Thousands of 'illegal' private parking fines may be refunded

[The _Don]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring...al-private-parking-fines-may-be-refunded.html

 

[thebig1]

I never paid any, was never daft enough. Always went to customer services at the supermarket and handded the letter to them and request it be removed from my address. They always did it.

 

[CaptainRAVE]

Doesn't surprise me, they are just after quick money. When I got mine I was hoping they would take me to court - each letter they sent the fine would increase or would get a 'discount'. We don't actually pay for parking here, so I was hoping that they would take me to court. They never did...why would they, they are just after the majority of people who pay the 'fine'. It is shocking that they get away with this.

 

[Ted]

Spam reported

 

[Wheelsnuts]

These Mickey Mouse 'parking fines' and the follow up letters are best ignored. The private parking companies know that financially it would not be worthwhile to pursue their claims through the courts and they would most likely lose if challenged anyway. It needs someone like the RAC to take on one of these spurious claims and pursue it to the High Court so that proper legal precedent can be established.
There was a recent ludicrous incident in my neck of the woods where a retail park had three separate but physically connected free car parks. Motorists who parked in one car park and had visited stores in the same retail park which had different 'dedicated' car parks were observed (snooped on) by parking wardens and issued with tickets. The parking notices were unclear and, in any case, it was totally unreasonable to expect motorists to drive from one adjacent car park to another each time they visited a different shop! Needless to say the local press and politicians picked up on it and the parking company backed down.

 

[Dryce]

These Mickey Mouse 'parking fines' and the follow up letters are best ignored.

BAD ADVICE.

:fail

 

[Dryce]

Thousands of 'illegal' private parking fines may be refunded - Telegraph

This article merely re-states a legal opinion - and not an actual legal outcome.

If this ever did get dragged into the courts as a test case then the companies affected will fight / delay it all the way. The 'refunds' are highly unlikely as because the consequences oif test case went against them is that the businesses affected won't have any money and their business model will be wrecked.

 

[ChrisA]

Does this count for Airport Car Parking also or not due to entering in to a contract?

 

[st13phil]

It's no accident (imo) that no PPC has ever appealed a case that finds against them as to do so risks publicly wrecking their business model.

The Beavis case that is about to be heard at the Court of Appeal is unusual in that the Judge at the original case found in favour of the PPC but specifically said that he was going outside established law in doing so, and wanted his decision tested in a higher Court so that a precedent is set.

 

[Dryce]

It's no accident (imo) that no PPC has ever appealed a case that finds against them as to do so risks publicly wrecking their business model.

And prior the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 they seemed to avoid the courts almost completely.

It's an interesting watching the evolution of this business and the law. The invented penalties are high enough to make the business model attractive - while at the same time they are potentially fragile based on the technicality of the law.

But there is also something highly unsatisfactory about how HMG has allowed these businesses to exploit the situation - while at the same time not really giving small private landowners much real defence against inconsiderate or abusive parking practices.

 

[st13phil]

But there is also something highly unsatisfactory about how HMG has allowed these businesses to exploit the situation - while at the same time not really giving small private landowners much real defence against inconsiderate or abusive parking practices.

I agree. HMG has basically sloped shoulders on the matter, while one of their agents (DVLA) earns money from it, and individual small landowners who have a problem with inconsiderate or abusive parking practices are effectively left powerless. And while that's happening, HMG's favourite outsourcing company instigates tens or thousands of Small Claims track cases annually, many arguably without merit, as a sort of "protection racket" to guarantee their income stream.

I feel that there are two related problems. One is that the industry is effectively unregulated, and the other is that the predominate business model used actually needs motorists to be ticketed to be viable. One has begat the other imo, and has lead to a feeding frenzy by unscrupulous ex-clampers and their ilk.

Where it's necessary (and one of the ironies of all this is that in most cases it's not necessary at all because there's no problem to solve), it's perfectly possible to control parking in a fair and honest way that doesn't rely on sanctions to achieve its aim. In the tiny minority of cases where there really is an intractable problem, the other irony is that if the punitive charge levied to discourage abuse was set at a more modest level - say £10 to £20 - and applied in a fair way, most transgressors would cough up regardless of whether the demand for money was legal or not without resort to dubious threats or wasting Court time.

 

[Dryce]

I feel that there are two related problems. One is that the industry is effectively unregulated, and the other is that the predominate business model used actually needs motorists to be ticketed to be viable. One has begat the other imo, and has lead to a feeding frenzy by unscrupulous ex-clampers and their ilk.

Indeed.

But ironically it is in principle very easy to control because the DVLA is a critical enabler. As you say though - it is part of the revenue ecosystem.

 

[st13phil]

But ironically it is in principle very easy to control because the DVLA is a critical enabler. As you say though - it is part of the revenue ecosystem.

The behaviour of the DVLA in all this would be considered astonishing for any other organisation that holds and sells access to personal data, but no one in HMG seems to give a fig.

The DVLA is supposed to satisfy itself that "there is just cause" before releasing personal data, but in the shady world of PPC's this "just cause" test is satisfied merely by the data requester being a member of an Accredited Trade Association. Until relatively recently, there was only one ATA: The British Parking Association (BPA), now there are two with the second calling itself the Independent Parking Committee (IPC) who have quickly become notorious for their laughably biased "appeals" system.

When there is clearly no "just cause" for the DVLA to have sold personal data to a PPC, complaints that they have not exercised sufficient oversight before selling the data are met with a response that it's not the DVLA's role to regulate the PPC's, as that duty falls to the ATA's. But both the BPA and the IPC are actually just members' clubs for the PPC's, who publish a Code of Practice about how they should operate, and are both totally reluctant to apply any meaningful sanction against a member who blatantly ignores their CoP. Could this be because there is a structural conflict of interest? After all, would you sanction the people that pay you? Complaints to the ATA's that they aren't effectively regulating the activity of their members are met with the response that they operate in an advisory capacity only, and have no regulatory powers! So who, exactly, does regulate the PPC's? Answers on a postcard...

Overall, it's hard not to reach the conclusion that the whole private parking enforcement industry is a giant scam based on a pack of lies, and aided and abetted by HMG who choose to look the other way.

 

[Deleted member 65149]

These Mickey Mouse 'parking fines' and the follow up letters are best ignored.

BAD ADVICE.

:fail

Why is it bad advice?

About 3 years ago I parked (during heavy rain) in a car park without seeing any payment signs/machines. A month later I received a notice from NCP to pay £50 (or, confusingly, £100 depending on which part of the form you read!). Because I wasn't offered the opportunity to pay the normal parking charge of £2 I ignored the notice. A month later I received a "Final Reminder" from NCP, followed over the next 5 weeks by four letters from a debt collection agency demanding £92, culminating in a threat of court action. I ignored the lot. I've heard nothing since. So, for me, ignoring the letters was good advice.

 

[Dryce]

Why is it bad advice?

About 3 years ago I parked (during heavy rain) in a car park without seeing any payment signs/machines.

Because the law has changed.

Protection Of Freedoms Act 2012 allows these companies to go after the registered keeper if they are not able to go after the driver.

The old 'wisdom' used to be to ignore these invoices addressed to the keeper as speculative and unenforceable. As long as the keeper didn't identify the driver (and they were under no obligation to do so) then it was hard for these companies to bring somebody to court - and they couldn't act against the keeper.

The new 'wisdom' is that you need to do some homework and appeal these invoices because they can go after the keeper - and deflect them before you potentially end up in small claims court.

 

[rf065]

Because the law has changed.

Still not convinced, out of the thousands of these issued every day in the UK, how many have ended in court? I doubt is is much higher than zero!

Russ

 

[Dryce]

Still not convinced, out of the thousands of these issued every day in the UK,

I should have added that the law works differently in Scotland.

how many have ended in court? I doubt is is much higher than zero!

A lot.

Most are probably undefended or settled - but the point is that the law is not as clear cut in terms of defence as the internet smart alecs might think. Once it gets to the court stage the average member of the public isn't as confident as they might have been when they were following the advice of the likes of wheelnuts and ignoring their mail.

So the way to deal with these appears to do your homework and use the appeals process BEFORE it gets out of hand.

 

[Sp!ke]

Things have changed and they are taking people to court and they are quite often winning and getting CCJ's registered against the registered keeper.

The first appeals case is soon to be heard so we shall see.

 

[CaptainRAVE]

Still not convinced, out of the thousands of these issued every day in the UK, how many have ended in court? I doubt is is much higher than zero!

Russ

You certainly don't hear of many/any. It wouldn't suprise me if they took someone to court who has many of these 'fines', but as long as the majority are foolish enough to pay them, why would they go through the hassle and expense to get the rest. The only time they will start to take people to court is when many stop paying. I don't see that happening anytime soon; all my friends who I spoke to about my parking ticket were shocked that I wasn't going to pay and told me they wouldn't risk it...exactly why these companies get away with it. I had about 7 letters in the end, all saying they 'may' do this and they 'may' do that. Some of the letters were dressed up appropriately to be threatening and I can see why many give into them, but ultimately I filed all of mine under 'S' for shred

 

[Druk]

I should have added that the law works differently in Scotland.

In what respect?