Parking fine assistance (yay!)
Discussion
super7 said:
3) Thirdly, what pub charges customers to park their cars in a car park so that they can spend more money inside. Any pub that charges for parking deserves to fail
Because, quite often, the people using the car parking space aren't customers of the business. They just want to use cheap/free parking which impacts on customers who DO want to use the business.Countdown said:
Because, quite often, the people using the car parking space aren't customers of the business. They just want to use cheap/free parking which impacts on customers who DO want to use the business.
Which gives 2 options. Charge to discourage or barrier the car park and only allow customers in pavarotti1980 said:
Which gives 2 options. Charge to discourage or barrier the car park and only allow customers in
Charging discourages genuine customers and barrier parking isn't always feasible or cost-effective.ETA Charging wouldnt necessarily have any effect, because pisstakers would just park without paying.
You paid for 2hrs, you overstayed, you didn't have the courtesy of buying a drink at the pub. How much did it cost to park £4? You could claim the cost of fine does not reflect the time you went over and it is over and above what is fair.
However you parked, you know how long you had, why not just nip and and pay for an xtra hour?
Just pay it.
However you parked, you know how long you had, why not just nip and and pay for an xtra hour?
Just pay it.
LarsG said:
You paid for 2hrs, you overstayed, you didn't have the courtesy of buying a drink at the pub. How much did it cost to park £4? You could claim the cost of fine does not reflect the time you went over and it is over and above what is fair.
However you parked, you know how long you had, why not just nip and and pay for an xtra hour?
Just pay it.
The car park is open for members of the public to use without any requirement for them to use the pub so hardly a lack of courtesy. There's a lot of sanctimonious, holier-than-thou tHowever you parked, you know how long you had, why not just nip and and pay for an xtra hour?
Just pay it.
ts on here as usual. Which bit of private parking 'management' being a legalised extortion scam do they not understand? A charge of whatever the parking would have cost a driver who overstayed plus a reasonable admin fee would be fair and proportionate. £50 and more is neither.ElectricPics said:
The car park is open for members of the public to use without any requirement for them to use the pub so hardly a lack of courtesy. There's a lot of sanctimonious, holier-than-thou tts on here as usual. Which bit of private parking 'management' being a legalised extortion scam do they not understand? A charge of whatever the parking would have cost a driver who overstayed plus a reasonable admin fee would be fair and proportionate. £50 and more is neither.
A legalised extortion that is easy to avoid if the driver complies with the parking contract. But of course they don't then bts on here as usual. Which bit of private parking 'management' being a legalised extortion scam do they not understand? A charge of whatever the parking would have cost a driver who overstayed plus a reasonable admin fee would be fair and proportionate. £50 and more is neither.h like buggery when caught.xjay1337 said:
If you don't feel I am deserving of assistance then we have no further need to engage in discussion in this thread..
As I said a genuine mistake to losing track of time. Didn't even realise I was more than 2 hours, wasn't on my mind until the letter came through the door.
£50 may not be a lot to you. It is to some others.
If you can find a legal way of not having to pay take it. That’s what most people including me would do.As I said a genuine mistake to losing track of time. Didn't even realise I was more than 2 hours, wasn't on my mind until the letter came through the door.
£50 may not be a lot to you. It is to some others.
Edited by xjay1337 on Friday 14th June 09:15
Does this all boil down to the fact that the parking companies don't actually have the right to force keeper to tell them who was driving?
And they don't have the right to charge the keeper, (only the driver)?
Even if they included the word invite in their letter, you could just write back saying, I decline your invitation, and they have nothing on you?
And they don't have the right to charge the keeper, (only the driver)?
Even if they included the word invite in their letter, you could just write back saying, I decline your invitation, and they have nothing on you?
Chester draws said:
Does this all boil down to the fact that the parking companies don't actually have the right to force keeper to tell them who was driving?
And they don't have the right to charge the keeper, (only the driver)?
Even if they included the word invite in their letter, you could just write back saying, I decline your invitation, and they have nothing on you?
That used to be the case. Now if they follow all the rules, then the keeper has a choice of paying, on behalf of the driver or naming the driver. But ultimately if the Keeper doesn't name the driver then they are liable for the charge. And they don't have the right to charge the keeper, (only the driver)?
Even if they included the word invite in their letter, you could just write back saying, I decline your invitation, and they have nothing on you?
Purely from what I read here - seems they just can't follow the rules.
Edited by Graveworm on Sunday 16th June 08:32
So if their letter said, I'll paraphrase slightly...
"As we don't know the driver, we cordially invite you to either pay yourself, or tell us the name and address of the driver...."
We'd agree all is well and pay up?
But as they've said.... "As we don't know the driver, you should either pay yourself, or tell us the name and address of the driver...."
That means they haven't completed with the term in 9.2(e) and therefore they don't have the right to recover the charge from the keeper?
Or am I missing something?
"As we don't know the driver, we cordially invite you to either pay yourself, or tell us the name and address of the driver...."
We'd agree all is well and pay up?
But as they've said.... "As we don't know the driver, you should either pay yourself, or tell us the name and address of the driver...."
That means they haven't completed with the term in 9.2(e) and therefore they don't have the right to recover the charge from the keeper?
Or am I missing something?
Chester
A lot of PPCs do follow POFA 2012 correctly and the letters they send are watertight. In cases like this , pepipoo advise to pay up.
However many, as in this case, do not even thought the 'instructions' in POFA 2012 lay down exactly what and when and how the letter is to be sent out
One, in order to keep the RK liable, if the parking infraction is captured on CCTV is that the letter to the RK MUST arrive within 14 days following the day after the event
eg Dec 1 i parked and overstayed. letter MUST arrive by Dec 15 if it arrived after that date the RK cannot be held liable,only the driver
Other well known cock ups are that they do not mention POFA 2012 in the letter ,therefore they cannot chase the RK only the driver or in this case use the word should instead of must
Now who in their right mind would tell them who was driving????
A number mention the Beavis case, which has nothing to do with the majority of parking letters but as it got press coverage they think that it is a good stick to use.
Other mention the case where the RK was held liable as being the driver( i forget the name!!) but that was a criminal case and was based on evidence produced. Many people pay up at this, they shouldn't , It is up to the PPC to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the RK was the driver. In fact 99% of cars legally have more than one person who can drive it. so that is more 'threatening' as is the mention of CCJ and to get one of those you really have to screw up. But it is the veiled threats debt collector ( no legality in law to collect or make someone pay) etc
Remember most of these are ex clampers and we know the IQ that most of them have.
They rely on the naivity of the public to remain in business. PLay them at there own game and make then earn it!!
Examples are the ones who 'operate' Railway car parks
The car parks are normally covered by Byelaws and as such only the owner of the land (the RailCo) can take the driver to court so that they are fined
NB this fine goes directly to court not the RailCo nor the PPC the alternaive is for the Railco to sue for trespass, and they have 6 months in which to bring eithe to court
The PPC will however claim that the Driver/RK owes them money for the parking infringement, parking outside a bay. being the most common, and ask for 60.00
What they are actually saying is pay us 60.00 and the railco will NOT to take you to court. BUT if they did that they wouldn't get any money..see the flaw??? so with threats and hints people pay
Airports are the same, see the cases on pepipoo and MSE for John Lennon Airport and others for stopping momentarily to let someone out ,and being sent a request for 100.00 for parking ,since, when has letting someone out of the car is legal even on DYL and nowhere in the Airport byelaws, which normally apply airside and not on roads to which the public has unfettered access does boarding/alighting show as one of them
PPC who claim money from people parking in their own space allotted to them under a lease....again the lease has precedence over the PPC 'rules'
BUT there is good news
In Scotland POFA 2012 does not apply (PPC CANNOT chase RK) so you can park with impunity in any PPC operated car park, and if you get a letter you just write back saying that as the RK you have passed the letter onto the driver who, may or may not contact you, and that you have no intention of naming them
Apologies for the length but i think it sums up the parking problems
If there are any mistakes no doubt pav or SteveS11 will correct them and i thank them in advance if this should be the case
I might add that IF the PPC does get all its ducks in a row then i am on the PPC side, but if they are so slipshod, then they deserve it. The funny part is, even after 6 years of POFA they still haven't a clue on how to do it correctly...sod 'em
Councils are not immune to cocking things up as well, but thats another story
I
A lot of PPCs do follow POFA 2012 correctly and the letters they send are watertight. In cases like this , pepipoo advise to pay up.
However many, as in this case, do not even thought the 'instructions' in POFA 2012 lay down exactly what and when and how the letter is to be sent out
One, in order to keep the RK liable, if the parking infraction is captured on CCTV is that the letter to the RK MUST arrive within 14 days following the day after the event
eg Dec 1 i parked and overstayed. letter MUST arrive by Dec 15 if it arrived after that date the RK cannot be held liable,only the driver
Other well known cock ups are that they do not mention POFA 2012 in the letter ,therefore they cannot chase the RK only the driver or in this case use the word should instead of must
Now who in their right mind would tell them who was driving????
A number mention the Beavis case, which has nothing to do with the majority of parking letters but as it got press coverage they think that it is a good stick to use.
Other mention the case where the RK was held liable as being the driver( i forget the name!!) but that was a criminal case and was based on evidence produced. Many people pay up at this, they shouldn't , It is up to the PPC to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the RK was the driver. In fact 99% of cars legally have more than one person who can drive it. so that is more 'threatening' as is the mention of CCJ and to get one of those you really have to screw up. But it is the veiled threats debt collector ( no legality in law to collect or make someone pay) etc
Remember most of these are ex clampers and we know the IQ that most of them have.
They rely on the naivity of the public to remain in business. PLay them at there own game and make then earn it!!
Examples are the ones who 'operate' Railway car parks
The car parks are normally covered by Byelaws and as such only the owner of the land (the RailCo) can take the driver to court so that they are fined
NB this fine goes directly to court not the RailCo nor the PPC the alternaive is for the Railco to sue for trespass, and they have 6 months in which to bring eithe to court
The PPC will however claim that the Driver/RK owes them money for the parking infringement, parking outside a bay. being the most common, and ask for 60.00
What they are actually saying is pay us 60.00 and the railco will NOT to take you to court. BUT if they did that they wouldn't get any money..see the flaw??? so with threats and hints people pay
Airports are the same, see the cases on pepipoo and MSE for John Lennon Airport and others for stopping momentarily to let someone out ,and being sent a request for 100.00 for parking ,since, when has letting someone out of the car is legal even on DYL and nowhere in the Airport byelaws, which normally apply airside and not on roads to which the public has unfettered access does boarding/alighting show as one of them
PPC who claim money from people parking in their own space allotted to them under a lease....again the lease has precedence over the PPC 'rules'
BUT there is good news
In Scotland POFA 2012 does not apply (PPC CANNOT chase RK) so you can park with impunity in any PPC operated car park, and if you get a letter you just write back saying that as the RK you have passed the letter onto the driver who, may or may not contact you, and that you have no intention of naming them
Apologies for the length but i think it sums up the parking problems
If there are any mistakes no doubt pav or SteveS11 will correct them and i thank them in advance if this should be the case
I might add that IF the PPC does get all its ducks in a row then i am on the PPC side, but if they are so slipshod, then they deserve it. The funny part is, even after 6 years of POFA they still haven't a clue on how to do it correctly...sod 'em
Councils are not immune to cocking things up as well, but thats another story
I
A quick bump regarding POFA 2012 ( this may possibly make the 'you wrong.you pay' ones on here start frothing at the mouth but hey ho
IF you received a ticket affixed to the windscreen the PPC must wait until between day 28 and day 56 to send a notice to the RK. If they do before or after theses dates they have fallen foul of POFA and can only pursue the driver whom they do not know unless you are mug enough to tell them.
In order to do this they MUST contact the DVLA after day 28 for your details and it costs them each time
One way to get around this is as follows ( they might well see that this action saves them £2.50 and drop themselves in it)
On Day 25 send them a letter as the RK saying that you are the RK and are in receipt of the letter and intend to dispute it...Thats all
However when you write, make a very small adjustment to either your name or address, but so small that the Post Ofiice will still be able to identify your address eg Smithe instead of Smith ... Holley instead of Holly Gardens etc etc. Dont amend the post code
IF the PPC write back with the mistake (and they wont know unless they have contacted the DVLA) then they have NOT conformed to POFA 2012 and as such can only go after the driver. ( I think you write again to them on day 57 advising them of this fact and once they have been told, they are out of time to correct it UNLIKE NIP where the police/council can amend the details
If this does happen again pepipoo or MSE are your friends
No doubt some on here are going apoplectic on reading this, BUT is is within the law
I hope this helps someone to outwit these people
IF you received a ticket affixed to the windscreen the PPC must wait until between day 28 and day 56 to send a notice to the RK. If they do before or after theses dates they have fallen foul of POFA and can only pursue the driver whom they do not know unless you are mug enough to tell them.
In order to do this they MUST contact the DVLA after day 28 for your details and it costs them each time
One way to get around this is as follows ( they might well see that this action saves them £2.50 and drop themselves in it)
On Day 25 send them a letter as the RK saying that you are the RK and are in receipt of the letter and intend to dispute it...Thats all
However when you write, make a very small adjustment to either your name or address, but so small that the Post Ofiice will still be able to identify your address eg Smithe instead of Smith ... Holley instead of Holly Gardens etc etc. Dont amend the post code
IF the PPC write back with the mistake (and they wont know unless they have contacted the DVLA) then they have NOT conformed to POFA 2012 and as such can only go after the driver. ( I think you write again to them on day 57 advising them of this fact and once they have been told, they are out of time to correct it UNLIKE NIP where the police/council can amend the details
If this does happen again pepipoo or MSE are your friends
No doubt some on here are going apoplectic on reading this, BUT is is within the law
I hope this helps someone to outwit these people
silverfoxcc said:
A quick bump regarding POFA 2012 ( this may possibly make the 'you wrong.you pay' ones on here start frothing at the mouth but hey ho
IF you received a ticket affixed to the windscreen the PPC must wait until between day 28 and day 56 to send a notice to the RK. If they do before or after theses dates they have fallen foul of POFA and can only pursue the driver whom they do not know unless you are mug enough to tell them.
In order to do this they MUST contact the DVLA after day 28 for your details and it costs them each time
One way to get around this is as follows ( they might well see that this action saves them £2.50 and drop themselves in it)
On Day 25 send them a letter as the RK saying that you are the RK and are in receipt of the letter and intend to dispute it...Thats all
However when you write, make a very small adjustment to either your name or address, but so small that the Post Ofiice will still be able to identify your address eg Smithe instead of Smith ... Holley instead of Holly Gardens etc etc. Dont amend the post code
IF the PPC write back with the mistake (and they wont know unless they have contacted the DVLA) then they have NOT conformed to POFA 2012 and as such can only go after the driver. ( I think you write again to them on day 57 advising them of this fact and once they have been told, they are out of time to correct it UNLIKE NIP where the police/council can amend the details
If this does happen again pepipoo or MSE are your friends
No doubt some on here are going apoplectic on reading this, BUT is is within the law
I hope this helps someone to outwit these people
I won't go apoplectic but I think what you are proposing is within the definition of fraud. IF you received a ticket affixed to the windscreen the PPC must wait until between day 28 and day 56 to send a notice to the RK. If they do before or after theses dates they have fallen foul of POFA and can only pursue the driver whom they do not know unless you are mug enough to tell them.
In order to do this they MUST contact the DVLA after day 28 for your details and it costs them each time
One way to get around this is as follows ( they might well see that this action saves them £2.50 and drop themselves in it)
On Day 25 send them a letter as the RK saying that you are the RK and are in receipt of the letter and intend to dispute it...Thats all
However when you write, make a very small adjustment to either your name or address, but so small that the Post Ofiice will still be able to identify your address eg Smithe instead of Smith ... Holley instead of Holly Gardens etc etc. Dont amend the post code
IF the PPC write back with the mistake (and they wont know unless they have contacted the DVLA) then they have NOT conformed to POFA 2012 and as such can only go after the driver. ( I think you write again to them on day 57 advising them of this fact and once they have been told, they are out of time to correct it UNLIKE NIP where the police/council can amend the details
If this does happen again pepipoo or MSE are your friends
No doubt some on here are going apoplectic on reading this, BUT is is within the law
I hope this helps someone to outwit these people
How?
it is a check that the company is operating as per the law
IF the reply shows correct name and address then everything is kosher
If the PPC has bypassed the procedure whose fault is that
And it isnt entrapment either
My address is
Silverfox
No 1 house
Locality
Town
County
postcode
However everything including the council and the V5 omit the locality
Now if i were to write to the PPC including the locality what part of fraud have i committed?
it is a check that the company is operating as per the law
IF the reply shows correct name and address then everything is kosher
If the PPC has bypassed the procedure whose fault is that
And it isnt entrapment either
My address is
Silverfox
No 1 house
Locality
Town
County
postcode
However everything including the council and the V5 omit the locality
Now if i were to write to the PPC including the locality what part of fraud have i committed?
However when you write, make a very small adjustment to either your name or address, but so small that the Post Ofiice will still be able to identify your address eg Smithe instead of Smith ... Holley instead of Holly Gardens etc etc. Dont amend the post code
This read to me that you proposed knowingly making a false representation in order to gain. i. e. Keep the parking fee.
This read to me that you proposed knowingly making a false representation in order to gain. i. e. Keep the parking fee.
I can explain it you to, but i cant make you understand it
What you are doing is making sure the PPC acts according to law , nothing else is it called due diligence?
If they write back to the RK with the mistake, they have not followed POFA2012 by bypassing DVLA for the keepers details ( and saving them £2.50) thus making null and void the part where they can chase the keeper. by not following POFA They then can only chase the driver IF they know who it is
They are the ones ( ex clampers) who asked for this act in return for not clamping. If they cannot abide by what they asked for it isn't my problem.
It is people like SteveS11 and pavorotti on here, and pepipoo and MSE who take the time to read the Act and use the 'small print' to legally follow the rules.
It is people who without knowing that in 50% ,could be higher, that with a bit of thought they can save themselves 50/100 pounds and pay that keep them in business. AND despite case after case going against them they still do not get it right. AS i said earlier Some Councils are also guilty of not understanding the rules
What you are doing is making sure the PPC acts according to law , nothing else is it called due diligence?
If they write back to the RK with the mistake, they have not followed POFA2012 by bypassing DVLA for the keepers details ( and saving them £2.50) thus making null and void the part where they can chase the keeper. by not following POFA They then can only chase the driver IF they know who it is
They are the ones ( ex clampers) who asked for this act in return for not clamping. If they cannot abide by what they asked for it isn't my problem.
It is people like SteveS11 and pavorotti on here, and pepipoo and MSE who take the time to read the Act and use the 'small print' to legally follow the rules.
It is people who without knowing that in 50% ,could be higher, that with a bit of thought they can save themselves 50/100 pounds and pay that keep them in business. AND despite case after case going against them they still do not get it right. AS i said earlier Some Councils are also guilty of not understanding the rules
silverfoxcc said:
I can explain it you to, but i cant make you understand it
What you are doing is making sure the PPC acts according to law , nothing else is it called due diligence?
If they write back to the RK with the mistake, they have not followed POFA2012 by bypassing DVLA for the keepers details ( and saving them £2.50) thus making null and void the part where they can chase the keeper. by not following POFA They then can only chase the driver IF they know who it is
They are the ones ( ex clampers) who asked for this act in return for not clamping. If they cannot abide by what they asked for it isn't my problem.
It is people like SteveS11 and pavorotti on here, and pepipoo and MSE who take the time to read the Act and use the 'small print' to legally follow the rules.
It is people who without knowing that in 50% ,could be higher, that with a bit of thought they can save themselves 50/100 pounds and pay that keep them in business. AND despite case after case going against them they still do not get it right. AS i said earlier Some Councils are also guilty of not understanding the rules
So when you suggested "One way to get around this is as follows "What you are doing is making sure the PPC acts according to law , nothing else is it called due diligence?
If they write back to the RK with the mistake, they have not followed POFA2012 by bypassing DVLA for the keepers details ( and saving them £2.50) thus making null and void the part where they can chase the keeper. by not following POFA They then can only chase the driver IF they know who it is
They are the ones ( ex clampers) who asked for this act in return for not clamping. If they cannot abide by what they asked for it isn't my problem.
It is people like SteveS11 and pavorotti on here, and pepipoo and MSE who take the time to read the Act and use the 'small print' to legally follow the rules.
It is people who without knowing that in 50% ,could be higher, that with a bit of thought they can save themselves 50/100 pounds and pay that keep them in business. AND despite case after case going against them they still do not get it right. AS i said earlier Some Councils are also guilty of not understanding the rules
You meant one way to check they are complying with POFA is to send them the letter which, if you didn't, they would have no choice but to do so.??
As an aside, they may be all sorts of terrible people but whether they get to enforce it or not, most of the time, the driver of the car does owe the money. So the starting point is I owe this but I don't want to pay. Whilst that wouldn't sit well with me personally, it does tip any misrepresentation in furtherance of it, into the criminal.
Edited by Graveworm on Monday 17th June 23:08
Graveworm said:
So when you suggested "One way to get around this is as follows "
You meant one way to check they are complying with POFA is to send them the letter which, if you didn't, they would have no choice but to do so.??
As an aside, they may be all sorts of terrible people but whether they get to enforce it or not, most of the time, the driver of the car does owe the money. So the starting point is I owe this but I don't want to pay. Whilst that wouldn't sit well with me personally, it does tip any misrepresentation in furtherance of it, into the criminal.
You’re taking the moral high ground but often these parking ‘fines’ are very unfair and unjustified. I’d always avoid paying if legally possible.You meant one way to check they are complying with POFA is to send them the letter which, if you didn't, they would have no choice but to do so.??
As an aside, they may be all sorts of terrible people but whether they get to enforce it or not, most of the time, the driver of the car does owe the money. So the starting point is I owe this but I don't want to pay. Whilst that wouldn't sit well with me personally, it does tip any misrepresentation in furtherance of it, into the criminal.
Edited by Graveworm on Monday 17th June 23:08
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff