Private parking offences

[supermono]

There's been mention before about getting a demand through the post for parking contrary to some private regulations that may or may not be displayed (2 hours at Tesco, 20 minutes at BP Gatwick, etc)

Just for absolute clarity, where does the registered keeper stand?

If I had a demand from, say, BP's agent for 100 quid because my car had been parked contrary to their regulations a week ago, who is liable for the fine? Me as the RK or the person who parked it there? And if I didn't know or chose not to disclose (to this private company) who parked it there, would I as the RK be liable? Would this be upheld in court?

SM

[Dwight VanDriver]

Such parking is a civil matter between owners of land and the parker and it would seem, a contract is formed between the two parties provided there are adequate Notices displayed.

There is a concensus of opinion in such cases the contract is between the person parking and land owner and not the Reg Keeper. So, unless the Landowner can identify the driver, then he has no recourse against the Reg. Keeper. Neither as far as I am aware, is there any law that requires the Keeper to identify the driver to the Landowner.

Civil law is no way my forte and I may well be coming up for the third time on this one. Far superior qualifications, brains and knowledge than mine abound here and I for one would like to know the definitive answer.

dvd

[justinp1]

Dwight VanDriver said:

Such parking is a civil matter between owners of land and the parker and it would seem, a contract is formed between the two parties provided there are adequate Notices displayed.

There is a concensus of opinion in such cases the contract is between the person parking and land owner and not the Reg Keeper. So, unless the Landowner can identify the driver, then he has no recourse against the Reg. Keeper. Neither as far as I am aware, is there any law that requires the Keeper to identify the driver to the Landowner.

Civil law is no way my forte and I may well be coming up for the third time on this one. Far superior qualifications, brains and knowledge than mine abound here and I for one would like to know the definitive answer.

dvd

Dwight is quite correct.

In contract law, there must be what is called 'consideration' whereby the factors of the contract can be understood by both parties before acceptance. In this example they would usually put a sign up somewhere.

There are two problems with this:

1) The sign must be in a place where it would be reasonably visable to someone parking. Otherwise, how can they see it and agree to the terms? Secondly the 'contract' must be presented to them before they enter into it. For example, it is no good getting someone to enter into the contract and only giving them parts of the contract afterwards. An example of this may be no signs at the car park or in the shop, but the sign is displayed in the toilets.

2) It is a fundamental concept of contract law that you can only be held liable tp contracts you are party to. For example if person A owns a car, and person B borrows it for the day to park on a car park, take it to a car wash, drive around a race track etc, all of those contracts are entered into by person B - person A as the owner has never seen or considered any of these contracts and therefore has nothing to do with them.

So, put simply, the evidence BP would have is as weak as this: They have witnessed a vehicle with the same registration number as one you own park on their property.

If you were to ignore their letters and they were to take this case to its logical conclusion, they would have to prove in court that *you* had entered into a contract with them. If you can happily stateon oath you were somewhere else, or even better you can prove it, then thats the end of the case.

I know of no law which forces an individual to give the information of the whereabouts of another private individual to the third party. So, why should you say who parked there, if you dont have to? All you know is its not you!

However, this assumes that it gets that far. for £100 it probably wont - as the companies know the above and simply isnt worth following up as eventually they will lose.

[supermono]

justinp1 said:

If you can happily stateon oath you were somewhere else

That's a bit worrying though isn't it? I would have to prove to them, to the court's satisfaction that I'm innocent? How would this even get to court if they only have a case against what appears to be a car registered to me?

SM

[esselte]

supermono said:

justinp1 said:

If you can happily stateon oath you were somewhere else

That's a bit worrying though isn't it? I would have to prove to them, to the court's satisfaction that I'm innocent? How would this even get to court if they only have a case against what appears to be a car registered to me?

SM

Surely if you state under oath that you weren't there then that's OK? Wouldn't they have to prove otherwise?As Justin said would Tesco or whoever take this to court if you didn't roll over for them?

Edited by esselte on Wednesday 29th November 11:53

[jasandjules]

esselte said:

Surely if you state under oath that you weren't there then that's OK? Wouldn't they have to prove otherwise?As Justin said would Tesco or whoever take this to court if you didn't roll over for them?

You don't have to prove you were not there, they have to prove you were. Simple rule of law. If you state something, the burden of proof is on you (in civil suits that is).

And no, it is pretty unlikely they will take you to court. Even if they have a photo of the driver, the only detail they can get from the DVLA is the registered keeper and there is no duty on the registered keeper to provide a third party with any information as to who was driving.

[justinp1]

jasandjules said:

esselte said:

Surely if you state under oath that you weren't there then that's OK? Wouldn't they have to prove otherwise?As Justin said would Tesco or whoever take this to court if you didn't roll over for them?

You don't have to prove you were not there, they have to prove you were. Simple rule of law. If you state something, the burden of proof is on you (in civil suits that is).

And no, it is pretty unlikely they will take you to court. Even if they have a photo of the driver, the only detail they can get from the DVLA is the registered keeper and there is no duty on the registered keeper to provide a third party with any information as to who was driving.

Exactly. If you state you were not there, they would in effect have to call you a liar, and prove it!

[superlightr]

Its all well and good in principle but when you are in front of a magistrate with the Enforcing compnay (EC)

With the EC saying they wrote asked who was driving and you refused to help, they beleive it was you as its your car, what will the magistrate think? Are you being helpful in helping the EC find out who was driving or are you messing around?

Its on a simple who is more beleiveable 51/49 is all is needed balance of probabilities.

I would suggest that if you dont help the EC in their correspondence before court then it may goes against you and you wont be beleived in court.

[zumbruk]

IME, simply telling BP (or Tesco, or whoever) that you will never, ever, do business with them ever again, and that you will tell your friends, family and colleagues to do likewise as well as publicising the matter on the Internet will make them back down. You may get a snotty letter asking you not to do it again, but that's all.

[esselte]

superlightr said:

Its all well and good in principle but when you are in front of a magistrate with the Enforcing compnay (EC)

With the EC saying they wrote asked who was driving and you refused to help, they beleive it was you as its your car, what will the magistrate think? Are you being helpful in helping the EC find out who was driving or are you messing around?

Its on a simple who is more beleiveable 51/49 is all is needed balance of probabilities.

I would suggest that if you dont help the EC in their correspondence before court then it may goes against you and you wont be beleived in court.

If you have proof you were somewhere else then it's up to Tesco (or whoever) to show you are lying.Why should you put your hands up for something you didn't do?

[justinp1]

superlightr said:

Its all well and good in principle but when you are in front of a magistrate with the Enforcing compnay (EC)

With the EC saying they wrote asked who was driving and you refused to help, they beleive it was you as its your car, what will the magistrate think? Are you being helpful in helping the EC find out who was driving or are you messing around?

Its on a simple who is more beleiveable 51/49 is all is needed balance of probabilities.

I would suggest that if you dont help the EC in their correspondence before court then it may goes against you and you wont be beleived in court.

I disagree.

The mags would throw this out straight away. There is still an onus for the plaintiff to prove what they are saying.

Take this for an example. I write to you and tell you that you came into my shop and spoke to one of my employees to do £1000 of printing work and you never came back. I saw your car outside, and took your registration number so I could write to you.

I write to you saying that as the car owner, you must have been driving and thus it was you who entered into the contract with me.

You write back to say, that wasnt you, you were not there on that day, moreover you dont even know who I am.

I write to you as the car owner you need to tell me who it was that entered into a contract with my company to do the printing for them.

You tell me you dont know and you have no idea.

I write back saying if you cant tell me, you have to pay me anyway!?

That would be silly.


This situation is exactly the same. How on earth could I prove it was you that entered into a contract with my empoyee and my company based on the fact that a may have seen a car which belongs to you? There is no evidence whatsoever a contract has been formed between me an you therefore it would be impossible to enforce, and for good reason!

My advice in this situation would be to write back to the accuser stating that you were not there, and you were somewhere else, and you are afraid that they have it wrong - and leave it at that. Most likely that will be the end of it. It will be just not worth their while chasing a case which if taken to its limits they cannot win.

Edited by justinp1 on Wednesday 29th November 13:31

[cooperman]

superlightr said:

Its all well and good in principle but when you are in front of a magistrate with the Enforcing compnay (EC)

With the EC saying they wrote asked who was driving and you refused to help, they beleive it was you as its your car, what will the magistrate think? Are you being helpful in helping the EC find out who was driving or are you messing around?

Its on a simple who is more beleiveable 51/49 is all is needed balance of probabilities.

I would suggest that if you dont help the EC in their correspondence before court then it may goes against you and you wont be beleived in court.

It would not be in front of a Magistrate. It would be in the small claims court which deals with civil/contractual matters up to a maximum of around £5000 (I don't know the exact figure). You would turn up and they would present their evidence in a very informal atmosphere. You would cross-examine them as to why they think it was you, as several people use your vehicle, and you would also point out that they have not established that you did the parking in any way at all. You would need offer no evidence as to your innocence as they would have failed to establish guilt. Even a photograph would not suffice unless a qualified witness wwere to have confirmed that the photo met all the many criteria. They would not want to go that far.
It's not a criminal matter as it's a civil claim for breach of contract with quantum a very small amount.
Generally these small claims courts are much more sensible than the magistrates whenever we've used them to pursue debts, but we have always had to establish that a debt really exists before judgement is granted.

[superlightr]

What happens in theory and what happens in practice can be very different.


There is a perceived direct link with the RK of a car and the parking of it as a single event as opposes to the RK of a car, parking it somewhere and a seperate contract of printing or whatever.

What sounds reasonable or more likley is simply that. Its a civil court not criminal.

is the RK trying to pull a fast one not helping with genuine attempt by the EC to identify the driver. is the RK more beliveable than the Enforecement Company. Which 'story' rings true, why is the RK not helping the EC, thats not very nice of him, who else can drive the car/insured, when is lunch, where are the other dirvers, why did the RK not disclose this to the EC before court? no one else is allowed to drive my car (I recon would be the thoughts)

I could argue strongly in court either way and would rate my chance at winning as 50/50. Thinking on it I would rate my chance at stronger for the EC. 55/45

Edited by superlightr on Wednesday 29th November 13:54

Edited by superlightr on Wednesday 29th November 13:58

[superlightr]

Cooperman - as it is very informal that to my mind would help the EC.

[esselte]

superlightr said:

Cooperman - as it is very informal that to my mind would help the EC.

If you can prove you were elsewhere it's the end of the story.It's just as in JustinP's analogy, whoever parked the car there is the person that entered into the contract with Tesco (or whoever) it's totally removed from the RK. It's up to the claimant to prove things.I don't think we have to divulge any info to private companies (not yey anyway)

Edited by esselte on Wednesday 29th November 14:08

[justinp1]

superlightr said:

What happens in theory and what happens in practice can be very different.


There is a perceived direct link with the RK of a car and the parking of it as a single event as opposes to the RK of a car, parking it somewhere and a seperate contract of printing or whatever.

What sounds reasonable or more likley is simply that. Its a civil court not criminal.

is the RK trying to pull a fast one not helping with genuine attempt by the EC to identify the driver. is the RK more beliveable than the Enforecement Company. Which 'story' rings true, why is the RK not helping the EC, thats not very nice of him, who else can drive the car/insured, when is lunch, where are the other dirvers, why did the RK not disclose this to the EC before court? no one else is allowed to drive my car (I recon would be the thoughts)

I could argue strongly in court either way and would rate my chance at winning as 50/50. Thinking on it I would rate my chance at stronger for the EC. 55/45

Edited by superlightr on Wednesday 29th November 13:54

Edited by superlightr on Wednesday 29th November 13:58

From experience I have to disagree.

Although it is a civil court, they still run by UK law.

To enforce any contract you have to prove it exists, and both parties had consideration of it - that is a fundament 'start' to any proceedings.

The fact that a car is owned by someone proves nothing whatsoever.

[superlightr]

SO before court action what would you think if the EC wrote to the RK asking if they were the driver who parked there and if not who was and their details. The RK said it was not me, im not helping you go away.

How would the court view this responce is all im saying?

Is the RK lying, why are they not helping, what are they hiding are they lying? Why does the RK not know who was driving, etc.. I dont beleive him.......

[superlightr]

Fair enough, can see the considered view is not in my favour. I still think it would be a runner as far as the EC would be concerned.



I would try it.

Edited by superlightr on Wednesday 29th November 14:22

[jasandjules]

superlightr said:

SO before court action what would you think if the EC wrote to the RK asking if they were the driver who parked there and if not who was and their details. The RK said it was not me, im not helping you go away.

How would the court view this responce is all im saying?

Is the RK lying, why are they not helping, what are they hiding are they lying? Why does the RK not know who was driving, etc.. I dont beleive him.......

It is nothing to do with the court. It is simple Privity of contract.
You are not required to furnish anyone else with the information. So you don't have to. You are not required to waste your time replying to these people in any way shape or form.

It would however, be for the company to prove

1. Your vehicle entered the car park
2. There were signs which you could reasonably be expected to have seen
3. You overstayed.
4. Who was driving when the car entered that car park (i.e. who is privy to the contract)

It will therefore cost them vast amounts of money to pursue this. If they lose, you can claim your days wasted costs back off them too (subject to a £250 or so limit)

[superlightr]

prove - Its who is more believable. Balance of probabilities. whats more likely not an absolute proof.

Here is a photo of the car on the land. here is a photo of the signs say no parky here
or here is the witness statement of the person putting on the ticket who will be attending.