Parking fine from over a year ago…
Parking fine from over a year ago…
Author
Discussion

Muddle238

Original Poster:

4,417 posts

142 months

Monday 23rd May 2022
quotequote all
We received a Parking Charge Notice today with the PCN itself dated 18/05/2022, for an alleged parking offence dated 07/05/2021.

The parking offence itself was an overstay of free time; the car park is 2 hours as I recall, the car was there for 2.20hrs roughly, for what it’s worth.

We’ve appealed the PCN (through the parking company’s official channels) based on the grounds that we deem it unreasonable to issue a parking charge notice in excess of a year since the date of the alleged offence. It’s somewhat difficult, if not impossible to positively identify the driver from such a long time ago.

Just wondering what the PH collective reckon the odds of a successful appeal are? I’d like to have thought reasonably good, given the timeframe here, but I’m always wary of these parking companies.

Thanks

davamer23

1,158 posts

183 months

Monday 23rd May 2022
quotequote all
Over 1 year after the supposed event is in my opinion unreasonable but I can’t see why the identity of who was driving matters for a civil parking charge.

It’s not like a police authority alleged speeding offence.

Scrump

23,933 posts

187 months

Monday 23rd May 2022
quotequote all
Did it happen a year ago or did it happen on 07/05/2022 and the date is incorrect?

Muddle238

Original Poster:

4,417 posts

142 months

Monday 23rd May 2022
quotequote all
Scrump said:
Did it happen a year ago or did it happen on 07/05/2022 and the date is incorrect?
The car wasn’t used on 07/05/2022, so I assume the date is correct. No idea why it’s taken so long to issue/send out

Canon_Fodder

1,775 posts

92 months

Monday 23rd May 2022
quotequote all
Did they send photos OP?

Scrump

23,933 posts

187 months

Monday 23rd May 2022
quotequote all
Muddle238 said:
The car wasn’t used on 07/05/2022, so I assume the date is correct. No idea why it’s taken so long to issue/send out
That is really odd, hard to see how you could remember any details after such a time.

KungFuPanda

4,639 posts

199 months

Monday 23rd May 2022
quotequote all
davamer23 said:
Over 1 year after the supposed event is in my opinion unreasonable but I can’t see why the identity of who was driving matters for a civil parking charge.

It’s not like a police authority alleged speeding offence.
The parking company have up to 6 years to issue proceedings for the invoice so 1 year is nothing.

Matt_E_Mulsion

1,746 posts

94 months

Monday 23rd May 2022
quotequote all
Personally I think that it is unreasonable of them to pursue it after such a long period of time.

Muddle238

Original Poster:

4,417 posts

142 months

Monday 23rd May 2022
quotequote all
KungFuPanda said:
davamer23 said:
Over 1 year after the supposed event is in my opinion unreasonable but I can’t see why the identity of who was driving matters for a civil parking charge.

It’s not like a police authority alleged speeding offence.
The parking company have up to 6 years to issue proceedings for the invoice so 1 year is nothing.
6 years… blimey.

Muddle238

Original Poster:

4,417 posts

142 months

Monday 23rd May 2022
quotequote all
Canon_Fodder said:
Did they send photos OP?
There’s a photo of the car entering and another leaving, but the reflections on the windscreen make it impossible to see the occupants.

martinbiz

3,695 posts

174 months

Monday 23rd May 2022
quotequote all
Muddle238 said:
There’s a photo of the car entering and another leaving, but the reflections on the windscreen make it impossible to see the occupants.
Why are you getting hung up the identity of the people in the car, it’s irrelevant

martinbiz

3,695 posts

174 months

Monday 23rd May 2022
quotequote all
KungFuPanda said:
The parking company have up to 6 years to issue proceedings for the invoice so 1 year is nothing.
Do you have sources for that information

Austin_Metro

1,484 posts

77 months

Monday 23rd May 2022
quotequote all
Surely the identity of the party said to have entered into a contract is crucial to the claimant’s claim.

Austin_Metro

1,484 posts

77 months

Monday 23rd May 2022
quotequote all
martinbiz said:
Do you have cdources for that information
Under the limitation act 1980 there is a six year period from breach for claims to be brought in respect of a simple contract. A simple contract is one not made by Deed. Contracts made with the special formalities of a deed have a longer limitation period, 12 years.

martinbiz

3,695 posts

174 months

Monday 23rd May 2022
quotequote all
Austin_Metro said:
Surely the identity of the party said to have entered into a contract is crucial to the claimant’s claim.
All they can do is ascertain the keepers details which they have done

KungFuPanda

4,639 posts

199 months

Monday 23rd May 2022
quotequote all
martinbiz said:
KungFuPanda said:
The parking company have up to 6 years to issue proceedings for the invoice so 1 year is nothing.
Do you have sources for that information
Limitation Act 1980.

The private parking company are trying to enforce an invoice. The limitation period for issuing Court proceedings to seek recovery of such an invoice is 6 years.

Austin_Metro

1,484 posts

77 months

Monday 23rd May 2022
quotequote all
martinbiz said:
All they can do is ascertain the keepers details which they have done
Yes. So if they run this invoice claim to trial they have got to prove on the balance of probabilities that the person they are claiming against was the person who parked. If all of the family are insured and all visit that car park regularly, how are they going to prove who contracted with them.

Worth OP looking on parking specialist website.


martinbiz

3,695 posts

174 months

Monday 23rd May 2022
quotequote all
KungFuPanda said:
Limitation Act 1980.

The private parking company are trying to enforce an invoice. The limitation period for issuing Court proceedings to seek recovery of such an invoice is 6 years.
I meant a link

Austin_Metro

1,484 posts

77 months

Monday 23rd May 2022
quotequote all
martinbiz said:
I meant a link
Google

martinbiz

3,695 posts

174 months

Monday 23rd May 2022
quotequote all
Austin_Metro said:
Yes. So if they run this invoice claim to trial they have got to prove on the balance of probabilities that the person they are claiming against was the person who parked. If all of the family are insured and all visit that car park regularly, how are they going to prove who contracted with them.

Worth OP looking on parking specialist website.
No the pcn is for the registered keeper otherwise no one would ever need to pay a parking ticket again would they