they may well decide to check.

Do you feel lucky?

[HannsG]

Send either a letter or email with EXACTLY the same blurb below. Nothing more or less...

My parking fine by these cowboys was rescinded within one hour.

"I am appealing as the keeper and ONLY Schedule 4 of the POFA (or evidence of who was driving) can cause a keeper appellant to be deemed to be the liable party. The PCN makes no attempt to pass liability to the keeper after 28 days. A vehicle can be driven by any person (with the consent of the owner) as long as the driver is insured.

There is no dispute that the driver was entitled to drive the car and I can confirm that they were, but I am exercising my right not to name that person. As the keeper of the vehicle, it is my right to choose not to name the driver, yet still not be lawfully held liable if an operator is not using or complying with Schedule 4.

This exact finding was made in 6061796103 against ParkingEye in September 2016, where POPLA Assessor Carly Law found: ''I note the operator advises that it is not attempting to transfer the liability for the charge using the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and so in mind, the operator continues to hold the driver responsible. As such, I must first consider whether I am confident that I know who the driver is, based on the evidence received. After considering the evidence, I am unable to confirm that the appellant is in fact the driver. As such, I must allow the appeal on the basis that the operator has failed to demonstrate that the appellant is the driver and therefore liable for the charge. As I am allowing the appeal on this basis, I do not need to consider the other grounds of appeal raised by the appellant. Accordingly, I must allow this appeal.''

[bad company]

Op, how did you manage to accumulate a number of parking charges (not fines) from the same place?

[Hol]

bad company said:

Op, how did you manage to accumulate a number of parking charges (not fines) from the same place?

A series of genuinely innocent mistakes??

[anonymous-user]

Hol said:

bad company said:

Op, how did you manage to accumulate a number of parking charges (not fines) from the same place?

A series of genuinely innocent mistakes??

Or just a selfish ignorant twit ?

[a.lex]

HannsG said:

Send either a letter or email with EXACTLY the same blurb below. Nothing more or less...

My parking fine by these cowboys was rescinded within one hour.

"I am appealing as the keeper and ONLY Schedule 4 of the POFA (or evidence of who was driving) can cause a keeper appellant to be deemed to be the liable party. The PCN makes no attempt to pass liability to the keeper after 28 days. A vehicle can be driven by any person (with the consent of the owner) as long as the driver is insured.

There is no dispute that the driver was entitled to drive the car and I can confirm that they were, but I am exercising my right not to name that person. As the keeper of the vehicle, it is my right to choose not to name the driver, yet still not be lawfully held liable if an operator is not using or complying with Schedule 4.

This exact finding was made in 6061796103 against ParkingEye in September 2016, where POPLA Assessor Carly Law found: ''I note the operator advises that it is not attempting to transfer the liability for the charge using the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and so in mind, the operator continues to hold the driver responsible. As such, I must first consider whether I am confident that I know who the driver is, based on the evidence received. After considering the evidence, I am unable to confirm that the appellant is in fact the driver. As such, I must allow the appeal on the basis that the operator has failed to demonstrate that the appellant is the driver and therefore liable for the charge. As I am allowing the appeal on this basis, I do not need to consider the other grounds of appeal raised by the appellant. Accordingly, I must allow this appeal.''

Which cowboys? We don't know what the PCNs said, so we don't know if they complied with Schedule 4, nor do we know which PPC is involved. What you have advised the OP to send (to whom?) is template nonsense.

Ignoring private parking tickets is one option (no comment on the attempted subterfuge), but, depending on the PPC involved, could see some opportunities lost. At the end of the day, you can ignore everything except a county court claim form and have your day in court if that's what you want. By racking up multiple tickets you automatically make yourself a juicy target (even if the tickets were unfounded).

[Dolf Stoppard]

Lots of threads on the internet referring to the ParkingEye case. But as explained above, trying to use it to get out of a situation when it might not have any relevance is not the best idea.

The OP needs to explain why he thinks he should not be liable for the fines. Did he not commit the offence? Was the restriction not properly signposted. The defence then follows.

And not wanting to pay it or saying it's just not fair are not suitable defences...

[bad company]

The op seems to become strangely silent since questions were asked about how the charges were incurred.

Op . . . . .

[Red Devil]

GolfR12 said:

So I received a few parking fines from a private company. I tried to do the old trick (stupidly?) of returning all the letters as gone away.

Ignoring has not been a sensible idea since PoFA 2012 came in. Unless you are intending from the outset to await a county court claim.
Using 'gone away' as a tactic is even dafter if it's not true and you are resident at the address on the V5C. How is that going to look to a judge?

The normal MO is for Gladstones to farm out the case to another firm (who will often use a paralegal) to appear in court.
They seldom sully themselves with such trivia. They also get paid by the PPC.win or lose so they have little incentive to the job properly.
They use a 'roboclaim' claim approach which often results in a poorly put together bundle. Not that they care as most people bend over rather than defend.

GolfR12 said:

Is it a bad idea to return these as ‘gone away’ too? (Expecting some stick here)

See above.

GolfR12 said:

The one thing I do not want is my credit rating to be affected in any way but I also don’t want to pay what I guess will be around £400-£500 worth of parking fines.

The only way your credit rating will be affected is if you are taken to court, lose, fail to pay, and get a CCJ against you.
The latter will certainly happen if you ignore court papers though as the creditor will obtain judgement by default..

GolfR12 said:

Any advice would be much appreciated

There is so much relevant information missing that it is impossible to give you any practical help.
For example location (e.g. a retail car park or residential property) and especially any signage.(this can be crucial).
My advice is you should be looking elsewhere than on here anyway, as the signal to noise ratio usually deteriorates.

Another reason for doing so is your approach to date. You need to strategise otherwise you'll end up in d-i-y grave of your own devising.
If you have a particular nasty medical condition it's usually better to be seen by a specialist rather than your GP. This is no different.


.

.

[anonymous-user]

Returning marked gone away when you haven’t is bonkers. A bare faced lie that a judge (if it comes to that) will take into account

Pepipoo is still the place to go for informal advice, but you need to provide all the details to get advice that you are going to rely on

[S11Steve]

I'll hazard a guess that it is for parking in his own space at his own residence, and a predatory company is abusing the legal process in an attempt to extort money from the OP.

Easier to challenge before it gets too this stage, but Gladstones are utterly incompetent and easy to tie up in knots.

I can be contacted via PM should the OP need a bit of guidance on it.

[Red Devil]

Likewise MSE.. Some contributors are common to both (n.b. usernames are not necessarily the same).
Before landing on either site I suggest doing some homework first.
A very helpful walk-through of the processes/procedures can be found here.

[Gavia]

S11Steve said:

I'll hazard a guess that it is for parking in his own space at his own residence, and a predatory company is abusing the legal process in an attempt to extort money from the OP.

Easier to challenge before it gets too this stage, but Gladstones are utterly incompetent and easy to tie up in knots.

I can be contacted via PM should the OP need a bit of guidance on it.

Why would he ignore them and then send them fake “gone away” letters if that was the case?

Instead I’ll hazard a guess that he’s parking in a retail car park to avoid paying parking charges elsewhere.

[S11Steve]

Gavia said:

Why would he ignore them and then send them fake “gone away” letters if that was the case?

Instead I’ll hazard a guess that he’s parking in a retail car park to avoid paying parking charges elsewhere.

There's still a common misconception that these tickets can be ignored and are unenforceable.

[Gavia]

S11Steve said:

There's still a common misconception that these tickets can be ignored and are unenforceable.

My point was asking why you believe it’s his parking space at his home that he’s receiving these for.

[bad company]

Gavia said:

S11Steve said:

There's still a common misconception that these tickets can be ignored and are unenforceable.

My point was asking why you believe it’s his parking space at his home that he’s receiving these for.

Only the op knows the answer and he’s gone AWOL.