What if I was in the wrong?

sp22g10

The story;

Parking Eye - Newquay
Paid for 5 hours £5, (should have paid £6 for all day)
Was 24 mins late, they have photos.

Issued with fine, didn't pay, ignored next letter, now have a Roxburghe Debt Collectors letter for £177.

They could with the photos prove it was me, I mean if they asked in court I wouldn't lie. I was in the wrong, I doubt there would be any issue about correct signage etc.

Should I pay? Or continue ignoring?
I really don't want to be taken to court, even if I can win in court.

Stephen_Leak

Firstly, the legal stuff.

Only councils, the police, train operators and Transport for London can impose legally enforceable fines or penalties. A private company or individual can't. Private parking companies (PPCs) call their tickets Parking Charge Notices, not Penalty Charge Notices. In law, they’re called speculative invoices.

Any warning signs are usually so badly positioned and worded, that they won’t have created a fair and legally binding deemed contract with a driver entering the car park in the first place. See The Unfair Contract Terms Act 1997 and Excel Parking Services vs. Cutts, Stockport, 2011.

All the car park owner (CPO) can claim from a driver in damages for any alleged breach of any alleged contract is what they’ve lost as a result. If it’s in a free car park or the driver paid, this is £0.00. Demanding more has been judged to be unreasonable and therefore an unfair contract penalty under the terms of The Unfair Contract Terms Act 1997, which is not legally enforceable. See Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co. Ltd. vs. New Garage & Motor Co. Ltd., House of Lords, 1914 and countless cases since.

There are also now 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 CPO 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.

What should I do now?

We don’t condone not paying or overstaying in a pay car park. If you owe the CPO the original charge, then you ought to write to the CPO, offering this in “full and final settlement”. In any event, you should write to the CPO, advising them that they are "jointly and severally liable" for the actions of their agents, the PPC, and that any further actions by either of them would be regarded as harassment under the terms of The Protection from Harassment Act 1997. This ought to make the CPO call off the PPC and, , maybe, also realise the potential cost of doing business with a PPC.

Don’t appeal to the PPC. They always reject them. What’s in it for them to let anyone off? Actually, there is something in it for them: information. They need to know the identity of the driver of the vehicle involved at the time, because that’s who the alleged contract was with. If they don’t know who the driver was, they have to make do with harassing the registered keeper.

With windscreen notices, an appeal letter will tell them your name and address, and maybe who was driving at the time. If they don’t know who the driver was, they have to buy the details of registered keeper from the DVLA. With postal notices, they’ve had to do this already. But they still need to know the identity of the driver.

They sometimes say that they have the right to ask for this information. This doesn’t mean that you have to tell them.

However, even if you’ve written and told them who the driver was, it just means that they can now harass the driver instead of harassing the registered keeper.

How will they do this to me?

The PPC, then a debt collector and then a solicitor will send you a series of letters. The debt collector and solicitor are usually also the PPC, but using different headed paper. These letters will threaten you with every kind of financial and legal unpleasantness imaginable to intimidate you into paying.

But, they can't actually do anything, for the same reason that a blackmailer can't take anyone who didn’t pay them to court.

What should I do then?

Continue to ignore everything you get from the PPC and their aliases. It does seem odd to deal with something like this by ignoring it. Eventually, they will run out of empty threats and stop throwing good money after bad.

If you still consider it a fine or penalty, then you need to pay. If you now consider it a scam, then you needn't. I respect your decision.

bargepole

sp22g10 wrote: »

The story;

Parking Eye - Newquay
Paid for 5 hours £5, (should have paid £6 for all day)
Was 24 mins late, they have photos.

Issued with fine, didn't pay, ignored next letter, now have a Roxburghe Debt Collectors letter for £177.

They could with the photos prove it was me, I mean if they asked in court I wouldn't lie. I was in the wrong, I doubt there would be any issue about correct signage etc.

Should I pay? Or continue ignoring?
I really don't want to be taken to court, even if I can win in court.

So you owe them £1, not £177.

Parking Eye don't do court. Safe to ignore.

pogofish

What on earth difference would that make?

Whatever you have or have not done does nothing at all to change the fact that PE speculative invoices are a total scam and not enforcable in any way!

Ignore them totally from now on and check the forum sticky to see what letters to expect next, then file and forget.

Stephen_Leak

Not since 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 they were unpaid, she awarded the PPC the two parking charges of £15.00, not the £260.00 penalty. She also awarded costs of just £95.00, not their claimed £4,457.20.

sp22g10

I've read that they don't always do court, but they sometimes do.

What's stopping that person to be me? Like I said, I was most probably in the wrong. Ok I don't owe 90£ and more like £1 or £2, but still worried.

BASFORDLAD

Oh and it isn't a fine.

You can expect fake letters from fake solicitor graham white

Stephen_Leak

I wondered whether you'd pay more attention to PE vs. Smith from 2011 than these cases from earlier this year.

Stephen_Leak wrote: »

<snip> There are also now 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 CPO 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. <snip>

BASFORDLAD

sp22g10 wrote: »

I've read that they don't always do court, but they sometimes do.

What's stopping that person to be me? Like I said, I was most probably in the wrong. Ok I don't owe 90£ and more like £1 or £2, but still worried.

Look they wont take you to court.

They dont own the land. A recent ruling in.the equivalent of the high court means they are stumped.

So stop worrying and move on

sp22g10

I assume from the letters Holy Trinity Church are the land owners, grrr can't believe a institute that should be about peace and honesty would hire Parking Eye.

I find it quite amusing this letter tells me to ignore 'anecdotal information being presented via the internet and on various websites'.

Half_way

Pay your £1, offer it as a full and final settlement, then you are in the clear and you have been entirly reasonable with them