I got a private parking ticket last year, so went through the hassle of trying to understand what's best to do...
Some of this is from memory, so don't hold me to account over it...
As Sloper said, the law changed a couple of years ago and now some companies do indeed chase you down and press ahead with court proceedings. They even sometimes win, apparently. It seems like most companies still only do this in a small minority of cases. So the "just ignore" strategy often works. But sometimes it doesn't. Some companies are a bit keener than others, and I think you can find out who does and who doesn't chase you with a bit of googling.
As Tomtom said, there is a f&ckton of info out there. Most useful sites are moneysavingexpert as linked by Tomtom (where it is reasonably well signposted but still takes a good hour of pottering around on it to understand the processes/issues) and this one:
http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showforum=60On that latter forum there seem to be plenty of retired lawyer types who just have an axe to grind with the private parking companies and are happy to offer free legal advice if you message them. Which is nice.
From what I remember of my case, here's the sequence of events:
1. Received parking ticket in post.
2. Decided to go for the "don't ignore" approach. First step was (and I think always is) an appeal to the private company themselves. They should all have a very clear appeals process. This had to be done within 30 days iirc. I don't have the wording of this stage of my appeal, sadly (I think I just copied and pasted a slightly adapted pro forma from the internet). Important thing was that you must not give them any extra ammo - so don't admit liability in any way (i.e. don't say "I was there but the ticket fell off the window"; or "I only overstayed by 1 minute"). Also, don't provide info on who the driver was. They can only chase the registered keeper, and the fact this may be a different person to the driver on that day is something you can rely on at a later appeal.
3. Company rejected my appeal. This is standard, it seems. They include a huge load of legal documents which explain why they are going to win, ruin your life, own your soul etc. This documentation makes good firelighting material. Importantly, the company have to issue you a code to appeal to the independent body, POPLA. So then you get on the case and appeal to POPLA, and this is the stage where if you get it right then you should be successful. Make sure you appeal before the deadline using the code you've been given. Copied at the bottom of this post is the wording I used in my appeal which I mostly got from an online pro forma and adapted it to my circumstances. If you have a good read of that, then you'll see some of the legal arguments that you can rely on. For info, my vehicle was in a "free" car park that had a time limit on it. If your case is different from mine, you might need to go on the forums linked above to find some other legal arguments, but there are plenty out there.
4. I won at that stage but apparently even if you mess up and lose the appeal to POPLA you can keep fighting. POPLA decisions are binding on the operators but not on you. You'll need to do your own research on the above forums etc.
Hope that's not too confusing. Feel free to msg me if you want any more info...
Adam
POPLA appeal:
On [date] [parking company name here] issued a parking charge notice because the above vehicle
was allegedly recorded on their automatic number plate recognition system as having stayed
in [name of carpark] for 2 hours 43 minutes on [date].
My Appeal is on multiple grounds.
1. The amount of the charge is disproportionate to any possible loss incurred by [company] (for an overstay of 43 minutes in a car park which is free to use for up to two hours). I also consider the PCN to be a penalty because [company] have alleged a breach of contract but have not quantified their alleged loss (which cannot include business running costs nor the POPLA fee). Furthermore, the charge is punitive, contravening the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1997.
2. I do not believe that the Operator has demonstrated a proprietary interest in the land, because they have no legal possession which would give [company] any right to offer parking spaces, let alone allege a contract with third party customers of the lawful owner/occupiers. In addition, [company]'s lack of title in this land means they have no legal standing to allege trespass or loss. If that is the basis of their charge, I require [company] to demonstrate their legal ownership of the land to POPLA.
3. I contend that [company]are only an agent working for the owner, and that their signs do not form a contract without any consideration capable of being offered. VCS – v - HMRC 2012 is the binding decision in the Upper Chamber which covers this issue with compelling statements of fact about this sort of business model.
4. I believe there is no contract with the landowner/occupier that entitles [company] to levy these charges and [company] therefore has no authority to issue parking charge notices (PCNs). This being the case, the burden of proof shifts to [company] to prove otherwise so I require that [company] produce a copy of their contract with the owner/occupier and request that the POPLA adjudicator scrutinises it.
5. Even if a basic contract is produced and mentions PCNs, the lack of ownership or assignment of title or interest in the land reduces any contract to one that exists simply on an agency basis between [company] and the owner/occupier, containing nothing that [company] can lawfully use in their own name as a mere agent, that could impact on a third party customer.
6. The notice to keeper is not compliant with paragraph 9 (2)(h) of schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedom Act 2012 in that it does not identify the creditor. The operator is required to specifically "identify" the creditor not simply name them on it .This would require words to the effect of "The creditor is ..... " . The keeper is entitled to know the party with whom any purported contract was made. This [company] has failed to do and thus they have not fulfilled all the requirements necessary under POFA to allow them to attempt recovery of any charge from the keeper. In short, [company] has not met the keeper liability requirements and therefore keeper liability does not apply. As [company] have neither named the driver nor provided any evidence as to who the driver was, I submit I am not liable to any charge.
7. The BPA code of practice contains (Section 21.1 to 21.5) contains detailed guidance on the manner in which Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) can be used. I have had no evidence that [company] have complied with these BPA Code requirements for ANPR issued tickets so require them to evidence their compliance to POPLA.
I submit, therefore, that this purported charge is not legal and [company] should cease harassing me
forthwith.
Should you require further information, please let me know
