*When* exactly, did Advice re: PCNs change?

charliemac_2

It's all very well using ANR cameras, but who calibrates them and when? All police ANR's and speed cameras have to be legally calibrated. Why not BPA members?
What stops the the dodgy ones from adjusting the time to suit their needs?

We already have a law in this country to deal with this sort of thing. It's called TRESPASS and as we have all probably seen somewhere on our travels the sign "Trespassers will be prosecuted" so what's new?
If you enter private land, you could be prosecuted, but it is up to the landowner to take you to court first. Not send you an invoice.

da_rule

Most signs that say 'trespassers will be prosecuted' are factually incorrect as prosecution is reserved for criminal matters, and in a majority of cases trespass is civil.

HO87

As da_rule has already covered there can be no prosecution for trespass (unless it is in pursuit of game, with intent to commit theft, criminal damage, greivous bodily harm etc etc). A prosecution is an action taken in respect of a criminal offence (whether by charge, summons or citation) whereas in the case of PPC's proceedings are issued in the county court (as opposed to the magistrates court - for criminal matters).

As he has also set out provided the PPC can satisfy the criteria established in POFA - standing, relevant land, etc then they can properly pursue the keeper of the vehicle regardless of whether they were the driver at the time of the incident. That is the law whether we like it or not. That we may take the view that the provision was wheedled out of the government on the basis of fictitious data is now irrelevant in dealing with the situation you are in.

The single most often missed fact is the true nature of the "Parking Charge Notice" (or whatever variant on that name you wish to use). The PCN is completely meaningless from a legal viewpoint but is increasingly being ascribed a standing it neither deserves nor is entitled to and this has created an aura which has effectively hidden the truth.

The truth is that if a PCN was called what it actually represents - an "Invitation to Settle" - it would not have that same fear-inducing feel that the PPC's appear to seek to exploit in order to empty your pocket. Strangely not one of them call it what it is and, I understand, it is entirely coincidental that the initials match those of parking tickets issued by local authorities under the provisions of the Traffic Management Act.

Presumably it is also entirely coincidental that some PPC's have chosen to edge their PCN's with chequered borders - like FPN's from the police - and use phrases such as "Your are now required to..." and ""This demand has been properly served...". One might think that they were deliberately trying to pass off their invitations to settle as something with far more legal "bite" although you might require a degree of cynicism to reach that conclusion.

The fact remains that irrespective of the "dressing up" the use of these as invitations to settle is perfectly acceptable - always provided that there was no intention to deceive, of course. Taking a robust approach to someone you believe may owe you a debt is also perfectly acceptable up to and including the use of court papers that weren't issued by a court - to demonstrate your intent.

There is absolutely nothing wrong in a party who believes they have suffered a loss as the result of the act/omission of another to suggest that the other make amends by way of inviting them to settle the matter. Indeed the law encourages potential litigants to reach an accommodation before matters escalate to court.

Deal with your PCN as that "invitation to settle" and you will have started to bend your head around the topsy-turvy world the PPC's exist in.

Parking-Prankster

sma11person wrote: »

Liable for *what*exactly? A scam invoice that has no legal standing?

LBCCC: "You parked in this car park, and you broke our T&Cs (although we haven't told you how or why), so we demand that you pay £xxx or we'll take you to court".

Reply summary: "Oh really? This will be interesting. No other correspondence from yourselves has been received at this address. Stop harassing me or face the consequences... "

I think some people here are missing the point. There is no liability. No offence has been committed, and no charge can be brought.

While you are correct in stating there is no liability, ParkingEye can and will bring charges against you, probably 14 days after the LBCCC. They file 1,000 such claims every week. This will then involve you in a lengthy and time-consuming process, eventually culminating in a hearing.


There is no guarantee you will win this, because individual judges around the country have ruled different ways on exactly the same circumstances. This may require you to appeal, where you probably will win because the next judge up will probably understand the issues.


The posters on here have given you a simple way out, which is to name the driver before legal proceedings start. ParkingEye have in every known case where this happened, re-started against the driver, who can then appeal to POPLA (because the appeal clock restarts). ParkingEye don't even bother to defend POPLA cases these days, so a simple 3 template letters sees the problem disappear.


It is your right to go to court. Doing so will probably cost ParkingEye around £5,00-1,000 which they cannot reclaim even if they win. If you do go to court and give ParkingEye a good spanking, please let me know as I would be interested in funding the transcript.

Half_way

Parking eye do issue court papers do nothing and you will probably be on the receiving end of them
Unless you want to go to court, and you know what your doing, and you enjoy the experience its something that I would strongly recommend you avoid.

Theres plenty of advice on this thread (see above ) on how to make this thing go away, and as for keeper liability thats now covered under the protection of freedoms act (pofa).

heres what you need to do to get rid of the ticket:

Name the driver to parking eye with a serviceable address, then challenge it at popla using the various bits of advice on here and win.

Complain to the store in question, again plenty of advice on this forum on how and what to do. I would suggest writing out they key points to raise with the store manager, plus have a complaint letter ready to give to them, if complaining to the store this should be done in parallel to a popla appeal/challenge to the parking company

If you do want to go to court, or you allow it to go that far then you will have to do a lot more work than the options above you will need to put in a lot more effort, spend more time, including turning up to the hearing ( time off work etc etc) and if you lose on the small claims lottery, then you will have to do even more work to appeal the judgement/decision.

Your choice, the easy way that wont cost you much, or the hard way where you will most likely be out of pocket a bit as well ( even if you win at court. )

Iceweasel

sma11person wrote: »

Liable for *what*exactly? A scam invoice that has no legal standing?

LBCCC: "You parked in this car park, and you broke our T&Cs (although we haven't told you how or why), so we demand that you pay £xxx or we'll take you to court".

Reply summary: "Oh really? This will be interesting. No other correspondence from yourselves has been received at this address. Stop harassing me or face the consequences... "

I think some people here are missing the point. There is no liability. No offence has been committed, and no charge can be brought.

It is you sma11person who has missed the point I'm afraid.

The law in England & Wales has changed - rightly or wrongly, there is liability - due to POFA. No offence may have been committed but the Registered Keeper is liable.

So if you continue to ignore and think that no 'charges'/court proceedings can be brought - then the Private Parking Company is almost certain to proceed down a legal route using the right to pursue the Registered Keeper that the government gave them under POFA.

Everyone who has responded has explained what you need to do to easily beat this 'request for money', with a few well-proven correctly worded template letters.

Do you really think all of us have 'missed the point'. It seems you do. That's a pity, as you are going to make life very difficult for yourself, very soon.

We can do no more - you must choose, but if you do not 'reset the clock' by informing the PPC who the driver was the system will grind on and then you will have the opportunity to challenge their invoice in court.

If your defence is "No liability, no offence, I'm not paying." you will lose.

That still doesn't mean that you will land up paying, but you are giving yourself a big mountain to climb by not taking the easy way out.

Good luck with it.

sma11person

Some of these replies are astonishing. 12 months ago, I checked in here on someone else's behalf, and the advise was to ignore these things. I've already prepared our response, but the attitudes in here really are appalling.

If the legal situation has changed so much that MSE has been advising *against* ignoring these scammers for 12 months, why has *that* particular piece of information not been more widely disseminated?

ampersand

Is there an optician in the house?

atilla

sma11person wrote: »

Some of these replies are astonishing. 12 months ago, I checked in here on someone else's behalf, and the advise was to ignore these things. I've already prepared our response, but the attitudes in here really are appalling.

If the legal situation has changed so much that MSE has been advising *against* ignoring these scammers for 12 months, why has *that* particular piece of information not been more widely disseminated?

I'd say the word you missed out here is "some".

I'd also argue you have been selective in your reading.

Iceweasel

sma11person wrote: »

Some of these replies are astonishing. 12 months ago, I checked in here on someone else's behalf, and the advise was to ignore these things. I've already prepared our response, but the attitudes in here really are appalling.

If the legal situation has changed so much that MSE has been advising *against* ignoring these scammers for 12 months, why has *that* particular piece of information not been more widely disseminated?

What is it that you find so 'appalling'?

By omitting the word 'some' you are including my post on the subject. Why are you appalled at what I said - or anyone else who advised similarly.

Have a look at this thread from over 12 months back - you posted on it so you should have been aware that things were changing. That was actually 15 months ago - so that's a long time to assume that nothing had changed when even back then you knew that changes were going on, but the full implication and implementation of them was at that time not fully understood.

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4360185

The advice has changed - move on. That was then - this is now.

You've asked for advice - and been given it - end of story.