Private Parking Tickets discussion

robredz

Oopsadaisy wrote: »

No, we're not sure. After all millions of people have been successfully taken to court.

However all the court records have been deleted and all that remains are ones where the giant lizards from space have actually changed it to look like the PPC lost.

You need to send the fine to me [via Western Union] and I will sort it all out.

What part of Nigeria are you from 419er?

Coupon-mad

LindyB wrote: »

It was then that I saw all the responses saying - do not pay private car parking!. I'm a little nervous about not paying - are you sure? Please let me know

100% sure you are safe to ignore the ticket and the debt collector letter deluge that follows.

Google 'private parking scam' and look for forum posts on here, pepipoo.com, consumer action group, all of which will tell you that such tickets are unenforceable trash.

The registered keeper will receive a few debt collector letters telling you to pay, but so what once you know they are just bog roll! Do not panic, do not believe the lies on the letters about Court/CCJs/dire consequences! They cannot just 'apply for' a CCJ, that's not how things work at all.

See examples here of what letters to ignore and be prepared for. Don't bother to actually read their threats when you get the matching threats, instead look at them now so you are ready to laugh when you get the whole predicable set:

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/....php?t=2214803

To be proactive, if the scam letters get tiresome you may like to also report the company and their debt collectors for harassment:

http://www.nationaldebtline.co.uk/en...=03_harassment

But don't forget this is NOT a debt, NOT a fine, just a mickey mouse ticket.

Nothing happens, your credit record is NOT affected, so don't fall for this con.

Be angry about their illegal scary letters, tell your friends never to pay a private parking ticket, even if they have broken the car park's spurious 'rules'. Spread the word.

zebedee70

Here's the latest update...

Reminder of the situation - I got a private parking ticket for £100, for parking with my front wheel on the white line (I was parked across 2 bays, apparently). I would have ignored it, but because I was in a hire car, I wrote to Premier Parking Services, refusing to pay. They wrote back (as Valley Enforcement), refuting my counter-claim, and restated the charge. I did not pay, thinking that as they now had my details, they'd continue to follow up with me. However, after 3 months of silence, they sent a notice to National. National paid it without alerting me, and charged £162 back to my company Amex, which I have to pay off.

Here's what has happened since...it's not great, unfortunately. I did a couple of things...firstly, approached Amex for a chargeback. They checked with their legal folks and said that National couldn't be proved to have done anything wrong (at least , at first glance), in that they were within their rights to pass on any charges that had been made against them in terms of parking. It felt like they'd heard the story before, by the speed with which they reached that conclusion...so no joy there.

Secondly, I went to the National desk where I'd rented the car, and got a copy of the T&Cs. I used this to quote back to National in an email which detailed my case; that I felt they'd paid a charge which was neither a fine nor penalty, and which did not come from a legal authority such as a local council or police force, and instead they had paid an invoice for a private parking company's idea of breach of contract. Basically, my tack was that National had breached the terms of its rental agreement, by paying something which wasn't from a legal authority (remember that if a legal authority sends a Notice to Owner, then the owner is liable to pay up. However, a private parking firm shouldn't be able to do this. All they should really ask for is the details of who was driving the rental car, which National can provide. I think in this case, Valley Enforcement have sent a document that resembles a Notice To Owner closely enough for National to think they have to pay up. That or, because they get to add their admin fee, they pay anyway, and make some money themselves. Either way, no due diligence in respect of their customers, since they're happy to rip you off for the cross-charge, despite not being obliged to pay anything to the PPC.

National emailed back today. They have checked with both their 'fines' and legal department, and they actually suggest that the 'authority' mentioned in their T&Cs can in fact be any private landowner or company, who have the right to impose parking conditions on the land where they operate. "They have the 'authority' to impose parking charges based on their terms & conditions of parking". Because I didn't pay the private company, and 3 months had elapsed, the company concerned sent a notice to National to pay the charge. National say that they can't afford to ignore there notices, as non-payment often results in further action & further charges.

I rechecked their T&Cs, and sure enough, it mentions that the driver is liable for 'charges' imposed by 'courts or other authorities in respect of parking...'. Looking at it in light of who they claim have the authority to charge them, it now appears to be a cover all for any parking invoice they're sent, whether from the police, a court, or in my case, Valley Enforcement / Premier Parking Services.

National have offered to fight my case if my parking ticket was unfair.They say if they can get a refund from Valley Enforcement, then they will refund the £162 they've taken from my Amex card! However, there's a clear conflict of interest, as now the parking company & National have made their money...they're hardly likely to push it for me, are they?

One point I made today in response was that, if Valley Enforcement have implied a legal obligation for National to pay up, as the owner of the vehicle, then they may have broken a law by impersonating an official body.

I've continued with the treat of small claims to recover my cash, but my worry now is that National's T&Cs cover them to the extent that I won't be able to make a case for breach of T&Cs, which appears to be all I have left to go on...

Anyone got anything to add?

Cheers, Neil

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Have a look at this thread, it's typical and when the poster showed the t&cs to us on the forum you can see that it was clear that the car rental firm's contract only allowed them to deduct for real fines, not parking charge notices from private chancers:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/33715217#Comment_33715217

So yes, your first urgent thing is to check out the t&cs for your car hire. If you can't find them, ask the car hire company for them. Why not write - snail mail - and refute the deduction from your Amex card and state that you believe under their t&cs they can only deduct for penalties (i.e. official fines from the Police or Local Authority). This is neither so state that they must refund your card in full forthwith or you will take further action to recover your money.

Ask the hire co. to show where in their t&cs they consider they are allowed to pay any old mickey mouse parking charge notice (which - in case they are not aware - is NOT a penalty nor a fine!).

Then they will reply and either refund you or reject your request and show you the t&cs. I expect it will be the latter but no doubt those t&cs won't cover them at all!

At the same time, take the matter to Amex - tell them asap that you wish to dispute that payment. Check the timeframe up front with Amex for chargebacks so you get any form in on time. I think they have such a scheme, have a look at their website or phone them. I seem to recall a case on pepipoo.com where a motorist had very little trouble getting Amex to refund a spurious payment to a clamper.

IMHO, I very much doubt that the hire t&cs cover the hire co. for the deduction.

If Amex give you any trouble with the payment chargeback then post back on here. There is always the Financial Ombudsman to look into Amex's decision if they won't retract the payment.

Oopsadaisy

Issue small claims papers against both National and the PPC.

After all, £162 is about one hour of solicitor time....so they'll settle up sharpish.

Coblcris

Please quote the exact terms from the Ts and Cs. I press the point - 'exact'.

It is hardly surprising that their 'view' is such that they do not see that a refund is warranted is it ?


The terms that you signed will tell us. Do you have the original agreement as that would be best by far.

zebedee70

I think they've been quoted before, but for reference, this is from the National/Alamo paper copy of T&Cs that you get when you pick up a hire vehicle (full section included, relevant statement in red):-

"3.4 You are liable for and will pay all tolls, congestion charges, bus lane/speeding & other traffic fines, penalties (including penalty notices), court & other authority costs for parking, clamping, release from compounds, traffic or other offences incurred in respect of the Vehicle during the Rental Period whether You were driving the Vehicle or not. Upon an authority's request We may supply Your details to such authority. If we supply Your details or such penalty remains unpaid You may also be charged an Admin fee. We may, on request, provide You with a copy of the traffic violation notice We send to the authority. If the Vehicle is seized by any authority either inside or outside the UK You shall be charged for any Civil Penalty, restoration/repatriation charges & loss of use while We cannot rent out the Vehicle."

When this was initially posted, I very much focussed on the terms 'fines', 'penalties', 'court' & 'authority' - it seemed to suggest that only officially legal fines/penalties issued by 'official' authorities would be covered.

However, they defined 'other authority' today in their email. I'll paraphrase this, as it's on my work PC, but the gist was 'our use of the term authority does not relate just to the police or local council. Any landowner has the 'authority' to impose conditions when you park on its land. It has the right to charge you if you fail to comply with these conditions'.

You can see why they'd insist therefore that the statement 'other authority costs for parking' within clause 3.4 might apply in this case.

Where I think this whole thing falls down is the fact that National seem to have accepted whatever document they were sent by Valley Enforcement as a proper Notice To Owner. If you've seen one of these (there are links in some of the recent posts), it's not inconceivable that they would assume they are liable in the same way they'd be liable for a police/council NTO. There's no doubt a blanket policy to pay now, and offer to defend their customer later (once they've added their admin fees) - by which time they'll never get a refund, and in any case, it's no longer in their interest after they've added another £60 for the privilege.
I've tried to be polite in pointing out that they themselves might have been scammed by V/E into believing it's a genuine NTO. Clause 3.4 of the T&Cs protects them in the case that a genuine NTO is served. They ought to act with due care to their customers in refuting false NTOs from the PPCs, but all the time they can hide behind clause 3.4 for anything they might pay (and earn a fee for paying), I don't think they'll ever choose to do the right thing...

I'm hoping that you'll spot a new loophole in the above, as I'm thinking that Small Claims probably won't go my way.=, especially if I involve the PPC itself, who'd no doubt wave the photo of my hire car front wheel sitting on the white line...

Do let me know what you think...

Cheers, Neil

Coblcris wrote: »

Please quote the exact terms from the Ts and Cs. I press the point - 'exact'.

It is hardly surprising that their 'view' is such that they do not see that a refund is warranted is it ?


The terms that you signed will tell us. Do you have the original agreement as that would be best by far.

Oopsadaisy

zebedee70 wrote: »

I'm hoping that you'll spot a new loophole in the above, as I'm thinking that Small Claims probably won't go my way.=, especially if I involve the PPC itself, who'd no doubt wave the photo of my hire car front wheel sitting on the white line...

Do let me know what you think...

I'd suggest that most likely National will pay up before it gets to court.

Why would they pay?????
1. It's cheaper than defending it. Dealing with the paperwork alone will cost them £100, then they'll need to get legal opinion - £200. Then turning up at court [which remember will be YOUR local court] will costs them travel and accomodation and again soliciotros costs [£500].
2. They would be worried about the press if they lost and the hassle it would entail if everyone that had been 'done' by them paying suddenly re-claimed their money.

It will cost you £30 [iirc] to file, which you get back if you win. Even if you lost you're not liable for their legal costs etc, so our downside is limited.

Go on, you'll have a good story to tell, win or lose; and you could make legal history/the papers.

Coupon-mad

I would take them (the car hire company and the parking company) to the Small Claims Court, as 'jointly and severally liable' for your loss and costs. I do not agree with the hire company's interpretation of 'authority', it looks like a desperate bid to fob you off, to me!

Why on earth would they want to be paying any old spurious invoice that mimics a Council PCN? And since any alleged contract in private parking matters can only be with the driver, they had NO BUSINESS paying it.

One would hope that any local judge would realise, if you argued the point in your defence, that the ticket constitutes an illegal penalty absolutely unrelated to any possible 'loss' for you having overlapped a white line.

Don't deny you did overlap the line and don't deny who was driving, stick to the fact that the amount is punitive and therefore unenforceable. And if you didn't see the signs then say so (take pics of the signs now if you can, and draw a map of where they are in the car park, how high etc. Do the signs there say a Charge is payable for overlapping a line?).

Have you posted about this in pepipoo.com forums yet? That's the best and most experienced forum IMHO, to help you with advice now:

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showforum=30

HTH

zebedee70

I checked the signage after the fact. I can't complain that they were in obscure places, since they're located at the pay machines. They states that you should 'park within the marked bays' - of course, taken absolutely literally, I was within the marked bays (plural), rather than 'within A marked bay' singular...semantics I know, but there you go.

Regarding the point about National not wanting to be taken to court due to a risk of losing / negative publicity, would it also be the case that, as a company of their size, they can't afford NOT to show up & defend themselves, even if it does cost more than a settlement. If they're seen to just roll over, isn't that leaving them exposed? Surely they'd want to be seen to turn up and win?

I think if the initial offence was ever put before a judge, they'd agree that I'd parked against the conditions of the car park, even if it is a little pedantic in the case of one wheel on the dividing line. I happen to work with a magistrate, and this was his opinion.

It's a bit of a moot point now, as if I'd been in my private car, I could have safely ignored the letters from the PPC. It's only the fact that it's a hire vehicle that meant I contacted the PPC in the first place, precisely to avoid National getting involved. The PPC obviously know how to work the system in their own favour...it's likely National are well aware, and see it as a profit making opportunity...

However, as you've all pointed out - if I'm already into this for £162, I might as well chance my are with a further £30 for small claims...

Coupon-mad

zebedee70 wrote: »

I think if the initial offence was ever put before a judge, they'd agree that I'd parked against the conditions of the car park, even if it is a little pedantic in the case of one wheel on the dividing line. I happen to work with a magistrate, and this was his opinion.

QUOTE]


They might do, and you're not denying that your car overlapped a white line. IMHO that wouldn't be the point under discussion. They could say whatever terms they want but those terms have to be fair and enforceable for a judge to uphold them.

Magistrates I think look at what is black and white in terms of criminal law. Civil law is different, it considers what is reasonable, what constitutes a fair contract, etc.

The Hetherington-Jakeman ruling is worth quoting, seeing as the company seem to like Legal Speak - although it was only in Small Claims as well so doesn't set a binding precedent:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-542355/Judge-quashes-300-parking-fine--set-frighten-intimidate-driver.html

You say the signs tell you to park within a marked bay - but as the sign forms the alleged contract, what does it say exactly? Does it say 'if you contravene any of the above then you contractually agree to pay this charge'.

I think a judge would agree with you that the amount has to be seen a purely punitive so any alleged contract would be void. That would mean that the parking company are liable as the Parking Charge isn't enforceable.

I also think that the judge would agree with you that the hire co's t&cs do not allow them to pay a Parking Charge Notice from a private company as it is not from an Authority (capital A on their t&cs or not?). And because it's not their business to pay it as the contract is different on private land and rests solely with the driver. They've denied you your right to appeal or deny or ignore.

I would be interested to see what happens. I reckon one company or the other will fold.

Then make sure next time you hire a car, that you use a different company! And raise the issue of private parking charges before hiring -specify with an added note under the t&cs as you sign, that you only agree to their terms in relation to Local Authority or police parking offences. Private parking Charge Notices are not to be paid under any circumstances. Find a hire company that 'gets' it!