Forum menu
The parking co probably can't get the documentation required, that will be down to the lease co and they probably won't hand it over, GDPR and all that.
Anyway you carry on, the PCN has served it's purpose, it's acted as as deterrent to stop you parking there again. Personally I'd have paid the £60 and got on with my life. You do realise the parking co will have whole teams of minimum wage employees dealing with people like the OP, and will have heard all the excuses and loopholes (perceived and otherwise) before, they are not going to get upset about it like the OP, at some point an algorithm will tell them to drop it, or possibly take it to court.
So many high horses.
If you want to take the moral route, the OP got stuck behind a large traffic jam and returned far later than he intended. It wasn't his fault. Morally, parking enforcement / the car park owners should take this into account.
If you want to take the 'you did the crime' route, then the legal process is well-defined and has to be followed for any case to be valid. Murder enquiries will be thrown out of court if the prosecutors do not follow due process, let alone some bloke overstaying the free parking at the back of a near-empty car park belonging to a store where he's a regular customer.
You can't have it both ways and cry about loopholes. It's either a legitimate charge or it isn't.
I'd like to see that appeal pan out, I used your car park to car share and got stuck in the motorway, please can I be let off despite doing exactly what you were trying to prevent.
In this case the loophole is around the compulsion to name the driver, not the issuing of the PCN. In this case the law needs changing to extend the deadline to say 3 months and deal with the anomalies around lease cars.
I’d agree cougar, it has to be done properly.
However, i think I’m in the ‘just pay it and get on with life’ camp.
My attitude would probably change if it was £260 though, that’s a lot to me.
But £60? Life’s too short imo.
In this case the law needs changing
Yes, agreed, but.
It hasn't been.
I should just ask Cougar to write my replies, sums up what I've been trying to explain.
They have informed me that the clock has stopped so to speak in terms of the option to pay the reduced fine if (almost certainly when) they reject my appeal.
As I understand it, I can then pay up or appeal to Popla with the same evidence supplied to the parking company. If I do that and lose, then I have to pay £100.
Not heard from the lease company yet but if they are charging us and I win the appeal then they will have to drop their charges as well (as I understand via reading cases).
We'll see, will update win or lose!
My attitude would probably change if it was £260 though, that’s a lot to me.
But £60? Life’s too short imo.
Cynically,
That's likely why it's set at the figure it is. They aren't stupid. Too low and they reduce their profit, too high and people are more likely to fight rather than just roll over and pay it.
Private companies cannot issue penalty fines beyond recouping losses. Eg, if your illicit parking obstructed legit customers from their weekly shop then a £60 'fine' might be reasonable. Hence it's now a "charge" rather than a penalty. First two hours free, after that it's £60. Whether that's a reasonable stance I'll leave as an exercise for the reader.
@cb at the risk of repeating myself and others,
Have you spoken with Tesco yet? The parking enforcement company are acting on their instruction.
@cougar, not yet, was a rush to get the appeal in for reasons given. I will do.
OP got stuck behind a large traffic jam and returned far later than he intended. It wasn’t his fault. Morally, parking enforcement / the car park owners should take this into account.
Please show working on this one. Was this the motorway on the way to the Tesco the carparks for ?
Don't see why they should consider it at all
But good luck anyway
Private companies cannot issue penalty fines beyond recouping losses. Eg, if your illicit parking obstructed legit customers from their weekly shop then a £60 ‘fine’ might be reasonable. Hence it’s now a “charge” rather than a penalty. First two hours free, after that it’s £60. Whether that’s a reasonable stance I’ll leave as an exercise for the reader.
Yes they can. Beavis vs Parkingeye
- the Supreme court ruled that it could be high enough to be a deterrent "(the company) had a legitimate interest in influencing the conduct of the contracting party which is not satisfied by the mere right to recover damages for breach of contract", but not so high as to be unconscionable.
https://gatehouselaw.co.uk/the-law-on-penalties-after-parkingeye-v-beavis/
.