What's the cost of parking fines? Poll Results/Discussion

rickbonar

Dorrie wrote: »

I personally have never had a parking ticket. I buy my ticket and keep an eye on the time. Where I live, Saffron Walden, we have a market square where there are designated parking places in the centre for most days of the week (not market days), but round the side of the market square there are no yellow lines. There are, however, the yellow plates on a lamppost showing when you can park. Personally I think this is unfair and that yellow lines should be painted - after all, how many people look around for the yellow plate? If I went elsewhere I would look for yellow lines on the road!

I can see the situation from the other side as well. I used to work for the local authority as an audit clerk, and one of my jobs was to keep a record of the parking tickets issued (and, when he was away, to patrol the local carparks myself and issue tickets). I then had to find out the registered keeper if the fine was not paid. Then I would write to the registered keeper asking for the name of the driver - and this was where people often made mistakes. You would get blustering letters from people saying that they weren't going to pay the fine, etc (mostly they hadn't bought a ticket in the first place) and in the end we took them to court, where they invariably lost their case because they were actually being taken to court for the offence of not telling us who the driver of the vehicle was at the time of the offence! People just didn't read the letters properly. We had a lot of repeat offenders - some people are just too thick to learn!

What happens if the registered keeper is a non de plume name and the address isn't actually where anyone drives but the mail is quietly collected and forwarded to the driver?

These charges are not criminal but civil and cannot be enforced so easily as a criminal offence, also there is a time limit on getting someone to pay with either a council or police ticket and if the person doesn't pay within 2 years (or is it 1 year) it is void anyway.

Perhaps a legal man here can help us here?

The wheel clamps can be taken off in some cases it's a matter of waiting until clampers bog off home then you with a set of bolt croppers or/and mini generator and angle grinder return later to remove it.

What can they do?

As for the parking meters in car parks I have sorely been tempted to get an old tyre, a mixture of oil and petrol, place the tyre on the top of a meter, (of course making sure you are wearing a IRA style balaclava) and pour the mixture over the tyre, using a small quantity of firelighter ignite and use to ignite the tyre.

Leave the location to a safe viewpoint or leave quickly until the next day to observe the extent of damage.

For me I must be honest I have after a few fines used the first method to great effect, it managed to avoid paying a large of fines in fact they were issuing several a day which I used to chuckle about in the end. Also a speed trap (sorry --- safety camera) charge was avoided too.

donaldtramp

Guys if you want more help with parking tickets visit:

WWW.PEPIPOO.COM

It's a specialist motoring forum that stands up for the motorist (with a dedicated parking ticket forum) of which I'm a member and they really, really know their stuff. Better than Councils and Private Parking Companies who issue the tickets.

http://www.pepipoo.com/

As for Private Companies issuing parking tickets.
DON'T GET RIPPED OFF!!! Don't PAY Have a read below....

Here is a detailed thread on private parking companies;

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?autocom=ibwiki&cmd=article&id=56

PRIVATE PARKING COMPANIES

A guide to an effective defence.

I posted this on the Consumer Action Group and a number of members urged that I post it here also. Thus, if a document exists here containing this information in one place I apologise for the duplication. Otherwise I'm delighted to present my guide.

Firstly the important thing to remember is that Private Parking Companies are not backed by any aspect of criminal law. Tickets from Traffic Wardens working for the police or local authorities or tickets issued by police officers are (this guide also excludes those tickets issues pursuant to the Transport Act 2000 governing tickets issued to vehicles on behalf of railtrack or rail operators). There are provisions for them in the Road Traffic Act 1991 and these provisions allow sanctions that the issuing authority can take.

THIS IS NOT THE CASE FOR PRIVATE PARKING COMPANIES.

I'm sure any number of readers will be familiar with such facilities, from your local pay and display to any number of 'multi deck' car parks and even, more recently, the car parks for many stores.

PRIVATE PARKING COMPANIES RELY ON THE LAW OF CONTRACT

And while contract law can be a minefield of offer, acceptance, terms, implied terms and clauses, it can be surprisingly easy to understand in terms of every day matters such as this.

Essentially when a driver of a vehicle drives into a car park and parks his car he is implied to accept the offer for parking on the terms of the offeror (the parking company or land owner). A contract is formed and therefore the contract can be broken (or breached).

The Private Parking Company (PPC) must make the terms clear to the user of the car park. Therefore they are obliged to place ample and appropriate signage about the car park to make those persons using the facilities aware of the terms. The signs must be clear and unambiguous and it cannot be obscured, faded, covered up or in any way difficult or impossible to read and understand. Often times those terms will include a provision that if you over stay you will be penalised to the tune of £50, £70 or whatever. They may also include a clause on clamping (I will not be dealing with the issue of clamping in this article). These signs are usually displayed at the pay stations (for pay and display) and for other car parks at the entrance and at intervals about the land. If the car park is improperly signed then immediately the PPC will be in difficulty. Thus when the driver parks the vehicle in the car park and pays or otherwise he accepts by way of his actions and a contract is formed between he and the owner of the land.

ONLY THE DRIVER AND THE OWNER OF THE LAND ARE A PARTY TO THE CONTRACT UNLESS THE PARKING COMPANY ACTS AS THEIR AGENT

Therefore should you receive an INVOICE from a PPC as the keeper of a vehicle and you do not know who was driving, I suggest you tell them this and tell them not to contact you again. You are under no obligation whatsoever to provide any information to the PPC. Refuse to do so.

If you were the driver of the vehicle then that will move the goalposts a little. I would never advise anyone to lie in a document that could be used in any future proceedings. Thus I cannot advocate that any person write to the PPC and deny being the driver if this they actually were the driver. That said you are still under no obligation to incriminate yourself or to provide the PPC with any information whatsoever. The onus is on the claimant in a civil action to prove their case. As in criminal matters the defendant will retain their right not to incriminate themselves or provide evidence against themselves. I advise that if you were the driver that you ask the PPC to provide proof of who the driver was, being very careful at every stage in communication NOT to offer that you were. Should they be unable to prove who the driver was or unwilling then I would suggest that you write to them telling them never to contact you again.

There will be instances where the PPC has video evidence or otherwise of the driver’s identity. If it transpires that this is the case I would not advise that you make efforts to deny being the driver. I would advise that you simply refuse to confirm that you were and refrain from offering any evidence that may incriminate you later.

Many guides of this ilk will advise you that if you are accosted by an employee of a PPC that you should simply get into your car, not speak a word to them, and leave. Indeed they will struggle to justify their actions or demands without an issued invoice. However I cannot stress enough that driving away quickly or dangerously would be a foolish action, one which could attract unwanted attention. There are plenty of ways to nullify the effect of receiving one of these invoices, so rather than risk any unpleasant outcomes I recommend that if there is no absolutely safe way to simply drive off that you refrain from doing so. I do advise that you ask that person’s name but say absolutely nothing more. Allow them to go about their business, in so far as they do not assault you, but offer them nothing that they could note and use later. Remember you are under no obligation at all to make their job easier. I suggest that you refuse to accept any invoice they hand to you and that you refuse to allow them to place it on your vehicle.

Once one of these invoices has been issued it will have certain characteristics that I would like to draw your attention to.

It will have a name that can be abbreviated to PCN, so Penalty Charge Notice, Parking Charge Notice etc. The reason for this is that there IS a provision within the Road Traffic Act for an instrument called a ‘Penalty Charge Notice’. This provision in the Road Traffic Act applies ONLY to those acting on behalf of the local authority (FPNs will cover tickets issued by those acting for the police). Penalty charge notices issued by local authorities have a certain format they must adhere to and it is well documented. Invoices from PPCs do NOT have to adhere to this format but it is very easy to confuse the two and assume an invoice from a PPC to be a ticket from a local authority. This is no accident and the effect is to cause the uninitiated to believe that the invoice issued by the PPC has an official bearing (ergo to make the recipient more likely to pay without issue).
To this effect the invoice may say on it that removal is prohibited (removal of a PCN or FPN by anyone other than the keeper/driver is a criminal offence under the Road Traffic Act). Furthermore the invoice may also state that the keeper’s details can be obtained from the DVLA (another characteristic of an FPN or PCN because for both these instruments it is the KEEPER who is liable, unlike when dealing with PPCs). To clarify, invoices issued by PPCs are not in any way covered by the provisions of the Road Traffic Act. They will not lead to criminal proceedings, removal or interference with them is not prohibited and they have no statutory right of access to the DVLA’s keeper information (they must request it).

PPCs COMMIT CRIMINAL OFFENCES

If you take the time to examine Section 40 of the Administration of Justice Act 1970 you will be surprised to discover, I’m sure, that the characteristics described, which give the invoice it’s official bearing and suggest that it’s removal may be a crime make the use, issuing and pursuit of funds claimed due because of such, a crime in itself. Note section 40 (d) specifically.

The Administration of Justice Act 1970.
Section 40 of the act provides that a person commits an offence if, with the object of coercing another person to pay money claimed from the other as a debt due under contract, he or she:
(a) harasses the other with demands for payment which by their frequency, or the manner or occasion of their making, or any accompanying threat or publicity are calculated to subject him or his family or household to alarm, distress or humiliation;
(b) falsely represents, in relation to the money claimed, that criminal proceedings lie for failure to pay it;
© falsely represent themselves to be authorised in some official capacity to claim or enforce payment;
(d) utters a document falsely represented by him to have some official character or purporting to have some official character which he knows it has not.
Paragraph (a) above does not apply to anything done by a person which is reasonable (and otherwise legal) for the purpose of :
(1) of securing the discharge of an obligation due, or believed by him to be due, to himself or to persons for whom he acts, or protecting himself or them from future loss; or
(2) of the enforcement of any liability by legal process.
It is also provided that a person may be guilty of an offence under paragraph (a) above if he concerts with others in the taking of such action as is described in that paragraph, notwithstanding that his own course of conduct does not by itself amount to harassment.
Thus if you receive one of these invoices and it appears to purport to be a PCN or FPN then I strongly suggest that you report the incident to the police. The police are DUTY BOUND to investigate and act. I had to have a ‘debate’ with the local Sgt to have him act on my behalf, however if you are polite and firm then the police should take it on for you.

THE CONTRACT ELEMENT

Let’s examine the law that does cover the issuing of these invoices.

As I’ve stated earlier the PPC will base it’s claim on the driver having entered into a contract with them. Strictly speaking this is very much the case. Assuming the signage and notice to be sufficient then the driver accept the offer of parking by his actions and is implied to accept the terms and conditions of so doing.

You will have three co-mingling defences to reply on in this case.

Firstly and most simply �" contractual penalties. When you park in the car park and over-stay or misuse the facilities in some way you breach your contract with the land owner. The terms state you will not overstay or misuse the facilities, these are terms on which your contract for parking is based, thus when you do something contrary to these terms you breach the contract. The common law holds that the remedy for breach of contract is damages. Therefore the land owner is entitled to damages covering the costs incurred as a result of your breaching the contract.

Let us examine this �" if you over-stay at a car park then the land owner loses revenue. Thus if parking is £1 an hour and you overstay by an hour then the damage is £1. Any company may argue that you are liable for the time of any attendant who may be involved in the issuing of an invoice. This is nonsense. The fact is that the PPC employ staff to be at the car park for all eventualities. Their job description will involve the issuing and preparation of these invoices, therefore to imply that damages are incurred by the involvement of an employee hired for this express purpose is a quite ridiculous prospect and should be sternly resisted (particularly when the cost of one of these invoices is more than the attendant is paid per day). Alternatively if you park incorrectly and use two bays I would suggest that in all reality the most that could be said to be valid damages is the value of the spaces you have used (so if you obscure a second space then double the cost of your parking). So as you can see actual damages in these cases will be absolutely minimal. Why, therefore, do the PPCs seek to charge the users of the car parks figures like £50 and £70? Simply because people do not know any better than to pay. The principle surrounding this is very similar to that surrounding bank charges. Banks cannot charge their customers extortionate rates for going over their overdraft limits (breaching their contract). The law is exactly the same for Private Parking Companies. Thus should matters progress with the parking company you should use this as the cornerstone of your defence.

Contractual penalties are dealt with in the following cases:-

The caselaw is well explained by Peter T Barnes of Always Associates in this article.

Is it a Penalty? - Alway Associates

This is aimed more for commercial parties than consumers but it outlines the principles well. The following is a summary from bankchargeshell.co.uk - Legal cases and common law on the relevant case law as it relates to the circumstances at hand (a more consumer based perspective).

Wilson v. Love (1896)

A tenant farmer agreed to pay an additional rent of £3 per ton by way of penalty for every ton of hay or straw that he sold off the premises during the last 12 months of the tenancy. The clause was regarded as a penalty because at the time hay was worth five shillings a ton more than straw.

Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co. Ltd. v. New Garage and Motor Co. Ltd. (1915)

In the particular case, the judges held that the sum specified in the contract was reasonable and was classified as liquidated damages. However, in this case, Lord Dunedin laid down rules which are still applied today in these types of cases:

i) The sum is a penalty if it is greater than the greatest loss which could be suffered from the breach �" in other words, if it is "extravagant and unconscionable".

ii) If it agreed that a larger sum shall be payable in default of paying a smaller sum, this is a penalty.

Ford Motor Co. v. Armstrong (1915)

In this case, the judges reached the conclusion that the sum to be paid for a breach of the contract was substantial and arbitrary and bore no relation to the potential loss of the other party. It was, therefore, a penalty.

Bridge v. Campbell Discount Co. Ltd. (1962)

In this case a customer bought a car under a hire purchase agreement. He paid the initial and first payments and then cancelled the agreement. The company tried to recover the sums specified in the contract for canceling the agreement, but the courts held that the sums payable were excessive and constituted a penalty clause. It was, therefore, unenforceable.

Murray v. Leisureplay (2004)

Mr Murray was sacked by Leisureplay and he claimed three years' salary as per his contract of employment. The courts decided that this clause was a penalty clause and he was not entitled to this level of damages.

The important issues to remember here are that consumers are not of comparable bargaining power to the PPCs. The PPCs are large companies with significantly better resources. The consumer needs their services (or else where would they park?). For damages to be justifiable and enforceable by the courts they must be a reflection of actual loss. Consider what we have explained the costs and damages to be to the PPCs and then consider the penalty they seek to impose. While a difference of £60 is not grossly disproportionate in the commercial sense, within the context of the contract between the consumer and the PPC/landowner it certainly is. The most valid case on the circumstances is Dunlop. Please, if you have the chance, take the time to read the case for yourself and familiarise yourself with the facts and conclusions. I strongly recommend using a search facility like Lexis Nexis Butterworths or Westlaw.

Secondly there is a piece of little known consumer legislation called the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations (1999).

Schedule 2 Indicative and Non-Exhaustive List of Terms which may be Regarded as Unfair

(e) requiring any consumer who fails to fulfil his obligation to pay a dis-proportionately high sum in compensation.

Thus when PPCs charge £50-£70 for what is a minimal loss on their part, the above regulations will apply.

The full schedules can be found on various government sites. Most notably here �"

Statutory Instrument 1999 No. 2083

Pay also particular attention to section 5, which reads:-

“Unfair Terms
5. - (1) A contractual term which has not been individually negotiated shall be regarded as unfair if, contrary to the requirement of good faith, it causes a significant imbalance in the parties' rights and obligations arising under the contract, to the detriment of the consumer.

(2) A term shall always be regarded as not having been individually negotiated where it has been drafted in advance and the consumer has therefore not been able to influence the substance of the term.

(3) Notwithstanding that a specific term or certain aspects of it in a contract has been individually negotiated, these Regulations shall apply to the rest of a contract if an overall assessment of it indicates that it is a pre-formulated standard contract.

(4) It shall be for any seller or supplier who claims that a term was individually negotiated to show that it was.

(5) Schedule 2 to these Regulations contains an indicative and non-exhaustive list of the terms which may be regarded as unfair.”

Schedule 2 mentioned above is at the end of the document and it is well worth reading up on. It will give you a very good feel for the ‘spirit’ of the regulations.

The OFT’s site will explain this in simpler language and make the regulations more digestible. I urge you to read this also-

Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts

The OFT’s page will also have information regarding making a complaint with them. Something I urge you to consider very carefully. Should you feel you have grounds to complain then do so.

Again the regulations will provide you with the basis for a defence against any action taken by a PPC. It will also provide ammunition in your negotiations with them and could well persuade them to dismiss any notions of making a claim.

You should also consider making use of the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977.

A copy of the Act is available here-

Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977

Generally the Act covers agreements made between businesses but it can extend to nearly all forms of contract and interestingly negates clauses in contracts which seek to evade certain specific liabilities.

However in this case Section 4 will apply. It states:-

“4 Unreasonable indemnity clauses

(1) A person dealing as consumer cannot by reference to any contract term be made to indemnify another person (whether a party to the contract or not) in respect of liability that may be incurred by the other for negligence or breach of contract, except in so far as the contract term satisfies the requirement of reasonableness.

(2) This section applies whether the liability in question�"

(a) is directly that of the person to be indemnified or is incurred by him vicariously;

(b) is to the person dealing as consumer or to someone else.”


Clearly per the Act £50-£70 for parking for a few hours is not reasonable by any stretch of the imagination.

This law should provide three solid avenues by which to have any action against you deflected or halted.

To summarise-

It is most important that you know your rights. Please don’t use this guide as a ‘be all and end all’ to the subject. Use it as your starting point. Read around these topics and get to know the law. This is good consumer law for today’s generation and will serve you well in other aspects of your life. Being willing to speak out and stand up to corporate bullies will set you in good stead for the rest of your life.

The important thing to remember is that you don’t have to help these bloodsuckers to build a case against you. Resist it at every step. The law’s presumption is of innocence and that is for good reason. It protects the individual from the imbalanced power of the many. The PPC must prove your liability. 99 times out of 100 they simply can’t and so you’re safe. In the one instance they may be able to develop a prima facie case you will have three good defences. Rely on these. Become familiar with them and their workings.

Don’t be afraid to contact and request the assistance of the following-

The Police

Trading Standards

The Office of Fair Trading

These organisations were created to protect you and your rights. They may be reluctant to undertake what they regard as a trifling or minor matter but don’t accept that. Demand their assistance. Your council tax, income tax and every other tax the good people of the UK are fleeced for pays for this protection. You have earnt it.

I have NEVER heard of a case like this making it to court. I suspect PPCs don’t sue their victims, and they are victims, because they know the merits of their case are non existent.


Don't know if this is the right place for this post but it should help someone out!!!!
Basically the private parking companies are ripping people off.
If there is a better place for this post please move it to where it will be of more use!!!

Cheers
DT

guidarufino

I got a £60 parking fine at my OH's place. He lives in a block of new build apartments with a private gated car park. Each flat has one allocated parking space, there are only 2 visitors' spaces so needless to say parking is always at a premium. On the day in question (Boxing day!!!), his normal space was taken so I parked in the space next to his, there were no visitors' spaces available. I had parked in other people's spaces before and never had a problem. Granted there was a sign saying to only park in your allocated space or get a £60 fine but as I say, this had never seemingly been enforced previousy. So imagine my surprise and delight when we got back on the 28th December to find a £60 fine! Naturally I wrote to query it pointing out that his normal space was taken etc etc. I didn't hear anything back for a while so assumed it was all done with. A few weeks later I got a letter (2nd class, non registered) saying my fine was now standing at £192 as my fine had gone up by £3 a day and that they had rejected my appeal! I wrote back and said I had never received any other letters, sent them a cheque for the original £60 and said i refused to pay any more of their ridiculous charges. Naturally i am still annoyed about this but figured it was a fair cop. But having read what other posters in this thread have said about private parking companies, i'd be very interested to hear other people's points of view on this one. The guy who must have told tales on me drives a nice Mazda and I have since then once or twice parked next to him and accidentally opened my passenger door a bit too hard! :rotfl:

ifan.goch

jamieukonline wrote: »

http://www.majicari.com/

get your tickets paid for

Thanks jamieukonline. I got a ticket on 18 March when visiting my daughter in London. I read your post when I got home and thought "nothing to lose". I posted my story (wedding blues) and won. I received the cheque yesterday. :j

davidcrouch

r.kermali99 wrote: »

my mum got a parking ticket even though her pay and display ticket was valid at the time.

its just ridiculous. how do we let our country give authority to such incompetent fools?

i sent a letter with a copy of the pay and display ticket...but lambeth are retards, so it will take like 3 months before i hear from them.

*sigh*

I drove a 'TAXI' in November 2005 and was given a penalty notice for using a bus lane evn though I was entilted to use under the Police towns and county act 1847 I received a notice of intent in December 2007 that they are going to prosecute and they have sent court papers in Feb 2008 staing that they have never received any appeals from me even though I sent then a copy of my license, today they sent me back the papers stating that I have not signed in the boxes as required even though ive signed in the boxes.
to be honets Lambeth Council employ too many cretins that either cannot read english or love doing too much paperwork, ive sent them an invoice for £100 for the 2 trips I have to make to my local court to get signed.Bring on the court case, they are going to look stupid infront of a judge and I intend to make them pay for loss of earnings and inconvience in this matter.

roboticpink

Just a quick follow-up to this - I finally got around putting my story on majicari.com - so if you felt like voting on it today, I would be very appreciative! Nearly there - just have to stay on top till midnight Thanks! Jess x

loveangel

I must say, i am astonished by the Poll - 85% who took part say that they do not get a parking ticket or speeding fine normally each year.

I wonder then how that bears up against this report:-
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-563092/Milking-motorists-One-THREE-drivers-fined-annually--raising-800million.html

which says one in three get either a pcn or a speeding fine every year - does that mean that 15% get parking tickets as per the survey and 18% get speeding fines? what are the thoughts on this anomaly?

i generally got both on a pretty regular basis but then again i travel a lot around teh country and perhaps am not as meticulious as some others, in that i do not research parking restrictions in all the roads that i could possibly park in before i set off and i do not know how long i will be nor do i have the option of leaving where i would be to pop outside. some places there is only the 1 hour parking available in the near viscinity (which i definitively woudl need to park)

aloiseb

loveangel wrote: »

I must say, i am astonished by the Poll - 85% who took part say that they do not get a parking ticket or speeding fine normally each year.

I wonder then how that bears up against this report:-
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-563092/Milking-motorists-One-THREE-drivers-fined-annually--raising-800million.html

which says one in three get either a pcn or a speeding fine every year - does that mean that 15% get parking tickets as per the survey and 18% get speeding fines? what are the thoughts on this anomaly?

My thought would be.....mightn't the Daily Mail have twiddled with the figures a little, to make its headline better?:eek:

Xmaslove

is that mean even they put a stickers on ur display that said over stay 30 mins, and ask to pay 15pound tickets, but the point is the machine doesn't allow me to pay for 1 hours and doesn't show how the machine work. i'm not from that town will that matter?