'Ticket' from Total Car parks - Do they sue?

blufink

Is there a list of companies to show which of them go as far as to prosecute drivers who simply ignore tickets?

Does anyone on the Forum know if Total Car Parks respond to being ignored!?

I got a ticket on one of their car parks yesterday. I had no change when I parked the car. I left to a note to the effect that I would pay on my return. I was away for 3 hours. The charge would have been £5. The ticket is for £30 (if paid within 7 days). (I know I was stupid).

Any advice gratefully received. TIA

Custard_Pie

blufink wrote: »

Is there a list of companies to show which of them go as far as to prosecute drivers who simply ignore tickets?

Does anyone on the Forum know if Total Car Parks respond to being ignored!?

I got a ticket on one of their car parks yesterday. I had no change when I parked the car. I left to a note to the effect that I would pay on my return. I was away for 3 hours. The charge would have been £5. The ticket is for £30 (if paid within 7 days). (I know I was stupid).

Any advice gratefully received. TIA

Any PPC has the ability to sue at any time, so to ignore is a dangerous ploy. Any well constructed soft appeal, then PoPLA appeal should provide a positive result.

I would say on this occasion though, that you are banged to rights and £30 is not an unreasonable fine given the circumstances.

We do not condone people using our advice to circumvent paying for parking or avoiding what in all intents and purposes is a reasonable fine.

Just my opinion.

blufink

They lost £5 plus the cost of the admin... hmmm.... You're probably right but I've never paid a private ticket in my life.... (and never been sued).

I'm wondering how the new law/regulations have affected the process negatively for the driver. In the old days (pre Oct 2012) I would have simply ignored the 'ticket'.

I suppose my question is "If I ignore the ticket, am I worse off post Oct 2012 than I was pre Oct 2012, because of the new rules?"

(I know from the forum that, even with my weak case, I can tell them that I'm not paying and that I will proceed to Popla if they don't accept that).

AltheHibby

blufink,

At most, unless I am wrong, you owe them £5. I suggest you wait for the regulars like Coupon Mad and Stroma, who will tell you how to proceed.

Al.

ps It's an invoice, not a fine.

Fergie76

Custard_Pie wrote: »

I would say on this occasion though, that you are banged to rights and £30 is not an unreasonable fine given the circumstances.

I totally disagree and would say that £30 is unreasonable. The landowner has lost £5, that is what he owes, nothing else.

OP -

What is the wording on the signs? Does it say that you need to pay before parking or just that you need to pay?

If just that you need to pay, then paying on your return is not unreasonable.

Hovite_2

You don't mention why you didn't bother to pay when you returned as planned ?

Anyway, I wouldn't pay the £30 - I'd offer say £10 - £5 for the car parking, £2.50 for the DVLA search and £2.50 for stationary ( wages etc don't count as they would be paying them anyway ).

Guys_Dad

Hovite wrote: »

You don't mention why you didn't bother to pay when you returned as planned ?

Anyway, I wouldn't pay the £30 - I'd offer say £10 - £5 for the car parking, £2.50 for the DVLA search and £2.50 for stationary ( wages etc don't count as they would be paying them anyway ).

I agree. But I would wait for the Notice to Keeper through the post and then write

"I am the keeper of the vehicle. I offer the parking fee of £5 plus £5 administration on behalf of the driver.

I believe that you are asking for £40 based upon a supposed contract with the driver. I expect that you know that adults have to be 18 or over to enter a contract? Under the circumstances, I would strongly advise you to accept the £10 in full and final payment.

If not, then I am quite willing to enter into the charade of appealing on behalf of the driver, getting a POPLA code and then making my appeal points to POPLA"

blufink

Hovite - I wanted to pay when I returned but the ticketer was there and he told me it was pointless. Didn't occur to me to insist.

Fergie 76 - I will go back to look exactly what the sign says. Pretty sure it will say that you have to pay before leaving the car or, at worse, it is implied if you have to show your ticket in the windscreen!

I take it we don't know what Total Car Parks's attitude is to the policy of ignoring the 'invoice'.

Does the new law now make it imperative for the owner of the car to reveal the driver's details? In the past I thought that because they couldn't force the owner to say who was driving, they had no way of determining who was the driver and because only the driver, and not the owner, could be pursued they were stymied. Is this now not the case?

Hovite_2

blufink wrote: »

I take it we don't know what Total Car Parks's attitude is to the policy of ignoring the 'invoice'.

Does the new law now make it imperative for the owner of the car to reveal the driver's details? In the past I thought that because they couldn't force the owner to say who was driving, they had no way of determining who was the driver and because only the driver, and not the owner, could be pursued they were stymied. Is this now not the case?

I can't say I remember seeing any threads suggesting anyone has been threatened with court by Total but then until recently Parking Eye never really did court.

The RK is under no obligation to name the driver. The PPC can ask and if the RK doesn't say the PPC will chase the RK for payment.

Guys_Dad

STROMA

Can you repost your list of PPCs and who has done court? I forgot to bookmark it.

Coupon-mad

blufink wrote: »

Hovite - I wanted to pay when I returned but the ticketer was there and he told me it was pointless. Didn't occur to me to insist.

Fergie 76 - I will go back to look exactly what the sign says. Pretty sure it will say that you have to pay before leaving the car or, at worse, it is implied if you have to show your ticket in the windscreen!

I take it we don't know what Total Car Parks's attitude is to the policy of ignoring the 'invoice'.

Does the new law now make it imperative for the owner of the car to reveal the driver's details? In the past I thought that because they couldn't force the owner to say who was driving, they had no way of determining who was the driver and because only the driver, and not the owner, could be pursued they were stymied. Is this now not the case?

Come on, read the forum a bit and forget what you thought you knew last year! That's old advice and this is NOT now the case - and nor does the keeper have to name the driver either (the new law is no biggie but it does change our advice)! To be fair, you would know that if you read a fair number of new threads on page one, the sticky threads as well and the POPLA decisions thread too!

Also you have the specific advice you need for your own case, from Guy's Dad just above your post I just quoted.

You simply wait for the Notice to Keeper in the post (around the start of October it will be sent to the registered keeper) and in the meantime you can read the new threads on this forum every day or every week, to understand the new advice (since Easter we have NOT been advising anyone in England/Wales to ignore these fake PCNs - and we have also won 100% of the time at POPLA stage, on cases we have advised people on since then).

Even in your case you can win this at POPLA if you simply read the forum and understand POPLA and how to word a winning appeal when you get to that stage. You have weeks/months to read up on it and MUST NOT be tempted to respond to the windscreen fake PCN!

If you don't know enough about the new law in 2012 and the new advice and about how to win at POPLA, then you haven't read enough threads yet!