Private parking ticket - don't ignore?

[markjay]

On a general note... this is a civil matter, and as such akin to a commercial dispute.

My general advice would be to always dispute in writing any bill, invoice, or other form of pay demand that you do not intend to pay.

Doing so means that the matter has to go to court before any further action can be taken against you.

And if you are lucky, then the other party might decide to drop the case.

Of course if you have no valid reason to avoid paying the amount demanded, then you should either pay-up, or otherwise agree terms of payment with the creditor.

But ignoring a pay demand is rarely a good option.

 

[Dryce]

And if you are lucky, then the other party might decide to drop the case.

If the private parking enforcement companies were in the business of regulating carparks as a service for the owners with no incentive to actually invoke these charges then perhaps.

However there is a suggestion that these companies operate on the basis that they are on occasion willing to pay the carpark owner in order to operate their business or only charge a minimal fee to operate on the site.

That means their income model is likely based not on fees from the carpark owners but on the invoicing of drivers and RKs for violating these unsigned 'agreements' on their notices. That isn't healthy.

My view is that while the POFA exists for good reasons it has been badly legislated - allowing these companies to operate under it's umbrella. At the very least HMG should have set out some regulation on charges so that there would be a better balance of power, interest, and incentive between the different parties.

Look at it another way. Somebody parks on your driveway and you have very little power. Somebody stops off briefly out of hours in an empty carpark operated by one of these companies - and they get may get hit by a disproportionate invoice.

HMG should have done better with this.

 

[BTB 500]

As mentioned, for £60 it's not worth the time/hassle/risk of fighting it (and in all likelihood, losing) - I'll just pay up and learn to be more careful.

Just to put this into context, the scene of the crime here is a short (40m) & narrow slip road off a major dual carriageway, ending in a Parcelforce depot. Immediately before that are the MB dealership and casino, opposite each other. So the road is a dead end, with nowhere to stop in front of the dealership if the gates are closed and a big empty car park on the other side with "Free Parking, Welcome" on the corner and no warning signage on the entry. If you look carefully you can see the ANPR cameras pointing at the the entry and exit but these are about 50' away. If you pull into the car park and go straight into the bays nearest the entry/exit (as we did - where the maroon SUV is below) the only nearby parking notification sign would be behind you, and not visible. So I can see how we missed it - possibly the basis for a dispute if you did have the time/energy/inclination!

 

[st13phil]

As mentioned, for £60 it's not worth the time/hassle/risk of fighting it (and in all likelihood, losing)

Looking at the pictures, I'd say that an appeal on the grounds of inadequate / misleading signage would win. The PE signs are miniscule and almost invisible by comparison to the very large and noticeable "24 HOURS / FREE PARKING / WELCOME" sign, but only you can decide whether your time to put in an appeal (it would almost certainly have to be two stage: first to PE who would reject, and then to POPLA) is worth £60.

 

[st13phil]

However there is a suggestion that these companies operate on the basis that they are on occasion willing to pay the carpark owner in order to operate their business

Commonly known as a "fishing licence", and it tells you all you need to know about the ethics of the PPC's involved.

My view is that while the POFA exists for good reasons it has been badly legislated - allowing these companies to operate under it's umbrella. At the very least HMG should have set out some regulation on charges so that there would be a better balance of power, interest, and incentive between the different parties.

Agreed. The intention of PoFA 2012 was probably reasonable in that a landowner really ought to have some form of redress against the inconsiderate who abuse their land by parking on it when they shouldn't, and it was introduced against the backdrop of outlawing clamping on private land. However, through lack of effective regulation and oversight it has allowed PPC's to operate what is to all intents and purposes an extortion racket.

 

[markjay]

If the private parking enforcement companies were in the business of regulating carparks as a service for the owners with no incentive to actually invoke these charges then perhaps.

However there is a suggestion that these companies operate on the basis that they are on occasion willing to pay the carpark owner in order to operate their business or only charge a minimal fee to operate on the site.

That means their income model is likely based not on fees from the carpark owners but on the invoicing of drivers and RKs for violating these unsigned 'agreements' on their notices. That isn't healthy.

My view is that while the POFA exists for good reasons it has been badly legislated - allowing these companies to operate under it's umbrella. At the very least HMG should have set out some regulation on charges so that there would be a better balance of power, interest, and incentive between the different parties.

Look at it another way. Somebody parks on your driveway and you have very little power. Somebody stops off briefly out of hours in an empty carpark operated by one of these companies - and they get may get hit by a disproportionate invoice.

HMG should have done better with this.

A friend who owns an empty plot of land in west London had it converted to a private pay-and-display car park.

The parking management company he engaged marked the parking spaces, put-up signage and a ticket machine, and erected a tall pole with a CCTV camera on top. All this at no cost to the owner.

The deal is that the owner gets to keep 100% from the parking fees, while the parking management company get to keep 100% of any 'fines' collected.

So in fact they are paying him (by installing the equipment and monitoring the parking for free) for the right to collect 'fines' on his land.

Which to me means that they just know that people WILL park there 'illegally' in spite of the big signs everywhere and the menacing-looking CCTV camera.

I guess they know their business, and there's income for them to be earned there. I still can't understand why so many motorists keep falling foul of these clearly displayed 'contracts'? I can understand the odd 'offender' (the OP for example - a set of very particular circumstances, poor signage, etc), but for a company to be able to build their business model around relying on a constant stream of parking 'offenders'... makes you wonder if we really know all theres is to know about human nature. It certainly seems that the parking management company does...

 

[st13phil]

I still can't understand why so many motorists keep falling foul of these clearly displayed 'contracts'? I can understand the odd 'offender' (the OP for example - a set of very particular circumstances, poor signage, etc), but for a company to be able to build their business model around relying on a constant stream of parking 'offenders'... makes you wonder if we really know all theres is to know about human nature.

I think they rely on two principle factors:

1. The implementation of unusual terms
2. The rigid enforcement of what a reasonable person would think of as a de minimis matter

 

[Dryce]

I guess they know their business, and there's income for them to be earned there. I still can't understand why so many motorists keep falling foul of these clearly displayed 'contracts'? I can understand the odd 'offender' (the OP for example - a set of very particular circumstances, poor signage, etc), but for a company to be able to build their business model around relying on a constant stream of parking 'offenders'... makes you wonder if we really know all theres is to know about human nature. It certainly seems that the parking management company does...

Depends on reasons for he 'offences'.

A given % of them will probably be people who have overstayed a bit. Rather than charge them prorata they are 'fined' by the operator at a rate that may be disproportionate. Afterall - what would happen if they came back 15 minutes late to a traditional barrier controlled carpark - probably pay an extra hour - not the equivalent of an extra few days.

The companies operating this way are clearly exploiting the 'problem' and have no incentive to fix it. Technology allows them to set up barrerierless entrt and exit monitoring and provides the means to cheaply access DVLA database.

Solution? Stick in a barrier and issue the driver with a ticket on entry. It's clear cut as to what the relationship is. And if you don't want people parking at night then yuo don't allow the barrier to open. But then that would eliminate the transgression income to below the level needed to make it *profitable* to enforce.

The setup we have is setup to be unfair - primarily because in England and Wales the POFA has been set out to allow exploitation of the law for commercial gain.

 

[Harrythedog]

I'd like to know why/how the DVLA can dish out your information i.e name and address to all and sundry. Surely the Data Protection Act has you covered

 

[Meldrew2]

With the clear photo of "Free Parking" with no additional terms on the sign, I would expect any court enforcement to be destined for absolute failure.

I'd ignore everything with the sole exception of communication from the County Court - which is what I have done three times thus far in the last few years.

On receipt of Court documents, I would reply with a defence centred around the photo. If the parking company want to waste money on sending a legal representative to the Court, I'd happily spend a day there - with reporter(s) from local media.

 

[Dryce]

With the clear photo of "Free Parking" with no additional terms on the sign, I would expect any court enforcement to be destined for absolute failure.

Having seen the images I'd agree. Big words:

Welcome
24 Hours
Free Parking

That's an invitation. Do you know what they say on the signage? And also the positions are relevant. Could you reasonably be expected to see them at the time.

If it was only 20 minutes - given that invitation at the entrance - what was the basis of them alleging you owed them anything? Have they made a technical mistake?

 

[Deleted member 6183]

Having seen the photos I would be more inclined to approach the landowner, I assume the Casino, and request that they intervene.
I trust that you won't get swept away with the more emotional replies.

 

[400ixl]

I'd like to know why/how the DVLA can dish out your information i.e name and address to all and sundry. Surely the Data Protection Act has you covered

DPA and GDPR allows for the use of personal data for appropriate reasons. The DVLA require the requester to give a reason which is compliant with the DPA and if it is they can give out the information.

Unfortunately this is deemed as an appropriate use, so no issue you can take with the DVLA.

 

[st13phil]

Having seen the photos I would be more inclined to approach the landowner, I assume the Casino, and request that they intervene.

As I said in an earlier post, it's always easiest if the landowner will instruct the PPC to cancel but in this instance I can't see what the imperative is for the Casino to do so - unless Bill is a regular Bingo go-er, of course

I honestly think PE would fail to convince a Court that the signage was adequate, but it's much better not to have to get to that stage. Personally, I would appeal to them as Keeper pointing out the deficiency of their signage, especially in view of the Casino's own signage, and tell them that if they refuse the appeal you want a POPLA Code. A win at POPLA is pretty likely given the signage issue, and it has the advantage of costing PE around £30 for the privilege. Even if POPLA refuse the appeal the result isn't binding on the appellant who can then defend the claim at Small Claims Court.

 

[Deleted member 6183]

As I said in an earlier post, it's always easiest if the landowner will instruct the PPC to cancel but in this instance I can't see what the imperative is for the Casino to do so - unless Bill is a regular Bingo go-er, of course

I honestly think PE would fail to convince a Court that the signage was adequate, but it's much better not to have to get to that stage. Personally, I would appeal to them as Keeper pointing out the deficiency of their signage, especially in view of the Casino's own signage, and tell them that if they refuse the appeal you want a POPLA Code. A win at POPLA is pretty likely given the signage issue, and it has the advantage of costing PE around £30 for the privilege. Even if POPLA refuse the appeal the result isn't binding on the appellant who can then defend the claim at Small Claims Court.

If I'm honest I'd rather pay and forget than immerse myself in that much detail.

 

[st13phil]

And that's what the PPC relies upon.

Remember that ParkingEye is owned by that bastion of straight dealing: C(r)apita.

 

[Skd884]

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

Yes.

 

[Deleted member 6183]

And that's what the PPC relies upon.

Remember that ParkingEye is owned by that bastion of straight dealing: C(r)apita.

I've no appetite for defending such firms, however, what they rely on is people like you and I slipping up and falling foul of their process.

 

[Deleted member 131833]

Not a fan of the show but Watchdog BBC1 are running a bit on the subject now 20:00 hrs

 

[E55BOF]

Personally, I would appeal to them as Keeper pointing out the deficiency of their signage, especially in view of the Casino's own signage, and tell them that if they refuse the appeal you want a POPLA Code. A win at POPLA is pretty likely given the signage issue, and it has the advantage of costing PE around £30 for the privilege. Even if POPLA refuse the appeal the result isn't binding on the appellant who can then defend the claim at Small Claims Court.

And that, gentlemen, is IT in a nutshell. Would I pay this charge at this stage? Would I 'eck as like; f**k 'em...