Our factory is next to a BCA site and we get all sorts trying to park in our yard. Most of the time we catch them and ask politely to leave sometimes it gets a bit heated, I had one bloke tell me I was racist because I wouldn't let him park there. Since we have had signs up saying we will ticket people we have been getting less attempts. Sometimes we just lock the gates so they cant get their cars back, we have left them lock and gone home in the past.
So yes I do think there is a place for parking tickets and they do work as a deterrent, however I wouldn't pay if I got one.
Okay, the threatening letters have now started...
Who has ignored them, what situation were you in, what was the outcome?
my most recent letter came yesterday threatening court action, again. this is about my 5th letter, from overstaying in a co-op car park on holiday in cornwall.
i also got another similar one going off for not paying at newquay beach.
i havent replied to either.
the amounts now are at about £190 each!
they can take me to court, but i dont think they will, because i cant pay it!
As asked above are "other" types of car park covered under the "**** off I'm not paying rule"
Such as airports, multi stories and as I asked on the first page motorway services?? Does anyone actually know or is it more STW guess work??
This is what I want to know Wrighty...
I parked outside a friends house in a carpark not attached to their flat... plenty of spaces but got ticketd at 10 to 6 in the morning.
Unless it is from the council or police it is an invoice and they have to prove losses incurred (which is just the parking fee)
I ignored the ones from a shopping centre car park that my missus stayed for just over the 2 hour limit and it went away after 5 letters from solicitors debt collectors. I was advised to never reply as that just drags it out
Look on line lots of stuff about this
This was essentially a private car park for a block of flats... so no fee.
Yeti who is the bill from?
Some parking firm... can't remember their name. Think they're based in Birmingham.
As asked above are "other" types of car park covered under the "**** off I'm not paying rule"
It's anything on private land. The only way they can make you pay is if they can prove you were driving, so either photo or video evidence.
chancing it TSY just ignore them or put you considerable creative talents to use when replying
Yeti
I personally would just ignore it
defo ignore it.
toys - did you somehow know it was going to absolutely pish it down yesterday afternoon?
My intention always has been to ignore it, just wondering if anyone has actually done it... none of the other sites tell of the outcomes of people ignoring it though.
Did it psih down? The weather said it would, so we were all thinking we might only do the morning. but actually my mrs was ill and I was recalled to base. When did the rain start?
At about half 3-4 ish... thunder and everything...
I'm going to try and drum up support for a Triscombe day... sounds awesome 🙂
there's nothing at all the private company can do about it apart from send you ever more threatening letters in red ink or perhaps a nasty phone call to try and scare you into paying
This is, by the way, bollocks.
The piece of paper which they leave on your windscreen is not a fine. It is an invoice for liquidated damages based on your breach of the terms of the licence to enter the land which you had. It may be enforced through the courts as a civil matter (if their ducks are in a row - which they usually are). The company may get the court to compel the registered owner to identify who the driver on the occasion was. The amount recoverable is not limited merely to the unpaid parking fee. It is not extortion. And so on.
The correct position is that there is plenty the private companies can do to recover the money from you, but they usually don't bother because it's too expensive. Funnily enough, a whole multimillion pound industry is not based on an assertion with no basis in law. The true position is substantially different from what a million idiots on MSE talking about Magna Carta and the ECHR say and which gets replicated across t'internet like a million bar rooms.
This is, by the way, bollocks.
The bit of your post after that statement?
The amount recoverable is not limited merely to the unpaid parking fee.
The courts appear to judge otherwise - hence why it's not generally worth them pursuing. All they can claim are damages, which if there is a standard fee for parking usually comes down to the unpaid fee. They certainly can't charge for the costs incurred in chasing you.
Funnily enough, a whole multimillion pound industry is not based on an assertion with no basis in law.
Maybe not - but if everybody knew the law (and they all actually kept within it) it wouldn't be a multimillion pound business.
One could, of course, "know the law and keep within it" by not parking longer than you have permission for. Just a thought, like.
The courts appear to judge otherwise
They don't, you know. Liquidated damages don't have to be based on actual loss in a particular circumstance. The whole point of agreeing liquidated damages in advance of a breach of contract is that you don't have to sit around incurring further costs working out what the loss was.
What makes it uneconomic is the expense of court fees, lawyers, delay etc. It's much cheaper to hire debt collectors (letter-sending machines and call centre agents) than it is to hire lawyers to actually litigate every claim - especially when the claim is only a hundred quid or so.
They don't, you know.
Go on then, give me an example of the courts agreeing with the "fine" imposed by a parking company rather than something rather closer to the normal parking cost.
Whoa, whoa, whoa... there was no 'fee' or anything... but it was a rather empty car park for some flats.
but it was a rather empty car park for some flats
which means their 'losses' are exactly zero.
The company may get the court to compel the registered owner to identify who the driver on the occasion was
the whole point is that they can't do this. even the police can't when you get speeding fines, they are just allowed to give the points to the registered owner to get around this problem whereas private companies can only 'invoice' the person who parked the car.
Okay, the threatening letters have now started...Who has ignored them, what situation were you in, what was the outcome?
We have.
Had about 6-8 letters. Opened the first couple, binned the rest. They stopped.
That was Aldi carpark in Farnham, Surrey, BTW
some interesting replies here but I think reality would be slightly different.
we had one of the worst private claimping companies in the Uk in southend, one which was the subject of a Watchdog episode - LBS Enforcement.
What happened was you park in bay marked no parking (whether at local garage, private flats, back of shops etc..) before youre even out of your car youre blocked in by the clamper - clamp goes on immediately and you are charged in the region of £4-500 for a release fee... For those of you now thinking I wouldnt let this guy touch my car, the guys that are doing this are ususally found working the doors of east end and glasgow night clubs in their spare time, they also dont listen to arguments - if you dont pay the fee within the allotted time (usually around 20 minutes) it double or triples because theyve called out the van to tow your car, so yhose of you nipping off to get an angle grinder, the car wont be there when you get back. Call the police - its a civil matter, the signs are up, they're there with the agreement of the landowner, nothing thy can do. Obviously once your car is towed excessive storage fees are applied.
Many people took the company to court, most however lost as they were parking illegally in the first place, those that one tried to claim their money back from a company that had no assets other than a desk and a chair in a portakabin (the clampers were all self employed).
It was a very slick quite well thought out operation, which worked just bordering of inside the law.. Before the comapny was wound up it owed in excess of £20k to claimants not one had seen a penny and I doubt they ever will.
As far as I know becasue of this particular company the law has no been changed and this type of operation outlawed. But it always amazed me how many people went onto the local paper's website complaining theyd been clamped when there were huge great signs warning them...
At the end of the day if you dont want a parking ticket dont park where youre not supposed to...
that's a interesting story and highlights why the law is being changed to stop clamping companies.
has nothing to do with parking tickets though.
This is, by the way, bollocks.The piece of paper which they leave on your windscreen is not a fine. It is an invoice for liquidated damages based on your breach of the terms of the licence to enter the land which you had. It may be enforced through the courts as a civil matter (if their ducks are in a row - which they usually are). The company may get the court to compel the registered owner to identify who the driver on the occasion was. The amount recoverable is not limited merely to the unpaid parking fee. It is not extortion. And so on.
The correct position is that there is plenty the private companies can do to recover the money from you, but they usually don't bother because it's too expensive. Funnily enough, a whole multimillion pound industry is not based on an assertion with no basis in law. The true position is substantially different from what a million idiots on MSE talking about Magna Carta and the ECHR say and which gets replicated across t'internet like a million bar rooms.
So why haven't I been taken to court yet for the £18k+ I owe in parking charges?
there's nothing at all the private company can do about it apart from send you ever more threatening letters in red ink or perhaps a nasty phone call to try and scare you into payingThis is, by the way, bollocks.
The piece of paper which they leave on your windscreen is not a fine. It is an invoice for liquidated damages based on your breach of the terms of the licence to enter the land which you had. It may be enforced through the courts as a civil matter (if their ducks are in a row - which they usually are). The company may get the court to compel the registered owner to identify who the driver on the occasion was. The amount recoverable is not limited merely to the unpaid parking fee. It is not extortion. And so on.
The correct position is that there is plenty the private companies can do to recover the money from you, but they usually don't bother because it's too expensive. Funnily enough, a whole multimillion pound industry is not based on an assertion with no basis in law. The true position is substantially different from what a million idiots on MSE talking about Magna Carta and the ECHR say and which gets replicated across t'internet like a million bar rooms.
Sorry Konabunny you're wrong. The piece of paper is marked as a penalty charge notice and as such is an unlawful representation of losses.
Very few PPC's take people to court, its HIGHLY unlikely they would win as they can't fine you.
and yes it is a multimillion pound industry with no basis in law, it is a massive scam
Do you run a PPC by chance??
Liquidated damages don't have to be based on actual loss in a particular circumstance.
I did a bit of research and it appears that [url= http://www.singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/is-this-one-of-those-parking-tickets-you-can-just-ignore#post-1259079 ]in E&W law the amount of the liquidated damages has to be "reasonable"[/url] - something the charges they ask for clearly aren't.
Boardin bob must park where the hell he wants 😈
Boardin bob must park where the hell he wants
Nope. I park on my own land. Some idiot from a PPC thinks he can ticket cars on my land.
I had a couple from "Parking Eye" from being at Fistral Beach, Newquay.
The letters from them are headed "Parking Charge Notice", not PENALTY charge notice.
Nope. I park on my own land. Some idiot from a PPC thinks he can ticket cars on my land.
That's hilarious. I really, really hope they try and sue you at some point.
Parking Eye
Yes thats the one I had, look em up on the interweb moneysaving expert had a forum about them.
Ignore, they are trying it on
So why haven't I been taken to court yet for the £18k+ I owe in parking charges?
Who knows? Perhaps because it's not worth it for them; perhaps because their data isn't organised enough to realise that one person owes them enough cash to actually be worth suing for once; perhaps it's because they're not actually in the suing business, just the "writing letters and hoping people pay without having to sue them" business.
aracer: I can simply point out that your position has already shifted from being that the car park management companies can only claim the cost of the unpaid fee to now accepting that the car park management companies can only claim a "reasonable" amount in liquidated damages. With your fine critical reading skills, I'm sure you'll appreciate the difference. If you really want to get into it yourself, start with Dunlop v New Garage and follow the stream of cases from there.
But already we're a long way from "if it's not issued by the Council then YOU DON'T HAVE TO PAY!...there's nothing at all the private company can do about it...extortionate parking charges that are totally unreasonable yet completely unenforceable" which, I suppose, is progress.
I have some inside info on this. The parking eye type.
The business model is involves sending threatening letters based on data supplied by DVLA. There is a flaw in the business model where they send an ‘invoice’ to the registered keeper but it they can not ‘fine you’ and they will have difficulty proving who used the car park. The person who parked is liable to pay not the registered keeper. There I also a stretch of existing law where they would have to argue that there terms are enforceable as, in parking there, you accepted them, (you will notice the importance of signage in these car parks) but this has never been tested in court and the operators will not want to test it.
The operators are reliant on people just paying up as if these ever go to court there chances on minimal.
My lawyer friend is advising people to write back to the company stating only that you were not in there car park at the time they claim. Make no reference to the car or anything else. This is your best bet on stopping the letters but they will probably keep coming however it is highly unlikely you will end up in court.
edit: apologies for my horific english its friday and im out of here.edit
I can simply point out that your position has already shifted from being that the car park management companies can only claim the cost of the unpaid fee to now accepting that the car park management companies can only claim a "reasonable" amount in liquidated damages.
Not at all - the unpaid fee is the reasonable amount, as that's by definition the amount the car park has lost by somebody not paying. No need at all for liquidated damages in this case, as there's no difficulty whatsoever in calculating the actual loss. I was simply pointing out that the penalty demanded by these companies isn't reasonable liquidated damages. Maybe you should try reading what you suggest I should, in which case you'll find that "It will be held to be penalty if the sum stipulated for is extravagant and unconscionable in amount in comparison with the greatest loss that could conceivably be proved to have followed from the breach" which is quite clearly the case for a £50 penalty relating to not paying £2 for parking. That quote from somebody with rather greater legal knowledge than you makes it clear that "Liquidated damages don't have to be based on actual loss in a particular circumstance" is a complete load of rubbish - to be legally enforceable, liquidated damages do very much have to be based on the loss incurred, using them as a penalty (which is what you seem to be implying) isn't legally allowable.
Do you mind if I ask what your job/background is, and why you're arguing from the perspective you do? I find it strange you quoting case law when you've previously admitted you're not a lawyer (and you so clearly haven't even understood the points being made in such cases). It does seem a lot like you have a vested interest here.
I also find it quite interesting that the case you suggest I look at concerns a company trying to enforce something which would be illegal under current law!
There I also a stretch of existing law where they would have to argue that there terms are enforceable as, in parking there, you accepted them
...and as I keep pointing out, that such terms are reasonable. It's a well established part of English law that such implied contracts aren't enforceable if the terms are unreasonable.
this has never been tested in court and the operators will not want to test it.
Of course not, which is why konabunny can't come up with a case and instead has to resort to somewhat related liquidated damages cases (which don't actually prove the point claimed).
I agree with aracer's reading of the Dunlop case.
I'm not sure how the conclusion that "this has never been tested in court" has been arrived at.
Firstly, most elements of most civil litigation are not a matter of public record in the UK and not all cases are reported. Even an exhaustive search of law reports and litigation databases (which would take a trained person with access hours if not days) that failed to identify any such cases couldn't show that there had never been such a case. The only people who have an accurate idea on how often these claims are litigated are the parking companies themselves.
Secondly, the principle of contractual terms incorporated by way of signage has been discussed in court a billion zillion times since the late 19th century. One of the leading cases in English law is Shoe Lane Parking which iirc is about incorporation of a term limiting liability in the event of a car park user's personal injury. (A topic close to a certain STWer's heart, istr).
I also find it quite interesting that the case you suggest I look at concerns a company trying to enforce something which would be illegal under current law!
Then you didn't understand the case or how to read cases.
Dunlop's five pound liquidated damages term was unreasonable [i]in the circumstances of that contract, as a question of fact[/i]. This does not mean that any liquidated damages term in the contract would have been unenforceable. In fact, Dunlop stands for the principle that "it seems quite reasonable for parties to contract that they should estimate that damage at a certain figure, and provided that figure is not extravagant there would seem no reason to suspect that it is not truly a bargain to assess damages, but rather a penalty to be held in terrorem."
The fact that price fixing and resale price maintenance are (generally) now prohibited by statute is irrelevant.
"It will be held to be penalty if the sum stipulated for is extravagant and unconscionable in amount in comparison with the greatest loss that could conceivably be proved to have followed from the breach" which is quite clearly the case for a £50 penalty relating to not paying £2 for parking. That quote from somebody with rather greater legal knowledge than you makes it clear that "Liquidated damages don't have to be based on actual loss in a particular circumstance" is a complete load of rubbish - to be legally enforceable, liquidated damages do very much have to be based on the loss incurred, using them as a penalty (which is what you seem to be implying) isn't legally allowable."
You are simply making an unsustainable leap here. First, you are failing to consider that lost revenue from parking is not the only or greatest loss that could follow from breach of the contract. Second, you are assuming that all parking-related liquidated damages claims are unreasonable per se and therefore unenforceable - but that is not true because it depends on each individual circumstance.
If (as you argue) a claim for liquidated damages can only based on actual loss, then there is simply no role for liquidated damages as a concept because the loss of each breach will have to be assessed on a case-by-case basis. The entire point of liquidated damages is to avoid that situation. Again, from Dunlop:
"In Kemble v. Farren(1) Tindal C.J. said: "We see nothing illegal or unreasonable in the parties, by their mutual agreement, settling the amount of damages, uncertain in their nature, at any sum upon which they may agree. In many cases, such an agreement fixes that which is almost impossible to be accurately ascertained; and in all cases, it saves the expense and difficulty of bringing witnesses to that point.""
On a practical level, I would probably ignore the letters for a fair while if I got one. It doesn't seem that the companies are actually interesting in litigating anything and it's cheaper/easier for them to send out more letters to more people than it is to sue.
Anyway, as much fun as this has been...
I'm not sure how the conclusion that "this has never been tested in court" has been arrived at.
Maybe you'd care to prove otherwise - oh, but you can't. Which rather blows away your whole argument. You'd think the parking companies would be quite happy to publicise such a case they'd won...
Then you didn't understand the case or how to read cases.
No - I think that's you, if you think Dunlop lost.
First, you are failing to consider that lost revenue from parking is not the only or greatest loss that could follow from breach of the contract.
Indeed I am. I fail to see how that is unsustainable though - maybe you'd care to explain what other loss there is if you're going to tell me I'm wrong.
If (as you argue) a claim for liquidated damages can only based on actual loss
It's not my argument:
"It will be held to be penalty if the sum stipulated for is extravagant and unconscionable in amount in comparison with the greatest loss that could conceivably be proved to have followed from the breach"
No answer to the question about what your personal interest in this is?
