Another Parking Charge question

Rekusu

Hi there, I have read many of the posts regarding the issuing of Civil Parking Charge Notice and taken note of the general advice. Having recently received one from Athena ANPR (Lidl) I am suitably freaked. Certainly the terms are displayed in the Lidl car park and whoever was driving my car (?!) did overstay by 20 mins, but from a legal point of view, there are things I don't understand. If this 'Invoice' can be ignored, and is considered not to be a legally administered charge, how can these companies exist and continue to break the law so openly. Is the driver's loop-hole that Athena obtained the name and address of the registered owner from the DVLA and before the DVLA can give that information to a private company, they should obtain the driver's consent? Or is it because it says 'Parking Charge Notice' and only the police or local authority can issue a PCN? This 'PCN' sites the Protection of Freedom Act 2010 in that I should pass it to the driver. That seems reasonable so why can the owner ignore it and be on the right side of the law? Many thanks Rex

Guys_Dad

There is a difference between criminal law and civil law. The PPCs would have to rely upon civil law.

The PPCs work on the basis that they have contracted with you when you use a parking space controlled by them. They use language and methods that coerce the public to pay charges all out of proportion to the "loss" that the landowner may have suffered.

If you refuse to pay, their only route is to take you to court. They rarely do that because they son't want to lose and in many cases their signage is poor, their charges are clearly penalties and you can't sue for a penalty in civil law. You may also read about POPLA on here, which is the new appeals process that actually costs them money to go through. (I won't explain further as there is a lot on here about that).

All in all, they are making a living from the people who assume that their charges are a legitimate fine and pay up.

So, you are currently 99.9% sure to get away with ignoring them. Not 100%, as they do have the occasional win in court, but this is usually down to the defendant not getting their case defence right, but the odds of it ever reaching court are so stacked in your favour, that you should ignore.

Others will give fuller answers on points, but, in general, that's the position.

Rekusu

Thanks very much for your answer. Having read lots about this, I am going to ignore but that is not how my wife feels. Is it worth sending one of the form letters that I have found? Dear Sirs, Re: Your letter dated [dd/mmmm/yyyy] Reference[#] I acknowledge receipt of your captioned letter. It seems that you have got my details from the DVLA and I confirm I am the keeper of the vehicle in question. You need to take this matter up with the driver concerned. In the meantime I absolutely deny your claim that the amount claimed, or any amount at all, is due to you from me. Yours faithfully Or should I just totally ignore it? Thanks

HardWorker2010_2

I don't think that would work now. Since 1st October they are allowed to pursue the registered keeper if they can't find out who the driver was.

Your easiest course of action is to ignore them completely. They usually give up after a few threatening letters and turn their attention into other possibly easier to scam victims.

Guys_Dad

Rex wrote: »

Thanks very much for your answer. Having read lots about this, I am going to ignore but that is not how my wife feels. Is it worth sending one of the form letters that I have found? Dear Sirs, Re: Your letter dated [dd/mmmm/yyyy] Reference[#] I acknowledge receipt of your captioned letter. It seems that you have got my details from the DVLA and I confirm I am the keeper of the vehicle in question. You need to take this matter up with the driver concerned. In the meantime I absolutely deny your claim that the amount claimed, or any amount at all, is due to you from me. Yours faithfully Or should I just totally ignore it? Thanks

In a word, no.

Sir_Roger_deLodger

Don't communicate with them at all. Ignoring is still the best option.

surfboy1

Rex wrote: »

Thanks very much for your answer. Having read lots about this, I am going to ignore but that is not how my wife feels. Is it worth sending one of the form letters that I have found? Dear Sirs, Re: Your letter dated [dd/mmmm/yyyy] Reference[#] I acknowledge receipt of your captioned letter. It seems that you have got my details from the DVLA and I confirm I am the keeper of the vehicle in question. You need to take this matter up with the driver concerned. In the meantime I absolutely deny your claim that the amount claimed, or any amount at all, is due to you from me. Yours faithfully Or should I just totally ignore it? Thanks

Why does your wife think that you owe the PPC money?
If your 20 min overstay has inconvenienced anyone it would be the land owner not the PPC!
As it is a free car park then your 20 min overstay has not cost the landowner £60 or £100 or whatever has it ?
I bet you were even spending money in the store wern't you?

Rekusu

Thanks for the replies. She would like to pay because she is Japanese and one does not rock the boat; always obey those who appear to have authority! Yes, I was shopping but the store, when I approached them, told me there was zilch they could do. However, I was back shopping again this afternoon and noted the displayed sign. It says (amongst other things) that after 1.5hrs of free parking, the customer agrees to the additional fee. It also says that any profit will be donated to charity, but I assume that is the charity that makes the managers of Athena wealthy individuals. Given that I presumably agreed to the terms by overstaying, is non-communication still the best option?

surfboy1

You do not owe the PPC anything.
Only the land owner, and only his loss, nothing else!

timbo58

Yes, ignore.
Doesn't matter what their silly sign says frankly it means nothing legally.
Even if there were a charge for parking then overstaying it is only actually costing the landowner (if they set the fee) the actual cost, hence asking for anything more than £0 in this case is unreasonable.

Asking, as they have, £60 is actually a 'penalty' (quite clearly) and so is both a contravention of the unfair contracts act and outside of their remit since only a court can impose a penalty.

Rekusu

Thanks for your rapid reply. I will just file it under all the paperwork that I need to look into in due course.