Private Car Park fine
Discussion
Hello all,
Anyone have any experience of appealing a private car park fine?
In brief: I paid up to the evening then couldn't extend it on their app as the site didn't seem to be working. I then forgot about it for a couple of hours while I was at work. When I realised I went straight back to the car park and put the extra in, and contacted the company to pay the difference, however they said this was not possible.
I know I made a mistake but a £60 for a brief lapse which I immediately offered to put right really seems a bit over the top.
Is it just a case of writing a letter pleading for mercy or is there a better way to approach this?
I have read through Pepipoo for similar threads but since it was a mistake on my part and I'm not into playing games about forgetting who was driving etc then I thought I'd ask here.
Thanks
Anyone have any experience of appealing a private car park fine?
In brief: I paid up to the evening then couldn't extend it on their app as the site didn't seem to be working. I then forgot about it for a couple of hours while I was at work. When I realised I went straight back to the car park and put the extra in, and contacted the company to pay the difference, however they said this was not possible.
I know I made a mistake but a £60 for a brief lapse which I immediately offered to put right really seems a bit over the top.
Is it just a case of writing a letter pleading for mercy or is there a better way to approach this?
I have read through Pepipoo for similar threads but since it was a mistake on my part and I'm not into playing games about forgetting who was driving etc then I thought I'd ask here.
Thanks
Edited by JuanCarlosFandango on Thursday 14th June 13:30
CHANCES are that the PPC has holes in their case and paperwork.
Its an odds game fire out thousands of tickets and hope 20% pay.
Your options are to send a letter refuting it and ignore anything else unless they choose you as one to take to court. Unlikely but depends on the firm.
Otherwise pay it at the lower amount.
Its 80% a scam as I have yet to find an operator who has all the legal paper sorted.
Its an odds game fire out thousands of tickets and hope 20% pay.
Your options are to send a letter refuting it and ignore anything else unless they choose you as one to take to court. Unlikely but depends on the firm.
Otherwise pay it at the lower amount.
Its 80% a scam as I have yet to find an operator who has all the legal paper sorted.
JuanCarlosFandango said:
Thanks for that. It stinks but I'll probably just pay the lower amount and avoid using that company in future.
NEVER ADMIT WHO WAS DRIVING, they must rely on POPLA 2012.Well as you said to pay the fee for overstay and maybe an admin fee. In this case, there is a simple way to calculate a reasonable loss incurred.
Note private companies can't 'fine' its has to be reasonable and with pay and display there is a simple way to calculate. So £3 overstay is not £60 thats a fine!
Just know if you pay this unreasonable, you are helping them take money off vulnerable people with more unreasonable fines.
The Dangerous Elk said:
??....And if they have CCTv.....??
Can you name the company?LOL
Have you dealt with these companies none I have seen have been that switched on, its works on threatening letters and they bluff hoping you pay.
Its all ANPR they are not the police!
I have got to a POPLA appeal with PARKING EYE and their staff used an out of date land owner agreement and sent a old signage plan and photos of signs that had 'Sign removed 17/05/15 REMOVED" So you must be having a bath that you think they would track the driver down via CCTV!
Edited by surveyor_101 on Thursday 14th June 13:45
Edited by surveyor_101 on Thursday 14th June 13:46
The Dangerous Elk said:
No, I have not had a run in with them, hence my question.
The employee admin staff on peanuts its mostly a computer controlled letter printing operation.Anything that requires human intervention goes tits up for even big operators like parking eye who won the beavis case as they choose to pay a decent legal team. Its not profitable to pay anyone like that when recovering £60 or £150. There are even rumours that the Beavis case was a fraud and Beavis was a plant by Parking Eye to set a landmark case so people stopped ignoring tickets!
Its like printing lottery ticket number with a computer and hoping they get lucky.
JuanCarlosFandango said:
Probably shouldn't name the company at this stage. I haven't actually even got the ticket yet, was just told that this was the process. I'll see how it develops.
The OP needs to establish if this firm goes legal or not so naming them is fine it's not the day or carpark it's to traceable info.
ks stuff their faces.Question for the legal bods -
Say for example the driver of a car is NOT the registered keeper of the car.....
When a PPC land a target and issue out an invoice, they first must go to the DVLA (as a registered member of british parking association) to obtain the registered keeper details from the vehicle's reg plate number.
If however the individual who contravened the parking contract, as set out by the signage, is not the registered keeper, then does civil law allow the PPC to claim from the registered keeper?
Or can the registered keeper just say, "sorry dudes, I was not the individual who entered or broke your contract".
What then takes place in terms of the PPC being able to legally pursue the claim if the individual with which the contract was made has not been identified ?
Say for example the driver of a car is NOT the registered keeper of the car.....
When a PPC land a target and issue out an invoice, they first must go to the DVLA (as a registered member of british parking association) to obtain the registered keeper details from the vehicle's reg plate number.
If however the individual who contravened the parking contract, as set out by the signage, is not the registered keeper, then does civil law allow the PPC to claim from the registered keeper?
Or can the registered keeper just say, "sorry dudes, I was not the individual who entered or broke your contract".
What then takes place in terms of the PPC being able to legally pursue the claim if the individual with which the contract was made has not been identified ?
Is that the process as defined within civil law?
Happy to be corrected of course, but it seems the PPC's have a good deal of protection over the ability to pursue a person not involved in the contract.
With the protection being that the keeper is automatically liable unless they themselves also enter into contract with the PPC to aid them in their claim.
Happy to be corrected of course, but it seems the PPC's have a good deal of protection over the ability to pursue a person not involved in the contract.
With the protection being that the keeper is automatically liable unless they themselves also enter into contract with the PPC to aid them in their claim.
Atomic12C said:
Is that the process as defined within civil law?
Happy to be corrected of course, but it seems the PPC's have a good deal of protection over the ability to pursue a person not involved in the contract.
With the protection being that the keeper is automatically liable unless they themselves also enter into contract with the PPC to aid them in their claim.
Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act, 2012Happy to be corrected of course, but it seems the PPC's have a good deal of protection over the ability to pursue a person not involved in the contract.
With the protection being that the keeper is automatically liable unless they themselves also enter into contract with the PPC to aid them in their claim.
The parking contract is formed with the driver - lots of precedent that supports a sign on the wall can form a valid contract.
POFA 2012 does not obligate the keeper to name the driver, but if the driver is not identified, the keeper can be held liable for the charge if the PPC meets certain criteria. Very very few of them do, hence why it is often said "never admit to driving, or name the driver"
It is much easier to over turn a ticket on failure to comply with POFA 2012, than it is to arge the validity of the contract. Granted, many signs are so badly written that they can't forma contract, but the PPCs do not care for such detail.
I've received my first court claim in a long time from BW Legal who are representing Britannia Parking - I've already pointed out why we are not liable, including big red circles on their notice to keeper, but they have still taken the wrong path to resolve this one.
I was hoping (taunting them) that they would do this, as it proves a point and should mean they leave me alone in future.
S11Steve said:
I was hoping (taunting them) that they would do this, as it proves a point and should mean they leave me alone in future.
Good luck with it.
So it seems this sort of contract that the PPC's operate under has special protections within civil law, in that a different person than the one whom entered in to the contract can be held liable.
surveyor_101 said:
The Dangerous Elk said:
No, I have not had a run in with them, hence my question.
The employee admin staff on peanuts its mostly a computer controlled letter printing operation.Anything that requires human intervention goes tits up for even big operators like parking eye who won the beavis case as they choose to pay a decent legal team. Its not profitable to pay anyone like that when recovering £60 or £150. There are even rumours that the Beavis case was a fraud and Beavis was a plant by Parking Eye to set a landmark case so people stopped ignoring tickets!
https://onedrive.live.com/?authkey=%21AKotwyY1CWV-...
surveyor_101 said:
Its like printing lottery ticket number with a computer and hoping they get lucky.
Unless I have misunderstood your analogy, I'm willing to bet that the chances your winning the National Lottery or Euromillions are far lower than that of a PPC winning theirs. 
I would say it's more like a licence for them to print money. The percentage of successful appeals is low and even fewer are taken to adjudication.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff