Parking ticket in Asda car park - Is this legal, can they take me to court?

bigchrise

grumpyoldgit wrote: »

Because they make a fortune doing so................... :eek:

exactly the man who works for them small white hair horid little man is on comission from tcp he parks out of sight in his own car a black hyundai i30 reg ex59okf he sits around the mother and baby, disabled bays then pounces on your unatended vehicle now this is fact they dont rush to remove trolleys left in parking bays for the reason lees bays park anyware get ticket be warned and look out for the black hyundai

trisontana

There are at least two ASDA/T&C car-parks which have the words "civil penalty charge" on their notices. This is completely illegal and a breach Administration Of Justice Act which states that it is illegal for a private citizen (I.E. the supermarket/PPC) to demand a penalty off another private citizen.

I actually rang T&C last week about these signs and they said that when they get around to replacing the signs they will change the wording. When I asked why they just don't blank out the offending words immediatly, I was told that "it wasn't possible to do that". The cynic in me feels that the longer they delay this change, the longer people will be fooled into think that these notices have some sort of legal standing.

atomicsheep

I read through about 5 pages but couldnt keep going until page 57, so you may have heard this already.

Many on here say you legally have to pay this "fine". They are wrong and perhaps telling you to trick you into paying for it as they dont like what you did.

If you googled a few things you'd find they dont call it a fine but more likely something such as a "fixed penalty"
Its more an invoice which you can choose to ignore.
If it went to court (which it wouldnt cos they have no leg to stand on) they would die instantly.

trisontana

You are correct. If you go across to the "Parking Fines, Tickets & Parking" sub-section of this forum, there are lots of threads on there about unenforceable private parking tickets, and examples of stupid letters which are sent out by private parking companies.

Pound

atomicsheep wrote: »

Many on here say you legally have to pay this "fine". They are wrong and perhaps telling you to trick you into paying for it as they dont like what you did.

I think you're wrong about that. If you drive into a car park which clearly states the charges (not "fines") for exceeding a time limit and you exceed that time then you've agreed to pay that charge. You are legally liable and could in theory be ordered by a court to pay it.

The reason that people get away with it, in my view, is that the parking company has to prove who was driving the car and it's almost impossible for them to do since the registered keeper has no obligation to say who was driving it.

trisontana

Pound wrote: »

The reason that people get away with it, in my view, is that the parking company has to prove who was driving the car and it's almost impossible for them to do since the registered keeper has no obligation to say who was driving it.

And the charge must reflect the actual material loss suffered by the landowner. Anything above that would be considered an unfair penalty. So a free car-park, or having your wheel touching a line amounts to a zero loss to the landowner.

This from the Pepipoo website:-
There is a great deal of doubt about the legal enforceability of private parking invoices that are issued to motorists. Unlike parking tickets issued by local authorities, which are backed by statute, the enforcement of private parking is essentially a matter of contract law. A private parking company needs to overcome many significant legal hurdles in order to be successful, which include:
Establishing that any claim is under the law of contract, rather than the tort of trespass (see case of Excel Parking Services v Alan Matthews, Wrexham County Court, May 2009 where the parking company lost on this ground);
Establishing that all of the elements of a contract (offer, acceptance, consideration) are present;
Establishing who the driver was on the relevant occasion, as any contract can only be enforced against the driver, who may or may not be the registered keeper of the vehicle;
Establishing the prominence and adequacy of any warning signage, and that the driver actually saw and understood the signage (Waltham Forest v Vine [CCRTF 98/1290/B2]);
Establishing that the amount claimed is not an unlawful “penalty”, including that there was no attempt to “frighten and intimidate” the driver (see well reported case of Excel Parking Services v Hetherington-Jakeman, Mansfield County Court, March 2008 where the parking company lost on this ground);
Establishing that any contract does not fail foul of the Unfair Contract Terms Act and associated regulations.

Harry_Flashman

danio wrote: »

Pay the fine and stop whinging about it


You were more than happy to take the parking space designated for a disabled person (It doesn't matter if there were still loads of disabled bays left)...Would you be just as happy to take their disability aswell??...I think not.

(My bold)

Why doesn't it matter?

Pound

trisontana wrote: »

And the charge must reflect the actual material loss suffered by the landowner.

Why does it? My phone company can charge me more than their losses when I make phone calls because that's the contract I have with them. Just like I enter into a contract when I park my car.

Establishing that any claim is under the law of contract, rather than the tort of trespass

I think parking companies would consider use of their car park a contract.

Establishing that all of the elements of a contract (offer, acceptance, consideration) are present;

Offer = sign
Acceptance = park my car

Establishing who the driver was on the relevant occasion, as any contract can only be enforced against the driver, who may or may not be the registered keeper of the vehicle;

This is the point I was making earlier, the car parking company needs to find out for sure who the driver is. If the parking company can't find out, it doesn't mean the driver doesn't owe the money to the parking company, it means they can get away without paying it.

Establishing the prominence and adequacy of any warning signage, and that the driver actually saw and understood the signage (Waltham Forest v Vine [CCRTF 98/1290/B2]);

OK, this is a case-by-case thing. Parking companies can put adequate signs up.

Establishing that the amount claimed is not an unlawful “penalty”, including that there was no attempt to “frighten and intimidate” the driver (see well reported case of Excel Parking Services v Hetherington-Jakeman, Mansfield County Court, March 2008 where the parking company lost on this ground);

Establishing that any contract does not fail foul of the Unfair Contract Terms Act and associated regulations.

These two points I don't know much about but I imagine it's a case-by-case thing where a court (if it got that far) would consider whether the parking company had been reasonable and parking companies could make their system reasonable.

Harry_Flashman

Pound wrote: »

This is the point I was making earlier, the car parking company needs to find out for sure who the driver is.

But there's no way they can get that information if the keeper chooses not to tell them?

Kite2010

The blue-badge scheme DOES NOT apply to private land.

@ Pound, what if the sign detailing the "contract" was 8 feet up a post and you were parking when it was dark?