Overstayed and paid later, enough defence?

Domthemon

Hi. We paid for three hours parking at a Premier Park car park, two cars. On returning we had to wait for some stragglers to return, we have two young kids. We had no change and the phone had gone flat so we took the details off the signs. When we got home we tried to pay for an hour on Go Park immediately after the ticket elapsed but it wouldn't let me. So I paid the only option which was 8 hours overnight (which was slightly more than an hour would cost)

This car park had a camera and research shows people have had letters after the event for overstaying (the machine and Go Park ask for the registration number.

I'm half expecting a PCN although we overstayed by only around 12 mins. So we paid the extra on the day to enable a robust defence as ultimately we had paid more than we should (had we had the change we would have paid the extra time then)

So if we do receive PCN for the two cars what's the best advice? Ignore and then submit the defence if they take to court, or appeal it immediately explaining how we paid the extra later that evening online?

I'm confident we've a robust defence if it went to court but appreciate it's unlikely to. Problem is my mother in law with the other car will probably just get really stressed and pay it if I advise her to ignore it and they send the threatening letters!

The_Deep

This is an entirely unregulated industry which is scamming the public with inflated claims for minor breaches of contracts for alleged parking offences, aided and abetted by a handful of low-rent solicitors.

Parking Eye, CPM, Smart, and another company have already been named and shamed, as has Gladstones Solicitors, and BW Legal, (these two law firms take hundreds of these cases to court each year). They lose most of them, and have been reported to the regulatory authority by an M.P. for unprofessional conduct

Hospital car parks and residential complex tickets have been especially mentioned.

The problem has become so rampant that MPs have agreed to enact a Bill to regulate these scammers. Watch the video of the Second Reading in the HofC recently.

http://parliamentlive.tv/event/index/2f0384f2-eba5-4fff-ab07-cf24b6a22918?in=12:49:41

and complain in the most robust terms to your MP. With a fair wind most of these companies may well be put out of business by Christmas.

The_Deep

Problem is my mother in law with the other car will probably just get really stressed and pay it if I advise her to ignore it and they send the threatening letters!

Suggest that she watch this video

http://parliamentlive.tv/event/index/2f0384f2-eba5-4fff-ab07-cf24b6a22918?in=12:49:41

Their cards have been well and truly marked

Ralph-y

so after reading / watching the good advice above .....

please read this link

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4816822

it is the forum bible , and contains advice / templates for the first appeal.

good luck

Ralph:cool:

Domthemon

I've read for quite some time yet haven't found an example anything like mine - ie going online to pay the overstay (despite no PCN received) and not being able to pay online for the period after our tickets expired so paying a greater amount for a different period later in the day (when cameras could verify we didn't visit) in order to pay our dues on the day.

Appreciate this is possibly fairly unique but surely some of the experts here will surely have knowledge of the legal argument of not having paid the amount due and in this case I did.

The defences I have read centre on signage and legal technicalities but this isn't my argument. My argument will be I paid on excess of what I owed later that day. Problem is the earlier overstay will doubtless trigger a PCN.

Coupon-mad

You are jumping the gun and should either ignore nor pay nor 'defend'!

PP are in the BPA so the process would be the same, regardless. Appeal using the NEWBIES template, as registered keeper, and attach anything relevant (e.g. proof of paying) but not saying who was driving in your added words.

e.g. 'we paid' is safe, as long as you only identify your status as the keeper. Obviously giving your name and address too, goes without saying but you'd be surprised!

Same for the other car, exact same, and if the appeal can be done online/by email, choose that.

KeithP

You almost certainly will receive a PCN.

You say "The defences I have read centre on signage and legal technicalities but this isn't my argument.".

Can I respectfully suggest that you will probably have to reconsider 'your argument'?

The sign contain details of the contract you have allegedly agreed to with the PPC.

If those signs say, for example, 'the parking fee must be paid before leaving the car park', then the PPC will allege that you broke the terms of the contract.
If that's the case then you assertion will make little difference. The allegation will stand - you broke the contract.
Any appeal will surely fail in that case.

You need to get pictures of all the signs and find fault with them - just like everyone else does.

Domthemon

OK cheers I do appreciate your responses and having read further I'm getting a feel for what we need to do. The signs do not state that payment must be made before departing so I would like to add a point that we followed the RingGo way of paying online a few hours later but it wouldn't let me pay from the time required ie the time the parking expired. This wasn't made clear on the signs ie that you must pay before the time you intend to park not after you have parked...

Basically I'm wondering if anyone thinks this is worthwhile or should just be ditched. I appreciate we are talking very fine legal nitty gritty and yes reading other letters submitted and appeals won, I am appreciating the fact my paying the extra hour is in some ways irrelevant but to me its a pretty massive argument - ie I have appreciated I've over stayed and paid over the cost of an hour some hours later. But I guess the legal technicalities are tried and tested.

Perhaps I've answered my own question then.... But it just sticks in my mind that to say despite all the above I paid the extra hour (and then some) anyway some hours later and the signs didn't make it clear a deadline to pay by. After all some bridge tolls in this country can be made online later the same day perfectly legitimately. So it seems perverse not to use the argument. Id just appreciate knowing if experts feel actually I shouldn't mention it!

Coupon-mad

so I would like to add a point...that it wouldn't let me pay

No 'me, myself or I' in any appeal! :eek:

Basically I'm wondering if anyone thinks this is worthwhile

Yes, by all means add it but don't get emotional and say ''I paid the extra hour'' or anything like that.

You will possibly lose at POPLA anyway, PP do win a fair % of them, but no-one here PAYS!

So no need to overthink the appeal, so what if you lose at POPLA, but no saying who was driving.

Domthemon

Thanks for the advice. How is best to reference the extra fee paid later and why it was done, do you think? On one hand I feel its important - morally it shows no desire to short pay. On another is it over complicating matters legally?

I'm thinking "When it became clear that the time paid for (3 hours) may have been slightly exceeded, and those present had insufficient change left, the sign was referred to which advised payment could be made by RingGo or text. The sign does not state a requirement to pay before any current parking has expired so, as those present didn't have a mobile phone, the payment was attempted to be made later that evening. However the RingGo app does not allow users to change the time being paid for to an earlier time. So the only option after 19:00 is to pay for overnight, which is slightly more than the hourly cost. So this was paid due to no other option being available. See receipt attached. As more than the period present was paid that same day and as it can be proved by the camera which cars entered and left the car park, it also can be proved that the overnight parking was never used. Therefore there is actually an overpayment not underpayment"

One thing I wanted to ask - general point - years ago I had a parking eye PCN and the advice was just to ignore which I did and after three letters they went away. I'm aware of the Beavis case, and the desire by these parasite companies to promote it. Is this the reason now the advice is not to ignore? I'm just wondering why we don't just all avoid the (seemingly vital) appeals process and just ignore all the letters then put the case if they took it to court? Is this because the court would take a dim view of the defendant not following the pre Court procedure? But it seems if you lose the appeal with Popla they don't take you to court anyway?

KeithP

Domthemon wrote: »

One thing I wanted to ask - general point - years ago I had a parking eye PCN and the advice was just to ignore which I did and after three letters they went away. I'm aware of the Beavis case, and the desire by these parasite companies to promote it. Is this the reason now the advice is not to ignore? I'm just wondering why we don't just all avoid the (seemingly vital) appeals process and just ignore all the letters then put the case if they took it to court? Is this because the court would take a dim view of the defendant not following the pre Court procedure? But it seems if you lose the appeal with Popla they don't take you to court anyway?

Because back in the good old days the Protection of Freedoms Act did not exist so there was no way that anyone except the driver could be liable. If the keeper ignored all correspondence then there was no way the driver could be identified so nothing happened - except of course they sent threatening letters and some people would have been frightened into paying.

As you say, there are a number of companies that don't do court anyway. They are still relying in frightening people into paying. But a significant proportion of PPCs are following through with court and are winning cases where the defendant either doesn't defend at all or defends poorly. They are taking court action and winning because they no longer need to identify the driver now that PoFA allows transfer of liability to the keeper.