Forum menu
My advice for these if you want to get rid of them is not to engage with the parking enforcement company, but with the owner of the car park or the businesses that use it. This will only work if you are bringing a benefit to the businesses though, e.g. spending £x while you were there or you are a regular customer of the business and can threaten not to use them.
We did this for my wife at Straiton. She overstayed by 15 mins or so in the TK Maxx car park but could demonstrate by receipts that she had been shopping at quite a few shops there. The owner of the retail park cancelled it. I'm sure we did it for another car park too.
@Northwind I'd have contacted Argos in your case. They would have probably cancelled it for you as you were genuinely bringing them benefit.
@toomba you could perhaps contact the retail park owner, explain what went on (but don't say who the driver was) and say that the invoice is now completely disproportionate to the inconvenience caused to the (closed?) business, the driver is now aware of the parking restrictions but that the driver is not likely to visit the retail park or McDonald's again and will go elsewhere.
Sorry about the lack of gaps Cougar, it was 1 in the morning and i couldn’t sleep, hopefully you’ll be able to take a breath this time.
Fair enough, I recognise that feeling all too well.
@stumpyjon I object to the fact that every time I've been invoiced I've been legally parked and went a few minutes over whilst using the shopping facilities. I object to the fact that in many cases the parking companies assume greater power than the land owner. It would be a simple matter to install an ANPR connected registration system at a shop till to prove you are shopping there and avoid all this hassle but that wouldn't generate money for the shitehawks profiting off of it. I shouldn't have to chase every man and his dog to get a fine overturned for using a free parking facility and there are a good deal of people out there who would just pay up, especially after the appeal (to the company) is initially rejected (before being typically upheld by POPLA). It's predatory pure and simple.
I sympathise with those who are inconvenienced by antisocial parking but this isn't IMO the way to go about resolving it. Even the daft lassie in Dundee was parking in front of her own parents garage, she was inconveniencing nobody and parked in front of the owners property with permission but somehow common sense was thrown out the window and she was used as an example (and rinsed for the privilege).
I object to the fact that every time I’ve been invoiced I’ve been legally parked and went a few minutes over
I know what you are trying to say - but that sound a little bit like "I wasn't really speeding as I was within the 10%+2"
Even the daft lassie in Dundee was parking in front of her own parents garage, she was inconveniencing nobody and parked in front of the owners property with permission but somehow common sense was thrown out the window and she was used as an example (and rinsed for the privilege).
I'm not sure which case you are referring to - but the only Scottish cases I've ever seen reported are where people persistently park against the published rules. I can't decide if she was a daft wee lassie for ignoring the repeated charge notices or common sense was thrown out the window and she was used as an example not to keep ignoring the notices - it can't really be both.
Did you have your hazards on? No-one can fine you in those circumstances.
Many modern cars don't have hazard lights - there can surely be no other reason that people broken down on the hard shoulder don't use them!
I’m not arguing for or against anyone, just pointing out an inaccuracy in the “Beavis vs Parking Eye doesn’t apply in Scotland” statement.
But actually, it isn't precedent in Scottish law. The fact the supreme court has some remit over Scotland doesn't mean it would reach the same conclusion in Scots Law and English law for every otherwise identical civil case. It may be relevant, but it doesn't tie the judge's hands. However, as I recall the essence of the Beavis case was whether the penalty charges were reasonable in the circumstances - if a case gets as far as the level of charge in Scotland it would almost certainly be highlighted as an example of how other courts have dealt with the issue before, it would not be unheard of for cases from elsewhere in the commonwealth to get cited too. But if a Scottish Judge felt that there was a distinct difference in how the law operates between jurisdictions he'd be totally free to reject such a comparison.
FWIW I too think if you knowingly break the rules - pay up. If you don't know you broke the rules - either they are not clear or you need to pay more attention when driving so pay up! I'm surprised the government hasn't seen an opportunity to cash in and at the same time help out the beleaguered motorist! Offer a scheme where DVLA (or on off-shoot) do the work; government set penalties - perhaps as little as £15 for first 30 minutes of misuse; automatic keeper liability (forget hunting for the driver - the keeper can get the money from them if they've let someone drive and they can't follow the rules); owner submits the evidence, dvla do the collection/enforcing, dvla keep a (high) proportion of the proceeds, dvla manages an appeals scheme - successful appeals cost the landowner money encouraging only legit submissions. Gov get income; landowners have protection; drivers have better safeguards against overzealous profiteering.
I know what you are trying to say – but that sound a little bit like “I wasn’t really speeding as I was within the 10%+2”
Yeah I know, thanks for taking the charitable view 😀
I’m not sure which case you are referring to – but the only Scottish cases I’ve ever seen reported are where people persistently park against the published rules. I can’t decide if she was a daft wee lassie for ignoring the repeated charge notices or common sense was thrown out the window and she was used as an example not to keep ignoring the notices – it can’t really be both.
Both of those actually, she ignored them as she thought it was all legit then got royally humped for it.
Squirrelking so you admit to breaking the rules then, also bearing in mind you get a grace period, the free parking is always longer than on the signs, so your few minutes really isn't. The Parking Cos don't exceed the powers of the land owner, they enforce the rules the land owner wishes to enforce so that statement is rubbish. As for appeals being rejected by the operator and upheld by POPLA got any source for that other than blind prejudice? I know it's fundamentally not true. Cancellation rates on first appeal are quite high in the first instance and win rates at POPLA are at 90% for the better companies. You are exactly the sort of person that makes enforcement necessary and helps keep the parking companies in business, the 97% of the population who park properly, within the rules set by the land owner never have a problem.
Thanks for all who took the time to read my post and comment, lot of useful information. Just to add we don’t make a habit of parking in this way. First ticket in 30+ years of driving. After a long journey kids playing up needing fed. Yes we should have read the signs but hey we made the decision , the driver stayed in the car so I guess I’m gona be stubborn and not pay. I will however try a letter to the retail park co and try to explain.
Will update the outcome 👍
Jesus wept, how can you speak for the boot polish?
I've been caught out when shopping, if it helps that was at a local shopping centre with a ludicrously short parking allowance, a trip to a nearby retail park where I had the cheek to walk to the adjoining shop rather than drive 20m to their arbitrary monobloc and another where I was held up by the fact I had to run and drop my guts thanks to the low warning you get with a hernia.
So yes, I'm the problem with society. I don't park on double yellows, disabled spaces, pavements, charging bays, residents bays, cycle lanes or such but because I park in car parks for a handful of minutes over my arbitrary allowed time I am the 3% who ruined everything.
Aye, okay. Awa and shite in yer hands and clap.
Satisfy my inner curiosity, what are your thoughts on kids excluded from school for uniform infractions?
toomba
Free Member
Thanks for all who took the time to read my post and comment, lot of useful information. Just to add we don’t make a habit of parking in this way. First ticket in 30+ years of driving. After a long journey kids playing up needing fed. Yes we should have read the signs but hey we made the decision , the driver stayed in the car so I guess I’m gona be stubborn and not pay. I will however try a letter to the retail park co and try to explain.
Will update the outcome 👍
Good stuff, i'd try and phone them more than a letter, always good to speak to someone and maybe just put a bit more to the story, i.e. were shopping, stopped off for toilet break and McD's for the kids and never noticed the signage, seen many of these happen and usually the person on the other end of the phone is happy to cancel down more often than not if you're polite and apologetic, just give them the reference number of the Parking Charge Notice and so on.
https://www.straitonretailpark.co.uk/contact/
Squirrelking: How many of you experts arguing for PCNs are Scottish and have experience of it through the Scottish system?
I'm Scottish, had 2, both McDonalds, ignored them without issue, if I showed the very slick tricks they use in the letters here everyone would see it for what it is, they threatened me with fictional impending court cases and in one last desperate attempt they were going to drop said fictional impending court cases if I paid, then back to threats, goes on for ages.
If they were going to take you to court the letter would be signed for, there is no evidence of anyone receiving any of them so no one is going to court.
Badabing! Exactly. It's basically a scam designed to extort from people not clued up enough to dispute the allegations. Or know that there are no county courts in Scotland.
Badabing! Exactly. It’s basically a scam designed to extort from people not clued up enough to dispute the allegations. Or know that there are no county courts in Scotland.
Basically yes, if you are requested to go to, or threatened with going to court the letter doesn't arrive with junk mail.
I'm not sure that's true, you know. I've had a legitimate court summons arrive at my address (not for me) and it was regular post.
Needs to be recorded delivery in Scotland. Or by Sheriff Officer if recorded delivery unsuccessful .
https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/taking-action/simple-procedure/simple-procedure---making-a-claim
, if I showed the very slick tricks they use in the letters here everyone would see it for what it is, they threatened me with fictional impending court cases and in one last desperate attempt they were going to drop said fictional impending court cases if I paid, then back to threats, goes on for ages.
If they were going to take you to court the letter would be signed for, there is no evidence of anyone receiving any of them so no one is going to court.
OK in England but I did ignore, got threatened with court, ignored and round and round we went. Then did go to court and I lost on a technicality. Not one letter from the car park operator nor the court was signed for.
I am currently in another battle and again it is now at court waiting a hearing date. Again, not one letter from the operator nor the court has been sent by any form of signed for post.
I have ignored many others in the past as well and they have not gone to court but they do sometimes proceed to court so do not be under the impression they never do. And do not think for one moment the letters will be signed for 🙂
Bit confused by English law here, if not signed for how do they prove you received it or knew anything about it?
I'm not suggesting anyone tries to get out of anything or does anything wrong, but nor am I a fan of pandering to being threatened by a private contract parking company when all you did was park a car in the car park provided.
Cougar
I’m not sure that’s true, you know. I’ve had a legitimate court summons arrive at my address (not for me) and it was regular post.
If you had binned it would they be being prosecuted fairly? if so a private company has just made it's own rules.
Bit confused by English law here, if not signed for how do they prove you received it or knew anything about it?
If my memory serves me right from distant contract law studies...there is an implied term in English law that (proof of?) posting is prima facie evidence of receipt.
Just to add to this, I have had a court summons (years ago re Road tax) and a jury notification. Neither were recorded.
Is that fair and just?
I don't think so, if you order something off ebay and it doesn't turn up you would have more rights than your legal system extends, I'm not disputing it but I think it sucks.
It's English law and, as we all know, ignorance of the law is no defence - in law.
That doesn't make it right.
If you had binned it would they be being prosecuted fairly? if so a private company has just made it’s own rules.
Search me.
I don't want to go into too much detail because it's regarding someone else so it's not my place. The summons was for a non-payment of... something, I can't even remember now, it might've been the final repayment of a credit agreement. The recipient had moved out a good while ago and I'd been broadly ignoring their not unsubstantial mail, but something prompted me to open this one. Maybe I saw the red through the envelope window or something. The letter was from the courts and it was "here's your court date unless you pay up first." I paid it off for them, I didn't have a forwarding address and I figured it was better than the potential consequences of them missing a court summons. So, what would have happened in the event of a 'non-delivery' I do not know.
If my memory serves me right from distant contract law studies…there is an implied term in English law that (proof of?) posting is prima facie evidence of receipt.
Is it? That flies in the face of everything I thought I knew about stuff like online ordering.
I paid it off for them, I didn’t have a forwarding address and I figured it was better than the potential consequences of them missing a court summons.
Not all heroes wear capes!
Bit confused by English law here, if not signed for how do they prove you received it or knew anything about it?
It was established in Beavis v Parking Eye at the Supreme Court that sending letters by normal post was an accepted and acceptable way of dealing with such matters. I did of course raise this point when my last PCN went to court and I was told I could go bollocks on that point 🙂 .
As it happens I send everything back to the court and to the claimant via special next day as I would rather be safe in the knowledge I had nailed on proof however it seems I could merely claim I had sent it and this would be fine.
I am not risking it though for the sake of a few quid in postage.
I am not risking it though for the sake of a few quid in postage.
But they allow private companies to and you remain liable? that sounds like a license to make up your own extortion racket to me.
I paid it off for them, I didn’t have a forwarding address and I figured it was better than the potential consequences of them missing a court summons.
That is the winner of my kind act of the month...actually it was the only contender this month..
@argee. Thank you for the link. I will be giving them a ring 👍