Nicensleazy
Active Member
Hmm, the statement you make - that "these people have no right to enforce these tickets" is not backed up by the links you have provided, where the website specifically talks about "unfair" parking penalties.
I perhaps used the wrong word saying 'right' and will substitute it for 'power' As far as the links I have provided (particularly in the case of Pepipoo), if you go into forums associated with this subject, you will see that the power to enforce is not an option for these companies because they know that they have little or no chance of receiving in a civil court the figures invoiced for.
Everything I have ever read about private parking enforcement is consistent and does not give those transgressing the posted conditions of the parking facility the right to simply ignore any "penalty notice". If someone has blatently breached the publicly displayed terms and conditions, they are liable and cannot afford to simply ignore all correspondence. It amazes me how often this wholly incorrect assertion is made on this forum.
Nobody has said that it is a 'right to ignore', it is perhaps better put as advisable. There is no means of appeal, either de facto or to their better nature, involved with these companies. They are simply there to extract the maximum amount of money out of as many motorists as possible. They work on an assumption that a certain number of people will be suitably frightened or intimidated and pay without question. I would argue with your statement that people 'cannot afford to simply ignore all correspondence', as entirely the opposite- they simply cannot afford to lend these scams credence by replying at all.
The crux of the matter is: did the person who received the parking penalty blatently flout the posted terms and conditions (e.g. staying too long, parking across multiple bays, not displaying a ticket, etc). and, if they did, is the penalty proportionate? these are the two points upon which a challenge can be made.
I think that anybody, and more importantly a County Court, would agree that these 'penalties' (in fact invoices) are disproportionate which relates to my earlier point as to why these PPC's almost wholly NEVER seek their 'day in court'.
In the OP's case, by parking across multiple bays, they may have broken the posted conditions.
The fact is that the OP may have breached the PPC's 'conditions'- but again by entering into a dialogue with them, they will be adding credence to their dubious practices.
The amount of "penalty" is open to interpretation and the issue can probably be resolved with a cheque for £5 or so as a reasonable settlement for breach of contract.
Open to interpretation by whom? Certainly not the PPC's, they will continue to demand their original invoice whatever and all the more if the OP were to try this tactic. However, you are right that a cheque for £5 OUGHT to be a reasonable settlement for the alleged breach of contract but PPC's and reason are an oxymoron. If they were reasonable their original invoices would be for £5- and most people would pay them!
The ultimate course of action to be taken will be the OP's decision but I would do what I and hundreds of others have done -totally ignore the original notice.
They of course will follow up with more official looking letters threatening court action, visits from bailiffs, damage to your credit rating, crop pestilence, death of your first born etc.
They may, as they certainly did in my case, get hold of your mobile telephone number and ring every week from different mobile phone numbers for a couple of months (these were just ignored) but they WILL go away (took about 10 months in my case) and look for the next 'soft mark' they can find to pay their totally unenforceable and unreasonable invoice.