Private parking ticket - don't ignore?

[st13phil]

that little snippet has got my legal brain going into overdrive - fascinating theory

Just to elaborate a little...

The driver is the one who is alleged to have entered into a contract with the PPC by way of performance, i.e. they read the signage, understood the conditions and used the parking facility.

The Keeper (unless present) cannot have entered into the contract because they were unaware of the actions of the driver, but PoFA 2012 allows for the transfer of liability for a private parking charge (NOT a fine!) to the Keeper of the vehicle if certain conditions are met and the driver has not been identified.

With an ANPR setup like PE use, they do not know who the driver was unless the driver (or Keeper) is daft enough to tell them and there is no requirement for them to do that. That means that the PPC can only hope to recover monies from the Keeper, and then only if they follow a very prescriptive process with respect to timing of notices and the wording that those notices contain. If they don't follow the process precisely then liability cannot be transferred to the Keeper and they're up the proverbial creek without a means of propulsion. In general, PE are pretty good at keeping to the process, but they are known to get it wrong on occasion. Other PPC's are much more slipshod and some don't even try to invoke Keeper liability through PoFA 2012.

Hence, never, ever disclose the identity of the driver when accused by a PPC as they may inadvertently give you a get out of jail free card.

 

[e55nick]

I've had four 'tickets' from Parkingeye and several from other private companies. I have never paid any of them and they have never ended up anywhere near a court. I'm surprised in this day and age that they're still in existence. What they've sent you is nothing more than a speculative invoice and should be used for a better purpose like replacing your Andrex.

 

[oldguy57]

Annoying as it is I would be paying as well. Recently a driver went to the High Court over the same issue. Court decided that the parking company did not have to prove that they had suffered any loss and they were entitled to make a profit from the contract. Driver had to pay.

 

[neilrr]

I just won a POPLA appeal for overstaying in a carpark by 7 minutes. The Tesco where I shopped told me the private parking company (PPC) make more money from the car park (about 20 spaces) than Tesco make from their store.

I would fight it using the free help available at http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showforum=60

You just have to be right on one point, the PPC has to right on every single thing they do - signage, (including the size of the letters on the sign!), time stamps, photos, lines on the ground, lighting, wording on their PCN & on & on & on.

 

[Deano1972]

I’d pay it as eventually the parking company will catch up with you and just take it on the chin ,,I presume the signs where up for you to see ,remember the parking company AND the land owner will benefit from the fine so as mad as it is they want you not to pay as it helps towards the cost and rates of running a private carpark

 

[400ixl]

Basically, ignore anything that does not come from the courts. As soon as you respond they have you as acknowledging that you were the driver, up until then they have no legal standing. Very rare for them to go to court with someone who hasn't acknowledged their invoices and demands.

The reason they are still in business is because enough people acknowledge the invoice and just pay or put themselves in a position of being taken to court.

They will need to be able to evidence the loss they incurred by you taking up a parking space. If the business was not even open at the time of the offence, then that loss is zero in the courts eyes. Only the unaware pay the £60 invoice value.

 

[Skd884]

Ignore everything they send you and eventually you will never hear from them again.
I have done the above more than once.

 

[BTB 500]

To those saying "ignore it", have you read the link in my original post?

Until late 2012, Parking Eye didn’t follow through with the threat of court action, and this resulted in increasing numbers of tickets being ignored. As a consequence Parking Eye needed to change the perception of their tickets, and started to make county court claims. Since 2012 Parking Eye have issued as many as 1,000 per week.

 

[Dryce]

Basically, ignore anything that does not come from the courts. As soon as you respond they have you as acknowledging that you were the driver, up until then they have no legal standing. Very rare for them to go to court with someone who hasn't acknowledged their invoices and demands.

Responding doesn't acknowledge you as the driver unless you choose to identify yourself as such.

They send to the registered keeper. They may assume the RK is the driver in their correspondence as a tactic to imply they know the RK was driving.

The complication as BTB500 has stated is that since 2012 they can chase the registered keeper if the driver is not identified. And the identification of the RK is known.

 

[whitenemesis]

Just pay it, life's too short ...

 

[219]

Responding doesn't acknowledge you as the driver unless you choose to identify yourself as such.

They send to the registered keeper. They may assume the RK is the driver in their correspondence as a tactic to imply they know the RK was driving.

The complication as BTB500 has stated is that since 2012 they can chase the registered keeper if the driver is not identified. And the identification of the RK is known.

The trick there might be to nominate as the driver someone they can’t chase - eg someone who is out of the country , or even better , someone who died since the alleged contravention.

 

[TinnitusJosh]

The trick there might be to nominate as the driver someone they can’t chase - eg someone who is out of the country , or even better , someone who died since the alleged contravention.

Misrepresenting (fraudulently, if you do it deliberately) who the driver was, is almost certainly the wrong approach

 

[st13phil]

The trick there might be to nominate as the driver someone they can’t chase - eg someone who is out of the country , or even better , someone who died since the alleged contravention.

A good wheeze until you have to explain your “subterfuge” to a Court. Being economical with the truth is one thing, lying is something else.

Unfortunately, while most people are reasonable about where they park, a significant minority aren’t and that encourages land owners to engage someone to “manage” their parking facility for them. The problem with that is that the PPC’s are, almost without exception, more interested in making money than they are in managing parking. This leads to conflict and disputes where there need be none.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[st13phil]

To those saying "ignore it", have you read the link in my original post?

Apparently not [emoji849]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[ph47mf]

I think it depends on how far the parking firm is willing to take it. Some will take you to small claims for just one parking offence, some don't bother.

I got a fine parking at a retail park a few months back, I actually went back to find there wasn't any signage to say pay and display by the entrance, so I have since ignored its warning letters. The letters were quite frequent at the start but has since stopped as I have not responded in anyway or provided who the driver was at the time. I am not saying just ignore like I have, but some do give up. It's a game of luck.

 

[Deleted member 6183]

The trick there might be to nominate as the driver someone they can’t chase - eg someone who is out of the country , or even better , someone who died since the alleged contravention.

The problem with lying is that should the case end up in court you are committed to the lies which then become perjury.

 

[neilrr]

A lot of dangerously ill informed advice & nonsense being posted here. Follow some of it & you'll either find yourself in court or on a TV show to do with bailiffs knocking on your front door wanting to collect on a four figure debt.

Go to http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showforum=60 where you can get the advice of people who are up to speed on the subject & handle these PCNs from PPCs every day of the week.

 

[oldguy57]

Wouldn't want the hassle over £60 personally anyway. Moral of the story is not to park on private land no matter what the circumstances I guess.

 

[st13phil]

I think it depends on how far the parking firm is willing to take it. Some will take you to small claims for just one parking offence, some don't bother.

This is absolutely true.

However, regarding ignoring, just because nothing appears to have happened within a few months doesn't mean nothing will happen. The PPC has 6 years in which to bring a claim, and it is foolish to believe that they won't do so. There are a growing number of cases where a PPC has not pursued the original claim past the snotty debt collector threats stage for a number of years - perhaps 5 or more - but has then sparked into life by issuing a Court claim. This often results in a default win for the PPC because they issue the claim against the original address for the ticket recipient. If the recipient of the ticket has moved house they are unaware of the claim and so provide no defence and only find out that they have a CCJ registered against them when they apply for credit (perhaps a mortgage?). This can and does cause real problems for them.

So, if you are going to ignore then make sure you keep meticulous records regarding dates and if you move house make sure you have mail forwarding set up, potentially for a number of years.

 

[400ixl]

To those saying "ignore it", have you read the link in my original post?

Yes, read it and it is not entirely correct (up to date). One website is not gospel, especially when they confess to being associated with parts of their proposed process and are not entirely independent (they most likely get their slice of the £19 appeals charge). You should never ignore anything from the courts if they decide to take it that far, but until then there is no requirement to respond to them or pay anything.

Whole site is to drive people into their associate appeals process for profit. It is not independent advice and in your best interest.

They comment of "In the first 9 months of 2015 ParkingEye issued 24,540 small claims. Of these, 724 went to a hearing. This suggests both that ParkingEye are not afraid to issue claims, but also that a large number of cases are settled ahead of a hearing." is pure speculation that paying was the reason as to why they did not reach a hearing.