Stansted Airport Parking - Empark - Deferred Payment Declaration

esmerobbo

If they have agreed to £30 being paid that being the actual amount owing I think you would be wise paying it and putting it down to experience.

I believe it would be difficult to prove a case of harassment against someone pursuing an amount you had agreed to pay. They have offered you the chance of just paying the amount due, it may seem an awful lot to pay for a short time parking but its their price they can charge what they like for a service. It is up to you if you use it or not.

Given the chance of paying £30 which you do owe them, or going to court and arguing over it is a no brain'er as far as I am concerned. It may never get near a court but is it worth the risk or the hassle for £30.

Coblcris

You signed an agreement to pay £30. The only sure way out is to fulfil the obligation you created when signing the contract by paying the £30.
You would find it extremely difficult to prevail if this went to Small Claims.

RENEGADE_2

To Coblcris & Esmerobbo

it is not as easy as "you said you'd pay, now do it".

The question none of us is 100% sure of is whether the OP is legally obliged. That in turn is something he will never know unless the matter is resolved by a competent court. On the one hand, his signature may be the clinching factor for the enemy - a judge may well decide that this should mean he pays. If so, fair enough, I don't recommend avoid this one. If you do, expect comebacks.

Though what if it emerged that he didn't legally have to because the law placed heavier emphasis on company losses and de facto penalties?

BANKS - it angered me when it transpired that their rotten £35 charges for going 1p over a limit were deemed legal. But that is the law, the customer has signed the terms and conditions. When he did, he didn't have his car stuck in a car park with a barrier that wouldn't open; he chose to open an account. What would have happened if our friend refused the arbitrary fine? Legally he'd be all right, owes nothing to anyone, but where would his car be?

This is complex, and my verdict is that the matter requires legal advice, or consultation from experts. Sadly, none of the three of us is an expert as such.

As for harassment. You can indeed have your antagonist with harassment; you need only tell him once that you deny his demand and that he is welcome to take the matter to adjudication. One more attempt to extract that sum and he is beginning to torment his target; if the price starts to rise in the process, then this is 101% harassment.

pompeyrich

In my non legal opinion, if the op had had enough money on him, he would have had to have paid the £30 fee to exit the car park. He didn't so the company have allowed him to settle his bill at his convenience and to ensure prompt payment, have indicated the fee will rise if not settled within 14 days. Surely that is fair enough, I once filled my car up with petrol, then found I had left my wallet at home, the garage took my registration and gave me a form to fill in and sign that I would pay asap, allowing me to come back and pay later. If I had chosen not to return, do you think they would have let me off? Seems a similar situation to me and although annoying, the tariff is posted on their website and no doubt at the entrance to the car park and at the pay station. Might be worth firing off a complaint letter at the high charges but think you will have to pay.

peterbaker

It's over four and a half years since the managers of that same car park tried to sting me and failed:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/4174017#Comment_4174017

I am no expert but as you had gone so far as to start altering the form, might have been more reassuring for you now if you had actually removed all notion of entering into a new contract. Hopefully they will have got the message anyway and written it off.

Good luck!

RENEGADE_2

pompeyrich wrote: »

In my non legal opinion, if the op had had enough money on him, he would have had to have paid the £30 fee to exit the car park. He didn't so the company have allowed him to settle his bill at his convenience and to ensure prompt payment, have indicated the fee will rise if not settled within 14 days. Surely that is fair enough, I once filled my car up with petrol, then found I had left my wallet at home, the garage took my registration and gave me a form to fill in and sign that I would pay asap, allowing me to come back and pay later. If I had chosen not to return, do you think they would have let me off? Seems a similar situation to me and although annoying, the tariff is posted on their website and no doubt at the entrance to the car park and at the pay station. Might be worth firing off a complaint letter at the high charges but think you will have to pay.

I too have a "non-legal" opinion and this is why this thread is not as helpful as the regular PPC/debt collector pages where some poor man couldn't find his keys and left Tesco six minutes after expiry time. We just don't know whether the company can legally pursue the £30 or not. Likewise, noboby would wish for Dailyclicker to part with this unreasonable amount if there were no lawful requirement.

My instinct is that the passport copy coupled with £60 legal threats are redolent of sleazy PPC acivity. Petrol stations by contrast are short of so many litres of fuel that they previously owned when a driver leaves the garage without paying. He never produces ID because registration/car details/own declared details seem to be enough. If he drove off without even going to the kiosk, police will be called and the vehicle will be reported. There will be no DVLA request as the police have this information stored on computer, and the keeper will not be able to play ignorant. I somehow doubt the police would have been on the case of a driver who left a private car park without paying. So with this, what was stopping the management team simply taking vehicle details and letting the person go?

Fuel theft is a criminal offence, parking disputes are a civil matter. Two incomparable entities. This is why I really do not know what the answer is to this conundrum. To make matters worse, was £30 the price for staying? Or is it a penalty? These things are also taken into consideration. It may be a crafty way of discouraging longer parking but presented as an option, it makes this scenario opaque.

pompeyrich

RENEGADE wrote: »

Fuel theft is a criminal offence, parking disputes are a civil matter. Two incomparable entities. This is why I really do not know what the answer is to this conundrum. To make matters worse, was £30 the price for staying? Or is it a penalty? These things are also taken into consideration. It may be a crafty way of discouraging longer parking but presented as an option, it makes this scenario opaque.

If you had taken the trouble to click on the link in the 3rd reply, you would have seen that the £30 is the advertised fee for parking between 45 and 120 mins. So a service has been provided, albeit an expensive service, and the op, or his dads friend, did not have the funds to pay on exiting the car park so was offered the opportunity to pay later.

The fast rising tariff is clearly a way of keeping the "short stay 15 min pick up car park" as they call it, just that. A convenient location to drop off or pick up a passenger and go, it rises to £70 a day after the 2 hour band.

Peterbakers post might offer some hope and maybe the car park will reduce the fee, do you think the garage, in my previous post, would drop the bill because I don't like the amount of fuel duty/VAT there is on petrol? Surely a similar scenario.

vax2002

It is a criminal offence to make a copy of any passport for any reason, this includes "photocopy's"

Sirdan

vax2002 wrote: »

It is a criminal offence to make a copy of any passport for any reason, this includes "photocopy's"

I somehow doubt that very much...copy passports are made and used in many areas of credit provision and also if the document were to be retained as evidence in criminal proceedings copies would be supplied to the magistrates or jury and the defence ...

Can you elaborate and tell us which law is being broken by copying a passport, particularly if it is with the holder's permission or under a statutory provision ???

EDIT : The UK Border Agency TELLS employers to keep copies of passports

"keep the following records or documents, and make them available to us if we ask:
a photocopy or electronic copy of each migrant's passport or United Kingdom immigration status document (and, in time, their ID card), showing that they are allowed to work or study; and....."

http://www.ukba.homeoffice.gov.uk/employers/points/sponsoringmigrants/HRandcompliance/howrateHR/area1/

Coupon-mad

vax2002 wrote: »

It is a criminal offence to make a copy of any passport for any reason, this includes "photocopy's"

Really? Tell that to most employers when they take on a new member of staff and have to do checks on them as far as entitlement to work and CRB checks might be concerned. I used to copy all documents when I used to employ staff.

And I have a photocopy of my passport right here, as the Hotel on holiday in Italy took a copy for me at my request so I could carry ID around if needed.