Errrr that’s not the case anymore.

By failing to reply the only thing that appears to have changed is that you can’t use the ‘prove it was me’ get-out clause.

You’re officially liable, but you’d still argue that you’re liable for nowt, or next to nowt, by virtue of the dubious contract-forming and lack of actual provable financial loss by the retailer in most cases.

So they’d still have to take you to court to extract the money, and it will be interesting to see if they are any more willing to risk that now than they were last year.

Piecotomus it’s not vague, the law changed if they’re a member of the British Parking association the owner is obliged to tell them who was driving. The old ‘the ticket wasn’t there’ routine won’t work, that’s why they carry digital cameras and use CCTV.

You are not obliged to tell them who was driving but the registered keeper is NOW liable whomever was driving – that is the change. in the past, if taken to court, they also would have needed to prove who was driving.

IMHO as long as enough folk pay to make the “business” profitable they wont bother to take the rest to court as its not worth their hassle when enough mugs pay out.

I would just ignore it tbh

Its worth noting they loose a fair few court cases as well when they actually bother to try especially as the charges are likely to be viewed as excessive in comparison to their actual losses [ a space if the car park is full

Errrr that’s not the case anymore

Nothing much has changed.

They still issue “invoices” rather than “fines”

So the legal situation hasn’t changed at all.

They would still need to take you to court to extract any money from you. So the same advice still applies.

I would Bin it and ignore every follow up.

(This is what I did in December 2012 and it seemed to have worked already. Nothing other than the first two letters, the last if which arrived 17th December)

The way I understand it the owner is liable for the debt not being paid, they no longer need to go to the court for this as law changed. The can seek the owner for the debt if the refuse to say who the driver was.

yes they can and if you ignore it they would need to take it to court as before

Will they

I doubt it personally though of course they will talk tough.

If you ignore it, it’s still just a disputed contract. If you’re not paying, there is no debt unless they go to court and try to enforce it.

That applies regardless of how many ‘debt collection’ type harrassment letters they send you.

Guess I’m missing something then as thought the case was they no longer needed to.

The can seek the owner for the debt if the refuse to say who the driver was.

They presumably still have to prove that the ‘debt’ is owed?

Could you put a note in you car the size of your windscreen that says if they place a ticket on your car and/or take a photo you will charge them a grand and get way with it ?
I would like it if you could-could the car driver not also just add a stupid contract to negate them enforcing theirs?

They don’t place a ticket on your car any more, just take a picture of your plate and mail you some threats later….

They have to go to court if you refuse to pay
charge them 150 quid of your time to find out who may have been driving your car even under the PACE they (police) still have to confirm who was behind the wheel

send a letter prove it debt letter if it gets that far which i doubt what happens next will be comical im sure

someone will prove it in court one day and show them power to the people
if it boils down to a contract between the registered keeper who might not have even been there how can that contract exist

By the way to all who have posted here i will be seeking your payment by next Friday for parking your cars on my drive last week
i know you couldn’t see the signs and definitely weren’t even there but as the registered keeper you will pay dammit

ok thank you for you replies the people on pepipoo are saying ignore all correspondence

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=46975

and read this if anybody else has a similar thing happen.

The way I understand it the owner is liable for the debt not being paid, they no longer need to go to the court for this as law changed. The can seek the owner for the debt if the refuse to say who the driver was.

The bit in bold is the only bit that’s changed.

The rest is still the same. They still issue invoices not fines.

They still need to go to court if you don’t pay.

They still won’t bother.

Nice one, plecostomus – assume your thread was
this one.

yes bud sure was

Hmrc vs VCS is still relevant, regardless of the changes naming the driver.

Statistically, I’d be more worried about crossing the street. The law in Scotland is different, but not that different, you still need proof of loss and contract as in England. So I’m told.

It’s basic contract law. the only thing that is changed is the companies involved in issuing these invoices now don’t have to prove who was driving. the owner becomes responsible. if you refuse to pay the invoice the can take you to court but that will cost them more money than the invoice is worth if they lose (likely considering some of the tactics used by them).

Ignore ignore ignore.

I notice that the new rules also set up an independent parking on private lands tribunal service, at no cost to the driver

So, potentially, if everyone who got a ticket decided to appeal to this new independent adjudicator, then the whole thing would collapse under the weight of appeals – and then even if they did win their case at appeal, they would still have to take you to court to get the money…

The police and councils are the only ones that can fine you under the road traffic act. Private companies rely on the contract formed when you park on their land (contract is written on the cleverly positioned signs). If you breach this contract all they can claim for is the loss caused by this breach, if this is a free car park there is no loss therefore nothing to pay even if it was taken to court

Please note it is free for you to do this, POPLA, but the parking charge folk need to pay

It is £27 + Vat and they get charged as its not legally binding either they still need to take you to court.

Isn’t it the case that they can only sue for losses anyway? Ie, If the parking ticket was two quid and you don’t buy one, they can only pursue you for two quid and not £90? Or have I dreamt that?

EDIT – what b1gj0hn said. Didn’t read, sorry.

The police and councils are the only ones that can fine you under the road traffic act.

… outside of London.

As has been said on pepipoo ignore it all. Don’t bin the letters though. On and don’t take consumer advice from drac…:-)

How about saying I didn’t accept the contract I was trespassing. Trespass is civil and to claim anything off you they have to show loss I think.

Find a lawyer to get a more sensible opinion on this though.

Ignore it

Yes, the law has changed regarding admission of who was driving, but it hasn’t changed the fact that the charges levied by these parking companies amount to penalty charges. Under contract law, you can’t charge a penalty for breach of contract, you can only recover your losses. The parking charge is way in excess of any loss suffered by the landowner.

they company who issued this “Parking notice” can only get info via the DVLA if they are on certain list of registered companys a quickl Google will see if they are.

If they aren’t than they can’t get your details and can’t do much!