Parking fine despite paying twice ?
Discussion
Parked in Altrincham to go for a meal a couple of weeks back, get a fine through the post from "Smart Parking".
I paid £1.80 for three hours form about six pm, and then realized it would be longer, went back after less than two hours and paid for another four hours which was £2.80.
Then get a fine saying I had gone over my time, are their systems really not that clever ?
I have sent them a letter with the details and a print of my bank statement clearly showing the two charges.
I dont feel inclined to give them £100 when I paid over the odds and diligently went back to ensure this didnt happen.
Can I fight it, £100 is one thing but its more the principle, you cant actually ring them to discuss it by the looks of it.
I paid £1.80 for three hours form about six pm, and then realized it would be longer, went back after less than two hours and paid for another four hours which was £2.80.
Then get a fine saying I had gone over my time, are their systems really not that clever ?
I have sent them a letter with the details and a print of my bank statement clearly showing the two charges.
I dont feel inclined to give them £100 when I paid over the odds and diligently went back to ensure this didnt happen.
Can I fight it, £100 is one thing but its more the principle, you cant actually ring them to discuss it by the looks of it.
with the evidence you have you will probably be fine. they would have a hard time arguing against you.
Systems are a bit s
t / weighted in favour of the parking company.
Had varying success appealing these things.
My wife had parked, paid and then taken the ticket with her rather than go back to the car. It was a dark car park, she was by herself and had to go to a different lever to get the ticket in the first place and didnt want to go back by herself. Despite showing them the ticked they wouldnt let the fine go because the ticket wasnt in the windscreen.
Her dad got done in the same car park because despite clearly displaying the ticket he had keyed in his number plate 1 character wrong when buying it (not wearing his glasses) and they wouldnt let that go either.
On the other hand ive had one where I went into a car park, went into shop for 10 mins drove home. found thing I bought was the wrong one, had lunch etc then went back to exchange for the right one, again about 10 mins in the shop and parked. Their stupid system only remembered my car entering for the first time and leaving the second time so they sent me a fine saying I had been there for about 4 hours. An explanation and showing them my initial purchase and refund/exchange receipt to back it up got that one cancelled.
Systems are a bit s
t / weighted in favour of the parking company.Had varying success appealing these things.
My wife had parked, paid and then taken the ticket with her rather than go back to the car. It was a dark car park, she was by herself and had to go to a different lever to get the ticket in the first place and didnt want to go back by herself. Despite showing them the ticked they wouldnt let the fine go because the ticket wasnt in the windscreen.
Her dad got done in the same car park because despite clearly displaying the ticket he had keyed in his number plate 1 character wrong when buying it (not wearing his glasses) and they wouldnt let that go either.
On the other hand ive had one where I went into a car park, went into shop for 10 mins drove home. found thing I bought was the wrong one, had lunch etc then went back to exchange for the right one, again about 10 mins in the shop and parked. Their stupid system only remembered my car entering for the first time and leaving the second time so they sent me a fine saying I had been there for about 4 hours. An explanation and showing them my initial purchase and refund/exchange receipt to back it up got that one cancelled.
carl_w said:
Have you exceeded the maximum parking time at that location? Short stay car parks will often have a maximum time of 4 hours and something like no return within 30 minutes to stop people doing exactly what you have done.
This. You will probably have been deemed to have returned within an unalloyed time frame.carl_w said:
Looking at the prices is it because you have paid £1.80 for 3 hours + £2.80 for 4 hours = £5.60 when the price of 7 hours is £5.80?
I'd like to understand more about this 7 hour meal though
Wasn't seven hours, just paid it then thought going to be longer and just paid that without thinking too much about it.I'd like to understand more about this 7 hour meal though
Was in there from 17.21 to 21.51 according to the letter.
Went back to it and paid again after maybe two hours.
Seems to be geared as a trap judging by the reviews.
J4CKO said:
Wasn't seven hours, just paid it then thought going to be longer and just paid that without thinking too much about it.
Was in there from 17.21 to 21.51 according to the letter.
So 4.5 hours. Probably best to appeal and point out that you've paid more than the 5 hour rate would have been so they have not suffered any loss.Was in there from 17.21 to 21.51 according to the letter.
If there is a clause on the signs or on the ticket about not extending it you could be stuffed, but it's got to be worth an appeal I would have thought?
If its like the Sainsbury's run CP in Bicester ( handy for the cinema ) 3 hours is the maximum and no topping up allowed ie you can only park there for less than 3 hours so topping up I imagine is probably considered academic as the computer just says no.
Deffo worth the time of an polite but firm email though !
Deffo worth the time of an polite but firm email though !
Pica-Pica said:
This. You will probably have been deemed to have returned within an unalloyed time frame.
Yes, but to sue you they must prove that they have lost money - hard to argue when he's paid them.I'd respond back with evidence you'd paid and tell them you won't entertain paying anything further.
I often wonder how often these companies actually bother going to the trouble of court. They just keep threatening and then eventually give up if there threats don’t get there.
Surely the better business model is threaten everybody and if 75% pay up just be happy. If you start having to engage lawyers etc and court time/cost then surely the returns become less time/cost efficient.
I for one if I genuinely thought I was in the right would result in one letter to them explaining that I believe I am in the right because of xyz, I will not engage in any further correspondence with them and look forward to presenting my evidence in court.
If I lose I lose but at least I could live happy with myself having had my point put forward. Better than just capitulating because they keep threatening.
Surely the better business model is threaten everybody and if 75% pay up just be happy. If you start having to engage lawyers etc and court time/cost then surely the returns become less time/cost efficient.
I for one if I genuinely thought I was in the right would result in one letter to them explaining that I believe I am in the right because of xyz, I will not engage in any further correspondence with them and look forward to presenting my evidence in court.
If I lose I lose but at least I could live happy with myself having had my point put forward. Better than just capitulating because they keep threatening.
carl_w said:
J4CKO said:
Wasn't seven hours, just paid it then thought going to be longer and just paid that without thinking too much about it.
Was in there from 17.21 to 21.51 according to the letter.
So 4.5 hours. Probably best to appeal and point out that you've paid more than the 5 hour rate would have been so they have not suffered any loss.Was in there from 17.21 to 21.51 according to the letter.
If there is a clause on the signs or on the ticket about not extending it you could be stuffed, but it's got to be worth an appeal I would have thought?
If you offer to cover the additional admin cost of their letters to you you may sway them.
Even if the OP had gone over the maximum allowed time, wouldn't the parking company have to demonstrate a loss in order to claim against the OP? Seeing as they'd paid for the parking space and weren't otherwise depriving the parking company of a fee from another driver, I'm not sure the parking company suffered any loss.
(except, presumably the reason for a maximum stay policy is to avoid getting a reputation that spaces never come available in the car park, but that seems tenuous)
(except, presumably the reason for a maximum stay policy is to avoid getting a reputation that spaces never come available in the car park, but that seems tenuous)
Cyberprog said:
Pica-Pica said:
This. You will probably have been deemed to have returned within an unalloyed time frame.
Yes, but to sue you they must prove that they have lost money - hard to argue when he's paid them.I'd respond back with evidence you'd paid and tell them you won't entertain paying anything further.
@OP, get yourself to Pepipoo/Moneysavingexpert for some proper advice. I'd tend to agree that you've more than paid for your time, but it's best to arm yourself with as many lines of defence as you can - Smart parking are likely to be unsympathetic. If by chance they have something in their T&C's about not extending your ticket, you'll be wanting to look at other things that make their ticket unenforceable.
spikyone said:
The bold part is not correct. It's a long time since they could only sue for losses, Google the Beavis case and its implications.
@OP, get yourself to Pepipoo/Moneysavingexpert for some proper advice. I'd tend to agree that you've more than paid for your time, but it's best to arm yourself with as many lines of defence as you can - Smart parking are likely to be unsympathetic. If by chance they have something in their T&C's about not extending your ticket, you'll be wanting to look at other things that make their ticket unenforceable.
Need to go back and read what it says in the car park. If you parked in accordance with the terms, just write back, tell them. If they write again, tell them again and say you won't engage further.@OP, get yourself to Pepipoo/Moneysavingexpert for some proper advice. I'd tend to agree that you've more than paid for your time, but it's best to arm yourself with as many lines of defence as you can - Smart parking are likely to be unsympathetic. If by chance they have something in their T&C's about not extending your ticket, you'll be wanting to look at other things that make their ticket unenforceable.
over_the_hill said:
carl_w said:
Looking at the prices is it because you have paid £1.80 for 3 hours + £2.80 for 4 hours = £5.60 when the price of 7 hours is £5.80?
I'd like to understand more about this 7 hour meal though
or even more bizarrely do 3 lots of three hours for 9 hours @ £5.40 totalI'd like to understand more about this 7 hour meal though
Of course, whether this is explained on the signage or ticket is another question entirely.
As others have said, worth appealing but I don't think it's as cut and dry as a lot of posters think.
MB140 said:
I often wonder how often these companies actually bother going to the trouble of court. They just keep threatening and then eventually give up if there threats don’t get there.
Apparently the latest trick it to leave it almost 6 yrs (the time limit for these things) then write to you and hope you've moved so don't get the letter. They then take action and win by default. First you know is you apply for a mortgage and it gets refused due to an open CCJ. Then people can't pay them fast enough.Sheepshanks
That is a well known tactic. The advice is to write and advise them of a new address and keep a copy of gthe letter. also DO NOT send it by Recorded or Reg post as they can officially refuse it. Always get proof of posting from the Post Office and keep it safe. It is deemed to have been deilvered on the second working day ( sat sun BH not included)
Dealing with an NCP 'we want money' letter for someone else. Parked on Dec 26 To invoke RK liability they have to inform RK by post by day 14 (Like the police is is a straight 14 days) so day 1 is 27 Dec therefore day 14 was Jan 9 Their letter was dated 7th Jan a Friday, therefore the letter was deemed to have arrived on the Tuesday the 11th so 2 days outside the limit, in fact it was delivered on the 13th although there is no proof of Therefore They csnnot chase the RK, only the driver, and as there RK is under no obligation to name and shame,they exercised their right no to to so. NCP now stuffed. and will have to issue a POPLA code which will cost them 30.00. Also the perking was on premises covered by by laws in POFA 2012 talk 'non relevant land' and only the driver can be chased Again they dont know. so never admit to a PPC swho was behind the wheel either by nsme of inference. Do not put My wifr,my son the neighbour etc.It is always THE DRIVER did this. THE DRIVER saw that
Put it on pepipoo for more advice.
That is a well known tactic. The advice is to write and advise them of a new address and keep a copy of gthe letter. also DO NOT send it by Recorded or Reg post as they can officially refuse it. Always get proof of posting from the Post Office and keep it safe. It is deemed to have been deilvered on the second working day ( sat sun BH not included)
Dealing with an NCP 'we want money' letter for someone else. Parked on Dec 26 To invoke RK liability they have to inform RK by post by day 14 (Like the police is is a straight 14 days) so day 1 is 27 Dec therefore day 14 was Jan 9 Their letter was dated 7th Jan a Friday, therefore the letter was deemed to have arrived on the Tuesday the 11th so 2 days outside the limit, in fact it was delivered on the 13th although there is no proof of Therefore They csnnot chase the RK, only the driver, and as there RK is under no obligation to name and shame,they exercised their right no to to so. NCP now stuffed. and will have to issue a POPLA code which will cost them 30.00. Also the perking was on premises covered by by laws in POFA 2012 talk 'non relevant land' and only the driver can be chased Again they dont know. so never admit to a PPC swho was behind the wheel either by nsme of inference. Do not put My wifr,my son the neighbour etc.It is always THE DRIVER did this. THE DRIVER saw that
Put it on pepipoo for more advice.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff