EuroCarParks NTK when Toby Carvery Closed

Kim_13

I know the advice is never to pay these, but not sure there is much that can be done in these circumstances. There’s only a week left for it to be paid at the lower rate, so just checking here first.

The vehicle has a tachograph fitted, so not naming the driver to get rid of the invoice that way won’t work. The driver was due a break under the rules around driving hours for these vehicles when they were passing the Toby Carvery, and would have already been caught by ECP’s camera before they realised it was closed. As Toby Carvery were closed and the driver therefore did not eat there, I can’t see they would play ball with a Plan A even though the driver could hardly have done anything else at that point.

I presume the contravention is failing to enter their number plate inside the Toby Carvery to authorise parking rather than exceeding the weight limit allowed - the NTK just says not authorised to park - and they recall parking next to a bin lorry.

The driver didn’t realise there was a camera or a requirement to enter a plate, as their local Toby Carvery does not have such a system (or at least it didn’t when they last ate there.) The NTK says signs were clear, and while the driver maintains they were not, they have presumably undermined any grounds they might have had by parking there again a week later. They haven’t received a second NTK yet but unless the camera malfunctioned, presumably they’ll get one. They would love to not pay, being annoyed that the NTK wasn’t issued early enough to stop them getting a second.

I’m all for fighting tickets under legitimate grounds but on the second occasion, they clearly should not have parked there (popped to Greggs was the excuse 🫣, with other car parks having height restrictions.)

Thanks

LDast

I don't understand what having a tachograph installed has to do with having to do with identifying the driver. These unregulated private parking companies are not authorities that can demand anything. The drivers identity is unknown unless the keeper tells them, inadvertently or otherwise.

Are you the keeper of the vehicle? Was it an HGV?

KeithP

Kim_13 said:

The vehicle has a tachograph fitted, so not naming the driver to get rid of the invoice that way won’t work.

Why won't that work?
How does any parking company even know that a tachograph is fitted?
How does the parking company know who was driving at the time?

Is the Registered Keeper a company?

Kim_13 said:

There’s only a week left for it to be paid at the lower rate, so just checking here first.

First?? Surely not before paying - even the lower rate.
Why pay anything?

LDast

The "mugs" discount is their way of bribing the low-hanging fruit on the gullible tree to pay into their scam. Nobody pays these if they follow the advice.

Kim_13

My thinking was that the keeper - the registered keeper is a company yes, but the name isn’t complete (not enough characters on the transfer slip quite possibly - location and limited have been omitted) - couldn’t file a defence and say they didn’t know who the driver was as due to the tacho, that would be untrue. To not pay I’ve always thought they’d have to be prepared to file a defence and go to court, expecting the PPC to then discontinue at the last minute. They don’t have to tell the PPC who the driver was and won’t be doing so, but I’ve read threads here in the past thinking that not starting from knowing zero would be an advantage if I was ever in that situation and understood that their appeals process was a waste of time so one had to be prepared to take it all the way or take the discount while available.

Would the judge be fine with ‘I’m under no obligation to name the driver and decline to do so’ if the worst came to the worst then? Also with what would presumably be two invoices a week apart? I wouldn’t be surprised if a PPC didn’t know that there was a tachograph or what that would show, but thought that a judge might and have the power to require it to be declared at that point.

The first time was unfortunate, as they intended to eat there and were up against the driving hours (it’s a 7.5 tonne so not the biggest but the break rules apply) but if a second does come then for that one they were absolutely in the wrong.  

If it is not being paid it will be me preparing the submissions, whatever name they need to be submitted in, hence it is me posting.

Thanks again for your help

Coupon-mad

the registered keeper is a company yes.

Easy to win at POPLA then, because no PPC transfers liability properly to lessee/hirers.

Just appeal transferring liability to the lessee/hirer (DO NOT CALL HIM THE DRIVER) and give his name and current postal address and attach a copy of the company's standard agreement for lessees like him.

Tell him not to pay but await his NTH in the post, then he uses the specific Edna Basher NTH appeal (see NEWBIES thread) pointing out they haven't included the docs required under paras 13/14 of Schedule 4.  Do not tip them off about this in your company's initial appeal/transfer.

Tell him also NOT TO SEEK OUT PRIVATE CAR PARKS FOR BREAKS! They all have ANPR.  He just needs a back street to rest.

fisherjim

No one on here has ever said to lie about anything, but stating to a PPC that you won't be naming the driver isn't lying is it?

If a judge asked "were you the driver?" you would have to reply with the truth.

If the vehicle was "not authorised to park" then no contract was formed and they cannot demand a payment.

LDast

You are appealing/defending as the keeper. There is no legal obligation for the keeper to identify the driver to an unregulated private parking company. No one is telling you to lie. You simply decline to identify the driver.

Even in court, if a judge were to ask you directly, you can simply state that you decline to answer as is your legal right. This is not the police with a NIP where you are obliged, as the keeper to identify the driver. This is not criminal law. It is civil contract law and a bottom-dwelling parking company has no power to make you identify the driver.

Have a look at the VCS v Edward appeal case where the defendant refused to provide the drivers details, as was their right to do so.

https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/zra61px7l3if53o3bp9c4/VCS-v-EDWARD-Transcript.pdf?rlkey=bv4bba389nau5qpfglqkpjq5l&st=8str3rtj&dl=0

The "tachograph" is a red herring here.