Private parking fine - should I pay?

natgleed

I've received a letter from a private parking company saying I parked longer than the limit of 2 hours. I plan to use the defense of no clear signs and excessive fine compared to the cost if I get follow up letters.
However I'm concerned because I'm leaving the country in a month, so if I did get a court request that wouldn't reach me. So would I get into deeper trouble, or would the fact that they can't find me actually work in my favour?
Thanks

taffy056

Can you name the company who issued the fake ticket? The best defence is to ignore completely, it works, we have 10s of thousands happy customers to attest to that. Providing your vehicle is yours and not leased you should have no problems with ignoring.

bargepole

natgleed wrote: »

... However I'm concerned because I'm leaving the country in a month, so if I did get a court request that wouldn't reach me. So would I get into deeper trouble, or would the fact that they can't find me actually work in my favour?
Thanks

This could be a tricky one. The standard advice is to ignore, as the chances of them issuing a court claim are very small - only 845 claims in 2011 out of c.550,000 unpaid tickets.

But, if they did issue a claim, and no response or defence was received because you were away, they could get a default judgment, and a CCJ because you wouldn't have paid it.

Really depends on whether you're planning to return to the UK at any time, or whether someone can forward mail to you.

And by the way, it is NOT a fine!!!

BASFORDLAD

Bargepole i would agree but its only relevent depending on the parking company( ie those that never do court and those that do)

natgleed

Thanks for your replies.

The company is called Parking Eye

Coupon-mad

natgleed wrote: »

Thanks for your replies.

The company is called Parking Eye

Don't worry about them at all & please stop thinking you have to offer a defence! Did you Google them or search this forum about them? You could be reading threads about them for DAYS there are soooo many! :rotfl:

Well known issuers of fake PCNs just like all the rest. IGNORE THEM LIKE WE ALL DO!

Parking Eye almost NEVER do court but they tried it once in the Smithy case last year on here, never again! In an ill-informed moment of madness they tried to claim around £4000, instructed a team of barristers (clearly not understanding the Small Claims system at all!). Judge told them where to go with that and although the judgment was odd in that the judge decided Smithy should pay £90 I think, Parking Eye got thir fingers well and truly burnt!

And since then, in May this year, there has been a Higher Court ruling which basically stuffs most PPCs if ever they tried a Small Claim at the moment! See the threads on VCS - v - HMRC which basically established that an agent like a PPC does not have the ownership/occupier rights in law to make a claim against a motorist, unless they own the land.

Parking Eye don't own any car parks, only a lot of useless cameras!

Typical thoughts that newbies have in error, about these fake PCNs:

They think it's a real parking fine = WRONG.

They think because the DVLA release the registered keeper's data that the PPC must have some sort of authority = WRONG.

They think that because major retailers like Supermarkets use these firms that it 'can't be a scam' = WRONG.

They think that a debt collector can/will call round = WRONG.

They believe the empty threats in the 'debt collector' letters = WRONG.

They think that it may affect their credit rating = WRONG.

Just play snap with the letters, it's EASY. I am an ordinary wife and Mum with a responsible job and clean credit record and I have ignored 2 fake PCNs. I would very happily collect more and laughed when I got both of mine.

See my signature. Click once. Look at the current forum thread list and read the sticky thread second from the top 'PPC letter chains'. Watch the Watchdog clip linked on there and read the other links at the top. Check out the letter-chain pics so you both know what to expect = MORE LETTERS!

It's only junk mail, nothing more. No more bothersome than deleting a series of phishing emails, honestly.

Stephen_Leak

Parking Eye vs. Smith, Manchester, 2011. The judge ruled that the PPC’s demands were unreasonable, were therefore an unlawful contractual penalty and found in favour of the driver. However, as there were two unpaid tickets involved, she awarded the parking charges of £15.00, not the £260.00 penalty. She also awarded costs of just £95.00, not the claimed £4,457.20. Personally, I suspect that the poor judge only did this to get rid of the four solicitors PE sent.

However, we now have the recent landmark court cases, VCS Parking Control vs. Ronald Ibbotson, S!!!!horpe, 2012, HM Revenue & Customs vs. VCS Parking Control, Lower Tax Tribunal, 2012 and VCS Parking Control vs. HM Revenue & Customs (Appeal), Upper Tax Tribunal, 2012. In these cases, the judges ruled that only the car park owner can charge for parking and take drivers to court. The Upper Tax Tribunal is equivalent to the High Court, and therefore its judgements set legal precedents.