£70 Parking Fine in non P&D Car Park

taxiphil

bluelagoon wrote: »

The drivers are contacted by obtaining the registered keeper information from the DVLA. If the driver is not the registered keeper then the charge still applies to the registered keeper as the wording on our signage covers this possibility.

I'm afraid the charge most certainly doesn't apply to the registered keeper. Not in a court.

You have to prove who the driver was. And the registered keeper has no obligation to tell you.

It doesn't matter what the signs say; they can not override the law. (See AlexisV's example above about fining a paperboy for walking on his land).

bluelagoon_3

Giblets wrote: »

Think we should push the knowledge we hold on moneysaving expert, if Martin took it up, it would open a great many persons eyes

Most of the posts in this thread that tell people not to pay parking charges are based on ignorance.

Firstly I’d like to explain that I do NOT know anything about Pay and Display car park management or supermarket car park charges so I have no idea whether the systems they use are enforceable or not.

However, I do know that if a parking charge is issued to a car that is parked on private land with clear signage and a photograph is taken of the car clearly showing the registration number, the ticket stuck to the window and one of the ‘contractual agreement’ signs in the background then yes - it is absolutely enforceable.

sarahg1969

bluelagoon wrote: »

Just do a Google search for 'car park management' and make a few telephone calls posing as a potential customer.

I doubt you'll like what you hear though.

If they think they are going to get themselves a new customer, they will tell the customer what he wants to hear, won't they? They're not going to tell a new customer that they don't pursue these debts or that they are ultimately unenforceable, are they? Unless they are bad businessmen.

taxiphil

bluelagoon wrote: »

With the system we use here, the charge is £85 but reduced to £60 if paid within 14 days. I'd say about 95% of people pay up immediately. If they don't pay their details are obtained from the DVLA and they are sent a letter asking for the £85 and just about all the rest pay at this point.

If they still don't pay then a County Court summons is issued which I think costs about £30. If they lose, they not only have to pay the newly increased fee of £130 but also the Court fee on top. Personally I'd say that is more severe than just paying the £60 charge.

I've highlighted the key word in red - If

If a parking company could convince a judge that a driver is liable to pay £130, a figure which is comprised of one penalty stacked on top of another penalty, then I'd be amazed.

The law does not recognise the concept of penalties for breaches of contract.

Besides that very fundamental point, I can't see how the claimant could prove a contract even existed, or could prove who the driver was.

I've never seen any evidence of such a case ever having succeeded in a court.

neiljc_2

bluelagoon wrote: »

Most of the posts in this thread that tell people not to pay parking charges are based on ignorance.

Firstly I’d like to explain that I do NOT know anything about Pay and Display car park management or supermarket car park charges so I have no idea whether the systems they use are enforceable or not.

However, I do know that if a parking charge is issued to a car that is parked on private land with clear signage and a photograph is taken of the car clearly showing the registration number, the ticket stuck to the window and one of the ‘contractual agreement’ signs in the background then yes - it is absolutely enforceable.

Blue Lagoon?

wasnt that a fantasy film?

the key word being Fantasy= bluelagoon:rotfl:

taxiphil

bluelagoon wrote: »

Most of the posts in this thread that tell people not to pay parking charges are based on ignorance.

Quite the opposite, I'm afraid. It's you who is displaying ignorance.

bluelagoon wrote: »

However, I do know that if a parking charge is issued to a car that is parked on private land with clear signage and a photograph is taken of the car clearly showing the registration number, the ticket stuck to the window and one of the ‘contractual agreement’ signs in the background then yes - it is absolutely enforceable.

It's only going to succeed in court if all the following points are met:

A. The parking company / land owner can prove who the driver was. Bearing in mind the registered keeper has no obligation to tell them, this could be difficult or, in many cases, impossible.

B. The parking company / land owner can prove that a contract existed between both parties. Displaying a sign is not evidence of a contract.

C. The parking company / land owner can prove that the amount being claimed for reflects their actual losses. I'd like to see how they'd go about proving to a judge that they'd lost exactly £65/£85/£130 as a result of the alleged breach of contract.

(N.B. If all that wasn't difficult enough, they'd have an even harder time convincing a judge that part of the charge was an extra penalty for non-payment within 14 days - this would be regarded not only as another unlawful penalty but as an attempt at coercion - in other words threatening the defendant with a higher penalty if they wish to exercise their civil right to put a defence before a court).

bluelagoon_3

sarahg1969 wrote: »

If they think they are going to get themselves a new customer, they will tell the customer what he wants to hear, won't they? They're not going to tell a new customer that they don't pursue these debts or that they are ultimately unenforceable, are they? Unless they are bad businessmen.

Yes, there are some questionable companies out there who will no doubt say anything to get a new customer.

Just ask them for proof of successful Court cases if you doubt them.

taxiphil

bluelagoon wrote: »

Yes, there are some questionable companies out there who will no doubt say anything to get a new customer.

Just ask them for proof of successful Court cases if you doubt them.

We've seen many threads on this subject, and they always boil down to the same thing: nobody can ever provide any evidence of a single case where a parking company has won a properly defended claim in court.

I hazard a guess that their purported "400 successful claims" are in fact Default Judgements where the defendant didn't reply to the claim form for any number of reasons (moved house, on holiday, etc).

Default Judgements are not the same as wins in court (they can quite easily be set aside upon an application by the defendant), but parking companies love to pretend they are.

bluelagoon_3

taxiphil wrote: »

It's only going to succeed in court if all the following points are met:

A. The parking company / land owner can prove who the driver was. Bearing in mind the registered keeper has no obligation to tell them, this could be difficult or, in many cases, impossible.

CCTV is rather good at proving who the driver was and if that’s not available then a Norwich Pharmacal Order will do the job (rarely used but is an option and compels the Registered Keeper to reveal the driver under oath). Also things like insurance certificates in force on date of the ticket being issued would reveal who the drivers of the vehicle are.

taxiphil wrote: »

B. The parking company / land owner can prove that a contract existed between both parties. Displaying a sign is not evidence of a contract.

If the signs are there to be seen and a reasonable person would see and understand them – then yes, if you park on the land then the contract exists and its terms and conditions are lawful. It is possible to enter into a contract by your actions, for example, entering a car park. You see the signs and agree to the charges by parking there - this creates a contract by action.

taxiphil wrote: »

C. The parking company / land owner can prove that the amount being claimed for reflects their actual losses. I'd like to see how they'd go about proving to a judge that they'd lost exactly £65/£85/£130 as a result of the alleged breach of contract.

The BPA guidelines state a standard charge should not exceed £75 (we charge £60) and the maximum increase should not exceed £150 (we charge £135).

taxiphil wrote: »

(N.B. If all that wasn't difficult enough, they'd have an even harder time convincing a judge that part of the charge was an extra penalty for non-payment within 14 days - this would be regarded not only as another unlawful penalty but as an attempt at coercion - in other words threatening the defendant with a higher penalty if they wish to exercise their civil right to put a defence before a court).

If the parking charge isn’t paid within 14 days then the company we use to manage the car park has to take action and incur costs to recover the money. This is why it increases and it is enforceable.

The increase is not a penalty, they just offer an early payment discount as an incentive (and this has been accepted in Court).

bluelagoon_3

taxiphil wrote: »

We've seen many threads on this subject, and they always boil down to the same thing: nobody can ever provide any evidence of a single case where a parking company has won a properly defended claim in court.

I hazard a guess that their purported "400 successful claims" are in fact Default Judgements where the defendant didn't reply to the claim form for any number of reasons (moved house, on holiday, etc).

Default Judgements are not the same as wins in court (they can quite easily be set aside upon an application by the defendant), but parking companies love to pretend they are.

Really? I've seen evidence of 'properly defended' cases being won by the parking company we use.