Parking Eye & Underhand Tactics

[Red Devil]

Chrisgr31 said:

Tallbutbuxomly said:

To kill off the argument here I got one along with the threat of legal action etc etc. I kept all docs but have ignored them. That was over a year ago now. They sent me around 3/4 letters then gave up.

I got one about 4 years ago and it seems to have gone away. However since we both got ours the law has changed and therefore the advice as to what to do about them has also changed.

Why? What makes you think the PoFA legislation is retrospective? Of course that might not stop the PPC/DCA trying to bamboozle you.

[kiethton]

silverfoxcc said:

In addition to ignoring all letters, NEVER dispose of any correspondence from them, keep everything enelopes and all, just in case it gets to a real court, pepipoo require everything to put up a good defence

Oops mine are currently burning on the bonfire.

I had 10 or so come through last month relating to 'fines' received in March/April...not parking eye though and nothing has ever come from the 20 or so from the same company previously (supermarket car park next to the station - thankfully with a vandalised sign/broken machines)

[Steff1965]

10 Pence Short said:

Steff1965 said:

I know a court can do that 10P, but I was asking WHEN it had happened as I've not heard of any such case.

I don't hang around county courts all day and they don't tend to be reported cases.

What I do know is that it's the pertinent question in any disputed parking case and therefore any judge or claimant will be asking it.

My original question was aimed at road2ruin and not you 10P. I had asked him about cases in the past but you answered with something different.

[herewego]

kiethton said:

silverfoxcc said:

In addition to ignoring all letters, NEVER dispose of any correspondence from them, keep everything enelopes and all, just in case it gets to a real court, pepipoo require everything to put up a good defence

Oops mine are currently burning on the bonfire.

I had 10 or so come through last month relating to 'fines' received in March/April...not parking eye though and nothing has ever come from the 20 or so from the same company previously (supermarket car park next to the station - thankfully with a vandalised sign/broken machines)

Are you the one abusing company car parks and the reason that private parking companies exist?

[Tallbutbuxomly]

Chrisgr31 said:

Tallbutbuxomly said:

To kill off the argument here I got one along with the threat of legal action etc etc. I kept all docs but have ignored them. That was over a year ago now. They sent me around 3/4 letters then gave up.

I got one about 4 years ago and it seems to have gone away. However since we both got ours the law has changed and therefore the advice as to what to do about them has also changed.

As regards the OP I thought that the Highways Dept are looking at this as they are always telling drivers to take a break, and the advice is to have a drink first. So you have your drink and sleep for safety purposes and then get fined £80 for staying too long! Fairly sure its being looked at

Nope I got mine after the law change. They even included a little letter telling me about the change and warning me not to ignore the ticket.

[Tallbutbuxomly]

Chrisgr31 said:

Tallbutbuxomly said:

To kill off the argument here I got one along with the threat of legal action etc etc. I kept all docs but have ignored them. That was over a year ago now. They sent me around 3/4 letters then gave up.

I got one about 4 years ago and it seems to have gone away. However since we both got ours the law has changed and therefore the advice as to what to do about them has also changed.

As regards the OP I thought that the Highways Dept are looking at this as they are always telling drivers to take a break, and the advice is to have a drink first. So you have your drink and sleep for safety purposes and then get fined £80 for staying too long! Fairly sure its being looked at

Nope I got mine after the law change. They even included a little letter telling me about the change and warning me not to ignore the ticket.

[kiethton]

herewego said:

kiethton said:

silverfoxcc said:

In addition to ignoring all letters, NEVER dispose of any correspondence from them, keep everything enelopes and all, just in case it gets to a real court, pepipoo require everything to put up a good defence

Oops mine are currently burning on the bonfire.

I had 10 or so come through last month relating to 'fines' received in March/April...not parking eye though and nothing has ever come from the 20 or so from the same company previously (supermarket car park next to the station - thankfully with a vandalised sign/broken machines)

Are you the one abusing company car parks and the reason that private parking companies exist?

Not 100%, I do usually use the supermarket on my way back from work and all it says is 'customer use'.

[oyster]

10 Pence Short said:

Red Devil said:

Do you have any evidence to back up that assertion?

What is this new habit in SPL in asking for 'evidence' for things that are obvious and common sense?

If the charge for overstaying was £5, everybody would shrug their shoulders and take a punt. This would defeat the original purpose of the enforcement. If the price for 2 hours parking is nil and the price for 2 hours and 10 minutes £50, it is obvious that the purpose of the charge is to deter you from staying longer than 2 hours.

Isn't this where the law does not fall on the side of the PPC though? (and the moral argument too).
As a private parking company they are not allowed to issue fines. And to make a charge high enough to become a 'deterrent' then it effectively becomes a fine instead of an invoice for legitimate charges.

And this is the clincher for me.
Why aren't the parking charge notices set at £500 or £1,000? Surely for deterrent then this would be better?

[10 Pence Short]

I think you're probably right (though I don't think PPCs struggle too much to justify their losses in court), they do look remarkably like fines.The thing is, they piggy back on contract law, which isn't an entirely comfortable fit with PPC enforcement.

The thing is, effective parking control is a necessary evil on private land, as without it the abuse would be to the serious commercial detriment of the land owner. This is why PPCs were given the olive branch allowing them to pursue the registered keeper without having to prove them an original party to the contract.

[herewego]

oyster said:

10 Pence Short said:

Red Devil said:

Do you have any evidence to back up that assertion?

What is this new habit in SPL in asking for 'evidence' for things that are obvious and common sense?

If the charge for overstaying was £5, everybody would shrug their shoulders and take a punt. This would defeat the original purpose of the enforcement. If the price for 2 hours parking is nil and the price for 2 hours and 10 minutes £50, it is obvious that the purpose of the charge is to deter you from staying longer than 2 hours.

Isn't this where the law does not fall on the side of the PPC though? (and the moral argument too).
As a private parking company they are not allowed to issue fines. And to make a charge high enough to become a 'deterrent' then it effectively becomes a fine instead of an invoice for legitimate charges.

And this is the clincher for me.
Why aren't the parking charge notices set at £500 or £1,000? Surely for deterrent then this would be better?

The judge wouldn't consider it reasonable I don't think, whereas a charge similar to a local authority penalty would seem to be reasonable.

[oyster]

herewego said:

oyster said:

10 Pence Short said:

Red Devil said:

Do you have any evidence to back up that assertion?

What is this new habit in SPL in asking for 'evidence' for things that are obvious and common sense?

If the charge for overstaying was £5, everybody would shrug their shoulders and take a punt. This would defeat the original purpose of the enforcement. If the price for 2 hours parking is nil and the price for 2 hours and 10 minutes £50, it is obvious that the purpose of the charge is to deter you from staying longer than 2 hours.

Isn't this where the law does not fall on the side of the PPC though? (and the moral argument too).
As a private parking company they are not allowed to issue fines. And to make a charge high enough to become a 'deterrent' then it effectively becomes a fine instead of an invoice for legitimate charges.

And this is the clincher for me.
Why aren't the parking charge notices set at £500 or £1,000? Surely for deterrent then this would be better?

The judge wouldn't consider it reasonable I don't think, whereas a charge similar to a local authority penalty would seem to be reasonable.

That's the whole point though. It's not a penalty - penalties aren't allowed to be charged by private companies. They can only levy a charge, based on an invoice, based on a service or product they've provided by way of a contract.

If the contract stipulates a charge of £1,000 and someone accepts the contract (by parking in a car park with correct signage) then this can be legally enforced, just as easily as £80 can be.

Unless of course the PPCs claim to the court that £80 is closer to the actual losses suffered? In which case it is about losses then!

Either way, the PPCs want their cake and to eat it too.