Parking Charge Notice
Discussion
One for the PH massive.
A friend of mine got a parking charge notice today. Ive actually never seen one because Ive never had one but when I heard the circumstances I thought a few things were odd.
The car park is owned by LIDL. There is a childrens play complex at the other side of the car park. Until wednesday there were no restrictions. Small (and Ive been to look and I mean small) sighns have been put up saying you the car park is owned by and you operates on its behalf 1 1/2 hr parking, fines bla bla bla. These are at the entrance and not at the childrens play complex.
So my friend got 2 tickets as she had been there for 4 hours. £70 per ticket + £40 per ticket admin charge if she doesn't pay within 28 days + interest and further costs that may be incurred recovering the fine.
WOW.
Luckily I suggested that she stop crying and myself and Mrs GB went to see the manager of the childrens play complex to ask about what was happening.
He is a saint and should be Knighted. He was furious because LIDL (who he confirmed did own the car park) never told him that restrictions were comming in. The first he knew of it was when Mrs Angry gave him both barrells on wednesday morning after getting a ticket. (The play complex thing is about 2 hours minimum so you can see parents falling into this one easily) Did LIDL know this?
Anyway Mr playcomplex manager has got it sorted and the fines have been cancelled. Hurray!
He told me that he would fight the corner for any customer that told him about getting fined over the past few days and that he could confirm that car users had been in his complex because for H&S reasons children have to be booked in and out.
The nice move was he is billing the company for data protection requests because he has to get a member of staff to check the records.
My question. Is the fine company not acting a bit underhand?
Is the fine (its £45 if you pay up early by the way) a set agreed national figure?
Why does it go up to £70
Can they charge an extra £40 admin fees? (what are they doing admin wise that costs £40?)
Where can I get a knighthood for the childrens complex manager?
Thanks troops.
A friend of mine got a parking charge notice today. Ive actually never seen one because Ive never had one but when I heard the circumstances I thought a few things were odd.
The car park is owned by LIDL. There is a childrens play complex at the other side of the car park. Until wednesday there were no restrictions. Small (and Ive been to look and I mean small) sighns have been put up saying you the car park is owned by and you operates on its behalf 1 1/2 hr parking, fines bla bla bla. These are at the entrance and not at the childrens play complex.
So my friend got 2 tickets as she had been there for 4 hours. £70 per ticket + £40 per ticket admin charge if she doesn't pay within 28 days + interest and further costs that may be incurred recovering the fine.
WOW.
Luckily I suggested that she stop crying and myself and Mrs GB went to see the manager of the childrens play complex to ask about what was happening.
He is a saint and should be Knighted. He was furious because LIDL (who he confirmed did own the car park) never told him that restrictions were comming in. The first he knew of it was when Mrs Angry gave him both barrells on wednesday morning after getting a ticket. (The play complex thing is about 2 hours minimum so you can see parents falling into this one easily) Did LIDL know this?
Anyway Mr playcomplex manager has got it sorted and the fines have been cancelled. Hurray!
He told me that he would fight the corner for any customer that told him about getting fined over the past few days and that he could confirm that car users had been in his complex because for H&S reasons children have to be booked in and out.
The nice move was he is billing the company for data protection requests because he has to get a member of staff to check the records.
My question. Is the fine company not acting a bit underhand?
Is the fine (its £45 if you pay up early by the way) a set agreed national figure?
Why does it go up to £70
Can they charge an extra £40 admin fees? (what are they doing admin wise that costs £40?)
Where can I get a knighthood for the childrens complex manager?
Thanks troops.
gently bentley said:
My question. Is the fine company not acting a bit underhand?
gently bentley said:
Is the fine (its £45 if you pay up early by the way) a set agreed national figure?
gently bentley said:
Why does it go up to £70
gently bentley said:
Can they charge an extra £40 admin fees? (what are they doing admin wise that costs £40?)
gently bentley said:
Where can I get a knighthood for the childrens complex manager?
gently bentley said:
Thanks troops.
No probs
I don't understand. Does the car park serve both Lidl and the Childrens Play Complex? I assume it must do as otherwise why would the owner of the Childrens Play Complex be able to get the tickets refunded.
Presumably the problem only arises because the car park is busy preventing customers getting to Lidl?
I do have a certain amount of sympathy for businesses where there car park is abused during their working hours and can understand why they employ car parking enforcers. However I see no reason for enforcing parking restrictions outside their opening/working hours.
Incidentially the suggestions I have heard is to ignore this requests. They will then have to get your details from the DVLA, and then you ask them to prove you were driving.
Presumably the problem only arises because the car park is busy preventing customers getting to Lidl?
I do have a certain amount of sympathy for businesses where there car park is abused during their working hours and can understand why they employ car parking enforcers. However I see no reason for enforcing parking restrictions outside their opening/working hours.
Incidentially the suggestions I have heard is to ignore this requests. They will then have to get your details from the DVLA, and then you ask them to prove you were driving.
There's a mega thread over on Pepipoo about the same thing, but at BP at Gatwick. As already mentioned the enforcement company get the RKs details from DVLA and then send threatening letters to the RK.
Of course, the contract their signs are attempting to put in place is with the driver, not the RK. It also appears that, quite often, the signs they put up are so badly worded as to be incapable of establishing that anyone has agreed to anything.
Bunch of thieving cowboys, if you ask me.
Of course, the contract their signs are attempting to put in place is with the driver, not the RK. It also appears that, quite often, the signs they put up are so badly worded as to be incapable of establishing that anyone has agreed to anything.
Bunch of thieving cowboys, if you ask me.
I heard a recent talk-in show on the radio about these parking firms not being answerable to any national regulation. It seems anyone can apply for a licence, and be able to operate after a couple of days training. The prog (think it was the Vine prog) earlier in the week.. seemed to suggest that these cowboys approach businesses and persuade them they need someone to "watch over their car park" and then erect some obscure signs and rake in the cash. 
Meanwhile down in the big 'burbs of Preston, Bolton and Manchester - plans are afoot to hike up the charges in the multi-storeys and charge for Saturdays and Bank Holidays. Local small businesses are complaining that this will effectively kill off their trade as drivers will head for places like the Trafford Centre and other out of town retail parks where they can park for free whilst they shop
Where I live? Um - National Park and Tourist area ... so I've always had to pay
The main jobsworthy resides at a supermarket in Cockermouth, followed closely at a "photo-finish" by the idiot roaming around one supermarket car park in Keswick who goes around with a stopwatch and even fined one poor woman who had overstayed because she was stuck in a long check-out queue at Christmas
Meanwhile down in the big 'burbs of Preston, Bolton and Manchester - plans are afoot to hike up the charges in the multi-storeys and charge for Saturdays and Bank Holidays. Local small businesses are complaining that this will effectively kill off their trade as drivers will head for places like the Trafford Centre and other out of town retail parks where they can park for free whilst they shop
Where I live? Um - National Park and Tourist area ... so I've always had to pay
The main jobsworthy resides at a supermarket in Cockermouth, followed closely at a "photo-finish" by the idiot roaming around one supermarket car park in Keswick who goes around with a stopwatch and even fined one poor woman who had overstayed because she was stuck in a long check-out queue at Christmas andmole said:
ipsg.glf said:
gently bentley said:
Where can I get a knighthood for the childrens complex manager?
Speak to Tony Bliar. 50 quid should cover it. In used notes.
Just make sure it's not in scottish notes, some people down south won't accept them
Sigh. Right thats it, anti-Scottish comment. The invasion is back on. Wheres my chib.
Tongs ya bass! Eh o hang on we've moved on. Freeeeeeedum.
gently bentley said:
andmole said:
ipsg.glf said:
gently bentley said:
Where can I get a knighthood for the childrens complex manager?
Speak to Tony Bliar. 50 quid should cover it. In used notes.
Just make sure it's not in scottish notes, some people down south won't accept them
Sigh. Right thats it, anti-Scottish comment. The invasion is back on. Wheres my chib.
Tongs ya bass! Eh o hang on we've moved on. Freeeeeeedum.
No that's not anti scottish, there was an article in the Maidenhead advertiser this week that Scottish notes are easier to falsify. It seems that some gang are distributing Scottish notes and people cannot see the differece because we see so few of them down here. Hence people are reluctant to accept them.
GB, Am I correct in thinking that LIDL have subcontracted the enforcement to an outfit called G24?
If so there are serious questions in place concerning this outfit and operations.
They have been caught many times sending people penalty notices based on the person having made two visits, penalty based on timing the first arrival & second departure even though the terms & conditions do not have any stipulation similar to "No return within x hours"
Again, as mentioned on another thread, this is the outfit which produced photographs to 'prove' arrival/departure timing when challenged in one case. It was clear upon examination that the same photo was produced for both events. One wonders if the photos had been :ahem: modified in some way to attempt to prove the timing.
My knowledge mainly relates to one site, but anecdotal evidence suggests this situation is much more widespread across their operations.
To me seems to be the unacceptable face of this particular industry, personally I'd love to pin something on them.
Regds
FiF
PS just read your original post again.
"So my friend got 2 tickets as she had been there for 4 hours."
Why two tickets? One offence surely? And no I'm not calling you Shirley
I'd agree that the 1.5 hour limit will have been picked with the utmost cynicism.
If so there are serious questions in place concerning this outfit and operations.
They have been caught many times sending people penalty notices based on the person having made two visits, penalty based on timing the first arrival & second departure even though the terms & conditions do not have any stipulation similar to "No return within x hours"
Again, as mentioned on another thread, this is the outfit which produced photographs to 'prove' arrival/departure timing when challenged in one case. It was clear upon examination that the same photo was produced for both events. One wonders if the photos had been :ahem: modified in some way to attempt to prove the timing.
My knowledge mainly relates to one site, but anecdotal evidence suggests this situation is much more widespread across their operations.
To me seems to be the unacceptable face of this particular industry, personally I'd love to pin something on them.
Regds
FiF
PS just read your original post again.
"So my friend got 2 tickets as she had been there for 4 hours."
Why two tickets? One offence surely? And no I'm not calling you Shirley
I'd agree that the 1.5 hour limit will have been picked with the utmost cynicism.
Edited by Flat in Fifth on Sunday 21st January 13:12
The only method they have of enforcing the "fine" is through contract law. The only person they can possibly enforce this against is the driver - not the registered keeper.
All you need to do is write back disputing the "fine" and pointing out that they should be pursuing the drive of the vehicle at the time. Be very careful not to say that you were the driver. You do not have to identify the driver despite what they say.
These tickets are not worth the paper they are written on...
Sean
All you need to do is write back disputing the "fine" and pointing out that they should be pursuing the drive of the vehicle at the time. Be very careful not to say that you were the driver. You do not have to identify the driver despite what they say.
These tickets are not worth the paper they are written on...
Sean
gently bentley said:
£70 per ticket ...
My local Tesco have outsourced their carpark watch - can't recall to whom and it may hacve changed since I last bothered to look - but the large sign also indicates a £70 charge for over 3 hours.
Now as they have just about the biggest car park in the town, certainly in the centre, partly because the store was built on on of the few car parks the local council previously owned, they clearly are likely to be subject to some problems with people parking up and heading off elsewhere.
On the other hand the only day I have seen it almost full (the covered bit at least, with the store over the top of it) is a Saturday. Most of the rest of the time, even with staff parked there, it is much less than full.
So far I have not tried staying to see what happens ...
Anyway, £70 seems to be the going rate for this which is surely legalised (if it is legal) robbery.
As for the original example, what can you say.
What is it about modern society that makes so many people hold a desire to be so socially disruptive and divisive? Has it always been like this but I just never noticed?
NugentS said:
The only method they have of enforcing the "fine" is through contract law. The only person they can possibly enforce this against is the driver - not the registered keeper.
All you need to do is write back disputing the "fine" and pointing out that they should be pursuing the drive of the vehicle at the time. Be very careful not to say that you were the driver. You do not have to identify the driver despite what they say.
These tickets are not worth the paper they are written on...
Sean
All you need to do is write back disputing the "fine" and pointing out that they should be pursuing the drive of the vehicle at the time. Be very careful not to say that you were the driver. You do not have to identify the driver despite what they say.
These tickets are not worth the paper they are written on...
Sean
Agreed.
Ask them for the video footage of the driver who entered the car park who therefore entered into the contract.
jasandjules said:
NugentS said:
The only method they have of enforcing the "fine" is through contract law. The only person they can possibly enforce this against is the driver - not the registered keeper.
All you need to do is write back disputing the "fine" and pointing out that they should be pursuing the drive of the vehicle at the time. Be very careful not to say that you were the driver. You do not have to identify the driver despite what they say.
These tickets are not worth the paper they are written on...
Sean
All you need to do is write back disputing the "fine" and pointing out that they should be pursuing the drive of the vehicle at the time. Be very careful not to say that you were the driver. You do not have to identify the driver despite what they say.
These tickets are not worth the paper they are written on...
Sean
Agreed.
I want to be clear on this. The registered keeper in this case can prove they were not the driver at the time. 4 police officers are willing to provide statements that they were speaking to the registered keeper at the time of the offence and he was 20 miles away.
So is the above info spot on or a guess?
Sorry to go over it but I want to be sure.
Ask them for the video footage of the driver who entered the car park who therefore entered into the contract.
In England, my advice is spot on (agreeing with the chap above, as he is spot on!).
It is a civil contract, therefore they must take action against the person who entered into the contract for parking, who agreed on the terms. The only person they can get as a result of the license plate is the RK. If the RK was not the driver and can prove it (to be fair the RK doesn't have to prove it, the car park people have to prove WHO entered the contract) AND the RK is under no obligation to provide information to the car park lot about who was driving at the time.
Basically, a quite go fekc yourself reply does the trick...
It is a civil contract, therefore they must take action against the person who entered into the contract for parking, who agreed on the terms. The only person they can get as a result of the license plate is the RK. If the RK was not the driver and can prove it (to be fair the RK doesn't have to prove it, the car park people have to prove WHO entered the contract) AND the RK is under no obligation to provide information to the car park lot about who was driving at the time.
Basically, a quite go fekc yourself reply does the trick...
gently bentley said:
What about Scotland? Its an English coy called TPS Parking Solutions LTD PO Box 599
Sorry to say I Don't know if it is different as I am trained in English Law. It is pretty likely to be the same though, as it is Contract law in the main. But hopefully a Scot lawyer will come along and confirm.
Thanks. The notice states (and its directed at the registered keeper) 'The terms & conditions to which you agreed to be bound upon entering the car park' My point is that the registered keeper was not in the car, did not enter the car park and can prove this.
TPS have been phoned and there rep has told the registered keeper that he is responsible and has a duty to state who the driver was or the fine will be passed onto the registered keeper with additional costs and a possible court hearing.
This must be wrong!
TPS have been phoned and there rep has told the registered keeper that he is responsible and has a duty to state who the driver was or the fine will be passed onto the registered keeper with additional costs and a possible court hearing.
This must be wrong!
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff