[Johnny Brown]

Your first post back in July was:

I've just had my 'final demand prior to court action' letter

Still no court action in November. Ignore them.

[Wood FT]

I used to work for some cold motherfuckers who worked along these lines. Final demand, final final demand, no-really-we-for-real final demand, blah blah.

They won't ever take it to court, just sell it on from primary debt collector to secondary to tertiary until it goes to a company buying quad debt, at which point you recieve a letter in crayon. It's just a nuisance, but also takes advantage of people's fear and perceived social ackwardness (they hope that you'll pay it to avoid anyone seeing debt letters coming to your house). The annoying thing is if you reply to the letters or phone them it gets worse as they've confirmed activity.   

On the plus side, if you have a hamster it saves on buying bedding.

[James Malloch]

Could this make it a bit more real/worrying?

http://forums.pepipoo.com/lofiversion/index.php/t73175.html

[tomtom]

Nope. Ignore them.

MrsTT has not heard a thing for over a year now...

[LucyB]

Interesting that it mentions the SRA investigation into him on that thread. It could well be the reason behind him suddenly starting to send out letters again. Which would still suggest the best way is to ignore them.

[MarkOfLoxley]

Thought I would re-open this topic as have just suffered a ticket from these at Liverpool airport last week.
Had been over in the Alps for 5 days getting in a few via-ferrata before the end of the season.
Came back to a ticket on the windscreen.
I had parked in the ipark car park but was on the grass verge. As it was a 4x4 I was fully on the grass, well off the road, as were a few other cars.

Ticket said "not parked in appropriate bay" and £60 fine.
Was a bit rushed with work and didnt think to look into this being dodgy and emailed them a 'complaint' with my name and address and a letter to say I didnt see any signs saying dont park on the grass.

Having now found the time to look into it, both here and on moneysuper forum it's obvious the best approach was to never have replied in the first place !
Bit late for me, so am going to sit it out and see what transpires.
Had I thought about it, car is registered to my company anyway and so not even linked to me, but like an idiot they now have my name and address ! Will blame it on jetlag. LOL

[gingerninja]

i got one in a private car park in town. i ignored it and have had no more contact. i was also in my mums car and according to the law, the fine is mine but my mum is under no obligation to tell them who was driving and as she was out of the country they dont have a leg to stand on.

[LB1782]

... according to the law, the fine is mine but my mum is under no obligation to tell them who was driving ...

This isnt the case any more. Section 56 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 changed in law to make the keeper of a vehicle liable for parking charges incurred on private land if the keeper does not know the identity of the driver at the time.

modified to un-bork the link

[Johnny Brown]

Just a head's up - I've happily ignored these in the past but having received a £100 notice yesterday (for a short overstay in a car park that has hitherto been free off-peak all my life), and done some reading, it seems things are changing.

Current advice is definitely NOT TO IGNORE. The law was changed in 2012, banning clamping but seemingly allowing greater enforcement of charges. You can still challenge these tickets, and forums suggest 100% success following their advice (most of the failures listed are deliberate submissions to test the process). However the challenge is based on legal arguments such as demanding to see contracts with landowners, and justification for the fee as a 'genuine estimate of loss'. It looks like the courts are waking up to this as a scam and a test case looks to be in the future.

In short, private companies are not allowed to issue fines, only recover costs. £100 for being 70 pence short in an empty car park is clearly an illegal penalty, not a fair charge. The companies make their money by pursuing charges, not from pay-and-display revenues. In some cases they actually pay rent to be allowed to issue tickets for overstays on free car parks.

As I'm busy and can't be arsed with any stress I've gone for the lazy man's route of paying £16 to http://www.parkingticketappeals.org.uk/ - run by some lawyers trying to bring this scam down. I'll let you know how it goes.

[Jaspersharpe]

In some cases they actually pay rent to be allowed to issue tickets for overstays on free car parks.

Motherfuckers.

[Sloper]

Just a head's up - I've happily ignored these in the past but having received a £100 notice yesterday (for a short overstay in a car park that has hitherto been free off-peak all my life), and done some reading, it seems things are changing.

Current advice is definitely NOT TO IGNORE. The law was changed in 2012, banning clamping but seemingly allowing greater enforcement of charges. You can still challenge these tickets, and forums suggest 100% success following their advice (most of the failures listed are deliberate submissions to test the process). However the challenge is based on legal arguments such as demanding to see contracts with landowners, and justification for the fee as a 'genuine estimate of loss'. It looks like the courts are waking up to this as a scam and a test case looks to be in the future.

In short, private companies are not allowed to issue fines, only recover costs. £100 for being 70 pence short in an empty car park is clearly an illegal penalty, not a fair charge. The companies make their money by pursuing charges, not from pay-and-display revenues. In some cases they actually pay rent to be allowed to issue tickets for overstays on free car parks.

As I'm busy and can't be arsed with any stress I've gone for the lazy man's route of paying £16 to http://www.parkingticketappeals.org.uk/ - run by some lawyers trying to bring this scam down. I'll let you know how it goes.

JB is correct, the law did change a while back (I was sulking otherwise I'd have posted about it) I'm note sure on the exact basis on which the tickets are enforceable; i.e. whether they deem a contract and then look to recover based on the breach or whether the notion of the contractual 'fine' is now fine (previously penalty clauses were deemed invalid (as opposed to liquidated damages clauses))

Generally I'd suggest offering them £5 pre action and then telling them to fuck off. While they might incur £100 costs of issuing it (which is recoverable) it will cost them at c. £300 to send a fatter version of Ru (on the basis that all lawyers are fatter than Ru) along to hicksville county court, which is not recoverable

if anyone actually receives a claim form, drop me a pm and I'll look into it properly.

[Johnny Brown]

The reading I've done agrees with what you've suggested, though there is a lot of bluster and obfuscation on the part of the companies. They are quite happy to chuck away £300 sending chubby Ru to small claims as a court appearance is enough to frighten a greater percentage of claimants. Likewise they lose £30 every time an appeal is upheld by the independent appeal service POPLA, which is most if the time.

Sample letter:

I dispute your claim for the reasons set out below. Please note that although I dispute the whole basis of the parking charge, my main concern is its disproportionate and punitive level.

1. Your parking charge amount claim.
 
Please explain on which of the following grounds your claim is based:
 
(i) ​Damages for trespass

(ii) ​Damages for breach of contract

(iii)​ A contractual sum

2. Your loss.
 
If it is your case that that a trespass was committed or that a contract was breached such that your claim is one for damages; please give me a full breakdown of the actual losses which evidences that this parking charge is a true reflection of the damages caused solely by the alleged parking contravention.


3. Your status – the creditor.
 
Your Parking Charge Notice - Notice to Keeper simply mentions [Insert name of parking company if that is who is named on the PCN/NTK]. Please tell me who is the actual creditor making this £[insert amount] parking charge demand. I need to know exactly who is making the claim and in what capacity.
 
4. Ownership of premises.
 
Please tell me who owns the car park as I wish to send them a copy of this letter.

5. Contractual Authority (as required by BPA Ltd AOS CoP B.7)
 
Please provide me with a copy of the contract between your company and the landowner/landholder that provides the necessary contractual written authority for the issue and enforcement of your Parking Charge Notice - Notice to Keeper.
 
6. Signage.
 
If it is your case that a contract has been breached or that a contractual sum is now due, please send me photographs of the signs that you display and upon which you seek to evidence that a lawful and legally enforceable contract was been entered into. Please ensure that the photographs show the terms and conditions in a clear and legible manner. Please provide me with a diagram showing the locations and layout of those signs at the car park. Also provide evidence that the wording is in plain and intelligible language and in sufficiently large print as to be legible to a driver at the car park’s entry point.

[Johnny Brown]

Also worth noting neither POPLA nor court are apparently interested in your mitigating circumstances; appeals are won purely on the illegality of the penalty.

This is important as many hospital car parks are run by these cunts, who are not above issuing a fine, and refusing an appeal, when someone's partner dies on them and they over run the ticket.

[Sloper]

Don't.

It is their claim and they must plead it and prove it (to the civil standard).

Cut and paste pleadings are often woeful, we struck out a claim today because the claim form wasn't signed.  They'll be using half trained monkeys.

If they issue, deal with the basis of their claim.

If they say 'there was a contract' simply say denied and aver why there was no contract, simply reject each aspect of their claim and seek disclosure; the strict rules (of litigation) and evidence P31 & etc don't apply to small claims track matters but you can still fuck them over failure to disclose. Put them to proof; they will probably fail.

The only thing to check is that they don't use the non attendance rule in P27.

[Johnny Brown]

Sounds like in most cases they are very reluctant to produce the contract with the landowner that allows them to pursue unreasonable amounts, presumably because they either don't allow it, or contain details they would rather not disclose.

Where contracts are produced, they generally then fail to prove that the damages sought are a genuine pre-estimate of loss. Not surprisingly.

[Paul B]

This doesn't surprise me. At my place the parking is covered by VCS and they can't even manage to re-issue the permits to residents once a year. They're usually over a month late and then when they finally issue them they put up notices telling you that you've got 24 hours to display your new pass or you'll be ticketed.

I'd really love to see them try and argue a trespass or damages to them based one me parking in a space I've bought and failing to display a pass. Ridiculous.

[Sloper]

Without getting too technical; the first question would be what loss has the landowner suffered and the question of the assignment of the loss to the claimant; there's whole lot of fun to be had here if you're a chancery lawyer, but we're not talking chancery law here, rather what a deputy district judge is going to consider, fair copy, a bit off,and well out of order.

Both the loss and assignment would be fertile grounds for fighting (and I do love a fight, but I try to not have them on the tram any more as I now know they have internal CCTV) the basis for defending would be to deny they have a claim.

But we go back to basics, they have to establish their claim in law and then advance the evidence to prove it.

There was an interesting case recently(which in my mind means the last 5 years) where 2 teenage girls of previously good character stole a bit of make up, caution and off you go.  Then the lagre supermarket (I can't remember which it was but it has a close relationship with Labour) pursued them under the civil recovery scheme for about £180 each.  The Judge found them liable but awarded <£10 and no costs.

No a direct parallel but broadly analogous.

[SA Chris]

This is important as many hospital car parks are run by these cunts, who are not above issuing a fine, and refusing an appeal, when someone's partner dies on them and they over run the ticket.

I got fined for parking "illegally" on a verge when my partner was in with our second. There was no other place to park. I ignored, nothing happened.

Has the law changed in England only or in Scotland too.

[psychomansam]

I'm currently ignoring letters about a private parking ticket, not for the first time since 2012 either. I really don't see why, reading this thread, I should change tactic? What do you think Sloper?

[Sloper]

the date of the 'ticket' may well be an issue; I'm not sure if the Act enabling recovery had transitional arrangements / when that section came into force, google 'what's in force' and x-reference the provision to 'live' date; however a general principle is that law is not retrospective (a few exceptions see 'Burma Oil' 1949 from memory).

Chris, I would be very surprised if this enactment was law in Scotland, and i really know very little about Scots law.

A very general advice would be for "offences" of overstaying by a short period, offer them £5 and then ignore; for persistently leaving your car in the car park when you then jump on the train I'd ignore in full as if you make any offer they'll be into you for £x@n.

on a brighter note; google 'do not respond to this' and offer them a drawing of a 7 legged spider.

[Johnny Brown]

I was all prepared to ignore but all the advice said not to. I guess it depends on the company but it sounds like plenty happily push as many as possible to court to maintain the scare tactics, even if it costs more than they recover.

Scotland is different yeah, sounds like you can still ignore with impunity.

[Sloper]

The issue will be how much will the land owner be paying the partking control people.

If they're paying £2500 per year then you can assume that the parking control co won't be issuing many sets of proceedings / going to hearings; if the landowner is paying £250k per year, then the game changes.

It's all about the £££££

[Johnny Brown]

Just had an email confirming that my ticket has been cancelled. Jurassic park.

[Fiend]

YYFY etc.

[Sloper]

Just had an email confirming that my ticket has been cancelled. Jurassic park.

Just wait for the costs of the appeal of £1500