Parking Eye - Parking Charge Notice - New rules?
Discussion
The company I work for has received a Parking Charge Notice inccured by one of our reps, who left his car in a managed car park for too long.
Currently they are after £60, which will increase to £120 if not paid soon.
Now, I know that in the past these charges were considered invalid, but is that still the case now? I've read of some new rulings stating things have changed since the clamping ban on or around 1/10/12 , but I can't find anything concrete to tell me to file under B for bin.
Obviously, I don't want to harp on to my bosses, telling them to ignore the charge if there is a chance we'll have to pay double. So, have the rules changed significantly, or should we still bin it?
Currently they are after £60, which will increase to £120 if not paid soon.
Now, I know that in the past these charges were considered invalid, but is that still the case now? I've read of some new rulings stating things have changed since the clamping ban on or around 1/10/12 , but I can't find anything concrete to tell me to file under B for bin.
Obviously, I don't want to harp on to my bosses, telling them to ignore the charge if there is a chance we'll have to pay double. So, have the rules changed significantly, or should we still bin it?
Thanks for that.
I've searched the web and it appears to be inconclusive, with most consumer advice sites now saying to appeal rather than ignore.
I clicked through 20 or so pages and read the various threads, but nothing related to the clamping rulings in October, which APPEAR to have given more say to these charging companies. But again, I can't seem to find anything conclusive.
I posted as a last resort, as I too keep reading similar threads over and over again. This forum has some knowledgeable members, who are happy to impart their wisdom when asked. That's who I was asking... and not you, it would appear.
I've searched the web and it appears to be inconclusive, with most consumer advice sites now saying to appeal rather than ignore.
I clicked through 20 or so pages and read the various threads, but nothing related to the clamping rulings in October, which APPEAR to have given more say to these charging companies. But again, I can't seem to find anything conclusive.
I posted as a last resort, as I too keep reading similar threads over and over again. This forum has some knowledgeable members, who are happy to impart their wisdom when asked. That's who I was asking... and not you, it would appear.
Asking the same question that crops up frequently and I've voluntarily clicked on? YOU MAKE ME SICK!
A perfectly valid question with an obvious title, IMO, so any vitriol is entirely unjust.
That said, a sticky would be good - especially if it was updated with any pertinent legislation changes.
A perfectly valid question with an obvious title, IMO, so any vitriol is entirely unjust.
That said, a sticky would be good - especially if it was updated with any pertinent legislation changes.
All PoFA Schedule 4 does is allow a PPC in certain defined circumstances to pursue the RK if it doesn't know who the driver is. It does not in any way change contract law.
Have a read of this - http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthr...
and the Court of Appeal decision last week - http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2013/186.h...
Forget the VAT aspect, it's irrelevant. It's the breach of contract and trespass issues which concern us. I suspect the PPCs and the BPA have been keeping below the parapet awaiting the result of this case.
Further discussion here.
http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=7740...
http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=7741...
Have a read of this - http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthr...
and the Court of Appeal decision last week - http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2013/186.h...
Forget the VAT aspect, it's irrelevant. It's the breach of contract and trespass issues which concern us. I suspect the PPCs and the BPA have been keeping below the parapet awaiting the result of this case.
Further discussion here.
http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=7740...
http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=7741...
Edited by Red Devil on Friday 22 March 13:06
Landlord said:
Asking the same question that crops up frequently and I've voluntarily clicked on? YOU MAKE ME SICK!
Yes, I apologise for exerting my mind controls on people. I'll try not to let it happen again. Landlord said:
That said, a sticky would be good - especially if it was updated with any pertinent legislation changes.
It would be good, with some decent links as posted below....and once again, I apologise.
sanguinary said:
The company I work for has received a Parking Charge Notice inccured by one of our reps, who left his car in a managed car park for too long.
Currently they are after £60, which will increase to £120 if not paid soon.
Now, I know that in the past these charges were considered invalid, but is that still the case now? I've read of some new rulings stating things have changed since the clamping ban on or around 1/10/12 , but I can't find anything concrete to tell me to file under B for bin.
Obviously, I don't want to harp on to my bosses, telling them to ignore the charge if there is a chance we'll have to pay double. So, have the rules changed significantly, or should we still bin it?
The situation is more or less as it was before.Currently they are after £60, which will increase to £120 if not paid soon.
Now, I know that in the past these charges were considered invalid, but is that still the case now? I've read of some new rulings stating things have changed since the clamping ban on or around 1/10/12 , but I can't find anything concrete to tell me to file under B for bin.
Obviously, I don't want to harp on to my bosses, telling them to ignore the charge if there is a chance we'll have to pay double. So, have the rules changed significantly, or should we still bin it?
It is still a speculative invoice to reimburse the parking company for you breaking one of their rules that are implied via the use of signs on entering the car park.
The law still favours with the 'implied contract' side of things in that you as the driver (if you choose to acknowledge the fact) have accepted the terms and conditions when you park. (Meaning that there is sufficient grounds for a civil court case if the parking company wished to take it that far - assuming singage is reasonable).
The change that occured not too long ago was that parking companies can now file claims against the registered keeper of the car irrespective of who was driving at the time.
So the only change is, that instead of attempting to find the driver at the time of the so called 'offense', with the registered keepr having no legal obligation to identify the driver, the parking company at least now has a name and address of who to threaten (ie. the registered keeper).
If everyone holds to their guns and simply ignores these threats of court action/bailifs etc. etc. (takes a gamble if you like), then it is thought the parking companies will not have the money to go around pursuing all the court costs etc. to bring a court ruling against each individual, nor in my opinion will debt recovery agents (who are usually the same people as the parking company) will have the time and resources to take up infringements in the likely numbers that will be asked of them.
So, on the interent you will see people giving advise of 'ignore it', 'throw it in the bin', 'take the gamble' etc. ....but also there will be people saying that you should pay up. I'd say both may be correct, but would depend on the area and the number of infringements that occur at that parking site. But that is just my unquallified opinion.
For example if it were me then I would not pay and would be happy to be taken to court.
I am no legal expert but many have said that the parking company can not attempt to recover anything over and above their actual 'loss'. Therefore attempting to recover hundreds of pounds for a rule infringement that in reality would have cost them a car parking space that would have earnt, say, £10 for the over spent time your car was there, should be seen by the law as unreasonable. (Maybe somebody can confirm?).
So basically, if it did go to bailifs for them recovering the parking company's losses, then I'm guessing they can only recover reasonable loss of revenue from overstay and the cost of bailif/court action.
Thus not really making the parking compmany any 'profit' as such..... many view this as it being a waste of time for the parking companies to pursue and this is where the gamble part comes in.
Like I said, I would take the gamble personally, but this is just me, you will have to decide for yourself.
Red Devil said:
Court of Appeal decision last week - http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2013/186.h...
Forget the VAT aspect, it's irrelevant. It's the breach of contract and trespass issues which concern us. I suspect the PPCs and the BPA have been keeping below the parapet awaiting the result of this case.
The remit of the VAT tribunals and CoA hearings only relate to a very narrow set of parking infringements and do not include 'normal' parking scenarios. Parking outside the marked space, where it's totally restricted or wrongly in a disabled bay seem to be the only infringements relevent.Forget the VAT aspect, it's irrelevant. It's the breach of contract and trespass issues which concern us. I suspect the PPCs and the BPA have been keeping below the parapet awaiting the result of this case.
10 Pence Short said:
Red Devil said:
Court of Appeal decision last week - http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2013/186.h...
Forget the VAT aspect, it's irrelevant. It's the breach of contract and trespass issues which concern us. I suspect the PPCs and the BPA have been keeping below the parapet awaiting the result of this case.
The remit of the VAT tribunals and CoA hearings only relate to a very narrow set of parking infringements and do not include 'normal' parking scenarios. Parking outside the marked space, where it's totally restricted or wrongly in a disabled bay seem to be the only infringements relevent.Forget the VAT aspect, it's irrelevant. It's the breach of contract and trespass issues which concern us. I suspect the PPCs and the BPA have been keeping below the parapet awaiting the result of this case.
The Boosh said:
Yes, interesting read.I never like reading comments when they say if you've broken a company rule then its easiest just to pay up.
I would rather the situation be that "Store hires private parking company which then see's store customers drop to zero".
I think if the balance is tipped towards these PPCs being easily able to create and enforce 'x' amount of rules that can be infringed on a regular basis by motorists, then online shopping/mail order would hopefully become the norm and those store managers that took the decision to contract a PPC find themselves out of a job.
After one local supermarket started using a PPC to limit parking ,a member of staff told me that concerns were raised on the reduction in customer numbers after PPC official had ticketed a few customers . Since then I haven't seen many tickets given out . This particuler supermarket has always been marginally dearer that some of the opposition ,but pre PPC days, we parked there , took the dog for a walk in adjoining park and did our shopping. Supermart got our business ,we got free parking . Now a days , we drive in ,get a free 1/2 hr parking ticket, walk dog ,and apart from a few things we can't get in other shops ,don't enter the shop .
Can't say exactly ,but the name Parking Eye comes to mind as one reported in CAG news as being one on the banned list by DVLA .
Can't say exactly ,but the name Parking Eye comes to mind as one reported in CAG news as being one on the banned list by DVLA .
elanfan said:
OP- without wishing to appear rude can you not use the search function and read the numerous threads that have been posted?
MODS - seriously can we not delete these bi-weekly threads that harp on about the same thing time and time again?
Oh listen to Mr Perfect here! Its a perfectly valid question, if you dont want to read anything related to the thread subject just dont click on it! What a bellend...MODS - seriously can we not delete these bi-weekly threads that harp on about the same thing time and time again?
10 Pence Short said:
Red Devil said:
Court of Appeal decision last week - http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2013/186.h...
Forget the VAT aspect, it's irrelevant. It's the breach of contract and trespass issues which concern us. I suspect the PPCs and the BPA have been keeping below the parapet awaiting the result of this case.
The remit of the VAT tribunals and CoA hearings only relate to a very narrow set of parking infringements and do not include 'normal' parking scenarios. Parking outside the marked space, where it's totally restricted or wrongly in a disabled bay seem to be the only infringements relevent.Forget the VAT aspect, it's irrelevant. It's the breach of contract and trespass issues which concern us. I suspect the PPCs and the BPA have been keeping below the parapet awaiting the result of this case.
Lewison LJ "What it obtained under the contract (apart from the small fees charged for permits and signage) was the right to exploit the opportunity to make money from the motorists"
I submit the judgment on the breach of contract issue is far more wide ranging that you are suggesting.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff