We all make mistakes, forgot things or misjudge - whether it’s speeding or parking. Get a fine, pay it and move on.
The older I get the less hassle I need in my life. For the sake of a small fine, for a legitimate reason, I'd have paid it and "moved on". If I didn't want the parking company to have my girlfriends details then I'd have either just paid it myself or even subsequently got her to pay me back. However, it wouldn't have given us the drama/pram-toy ejection scenario that this thread has. It certainly seems like a lot of grief for no good cause.
So when you are in court and they ask “so who was driving” are you going to perjure yourself to deny knowing who was driving?
Of course not. My whole defense to the court is 'my girlfriend was driving'. Which she was. In scotland however, legally I don't need to disclose that information to a private company. If the court asks for it I'll give it, if the sheriff tells me to provide her details to the parking co (which is very unlikely given there is no legal requirement for me to do so) I'd tell them.
There is zero perjury required here. If I had been invited to the court this would be thrown out in minutes given I can absolutely prove I wasnt driving the car.
None of this seems worth the hassle.
Well if they'd invited me to court it would have been zero hassle at all, it's 5 min walk from my house and as nailed on a win for me as possible. It's only a hassle because I didn't receive the summons and I now have to go through the repeal process
So is it possible the dvla has provided the court with the address of the new owner? I'll check on Monday when it opens.
Unlikely given that they didn’t seem to have any problem attaching the claim to your name and address when it came to lodging it against your credit history.
I’ve read this thread and I’m baffled as to why you posted it in the first place. You kind of asked for advice but any time someone suggests something you just tell them they’re wrong and you’re right.
Seems kind of pointless to me.
Agreed. Skimmed a thread that started with a 'what are my options' and pretty much every subsequent post by the OP has been pretty chippy shouting down of folks attempting to contribute as requested. Odd.
Wow.... OP.... you're really not making friends here!
I'm struggling to understand why you didn't just pay the parking charge that was correctly issued.
First you say you wrote to them and then you say you've deleted all your sent emails*
An email can easily go missing or redirected so there's no way of you knowing that they got it.
If you had actually written [a letter] and done a recorded delivery you would know they had your response.
But given your existing low opinion of parking companies you probably didn't want to waste £2 on a written reply so thought you'd go the cheap route and may have paid the price.
I also can't see how you have not received any further letters from the parking company or the court.
* Who would do this??!
(Oh, and why are the parking company "absolute scum"?
They're doing a job, or do you think you have the right to park anywhere any time?)
I’ve read this thread and I’m baffled as to why you posted it in the first place. You kind of asked for advice but any time someone suggests something you just tell them they’re wrong and you’re right.
Seems kind of pointless to me.
Is this your first time here?
Oh, and why are the parking company "absolute scum"?
I'm not sure if I'd call them scum. But it's a business type that is largely "unregulated" which can cause issues.
I'm struggling to understand why you didn't just pay the parking charge that was correctly issued.
Once again, i am not liable for the ticket, the law is very very clear on that point
If you had actually written [a letter] and done a recorded delivery you would know they had your response.
But given your existing low opinion of parking companies you probably didn't want to waste £2 on a written reply so thought you'd go the cheap route and may have paid the price.
I also can't see how you have not received any further letters from the parking company or the court.
Or I could use the online application form they ask you to use..and if you'd bother reading the entire thread you'd have noticed I stated I have a response from them which outlines my appeal, so I'm completely covered on that front
Agreed. Skimmed a thread that started with a 'what are my options' and pretty much every subsequent post by the OP has been pretty chippy shouting down of folks attempting to contribute as requested. Odd.
In fairness the only advice received is folks chirping up with ' you should have paid' which, whilst maybe wise in hindsight, is entirely redundant advice now.
Not one person actually offered up advice on the the correct procedure to redress, which i discovered after I originally posted (from a friend who actually knows what they are talking about)
They're doing a job, or do you think you have the right to park anywhere any time?)
Once again, I didn't park anywhere hence why I shouldn't pay
you're really not making friends here!
I'm not on here to make friends! I was after useful practical advice. There have been about 2 posts of any use. The rest is just judgement on my choice not to pay up, false information, and folks that don't understand Scottish law.
So if anyone has any useful advice on the procedure to recall in a Scottish court bash on. If you just want to vent that I was an idiot for not paying then by all means carry on....just dont expect a civil response
Well that's the lay of the land.
Sadly I don't have any useful information for you. Sorry. But if I did, to be honest I think I'd rather shit in my hands and clamp than pass it on.
Happy New Year!
CaB in Scotland strongly suggests you engage legal representation if your going to push to a sheriff to fight it . Good luck in your self representation quest. I suspect we won't hear about the result.
I think I predicted it early on, but still tried to offer some hopefully useful info. Sorry it wasn't, but I kind of wish I hadn't wasted my time on it now, given the spirit in which it's being rejected. So on the basis you aren't here to make friends:
I think depicting the PPC from the outset as scum when there is as yet no actual evidence they have done anything other than follow appropriate (regulated) processes and in doing so had a court find in their favour is unfair. So far there is one party in the wrong here - morally if not absolute legally - and that's the party that committed a parking offence, had opportunity to fess up and pay the fine, but decided to try to wriggle out on a technicality.
I stand by my earlier statement that I'm sympathetic that you now have all the hassles of a CCJ to deal with, but on the basis of everything else I kind of hope the PPC turn up with evidence of having followed all due process and the Sheriff has one of those moments where spirit if not letter is actually followed, because that is the right outcome for me. I'll stop short of calling you scum, but I have a low opinion would be fair to say of those that work the system, it's people like you that mean we need PPCs to enforce landowner rights, because without, someone's always going to take advantage.
Sadly I don't have any useful information for you
Don't worry I knew that already, hence I was surprised you bothered posting in a thread specifically asking for useful information 😉
And don't worry, I'll happily post back what the outcome is. It'll probably be around February according to the court.
Anyways, regardless of your opinions I wish you all a happy new year when it comes!
This thread is useless without pictures.
Happy new year
Wait, so why did tpbiker not get his OH to just pay the fine, she fled the scene?
I wonder idly how this thread would have gone if instead of "girlfriend" the car had been stolen. Should tpbiker have paid?
A fundamental part of that story would involve the reporting of the vehicle being stolen. -then deleting the email of course.
For clarity no email was deleted..
I couldn't find it and then recalled the application for appeal is done via an online form which I have a receipt for.
Anyways, legally I know im in the right. Morally you can decide fir yourself.
As for why my gf didn't pay..she was broke after her ex screwed her for every penny she was entitled to in her divorce and left her with a vast debt. So she couldnt afford to.
I think the least moraly ambiguous thing to do in this specific scenario, is for the wife/girlfriend to admit it, and if she's broke, her generous boyfriend/hubby pays the fine.
That's how I'd have played it, anyway.
Sound's like she's bang to rights, and the damage has already been done, so to speak, if it's been through court, right or wrong, it's going to be a right pain in the ass trying to get that reversed on a technicality....so that horse has probably bolted.
Just get it payed and move on.
Who actually pays it isn't really important.
Don't get me wrong, I have the morals of an alley cat when it comes to this kind of thing, but I like to think I know when to cut my losses!
Ah, I remember the thread about the divorce 'settlement' - from the sounds of it there wasn't a good outcome then. Did she actually get the advice suggested, try to put a halt on and then still get screwed over? Or did she not act in time, and it went through as per the signed settlement agreement? Did you get any further after your August update?
https://singletrackworld.com/forum/off-topic/any-divorce-lawyers-in-the-house-settlement-agreements/
I ask because, being blunt, she seems to have a somewhat less than diligent method at dealing with official process and paperwork, and potentially a less than full transparency approach to telling you about stuff. She now depends on you and your finances to support her with this debt. And has now got a parking ticket that has through the wheels of process now turned into a court summons against you. I can imagine she might be worried given past history of how a partner reacts to that sort of thing.
I don't like to cast aspersions at someone that you clearly have feelings for (albeit, in August with some reservations - "I'm not going to lie..something doesn't feel right here") but are you absolutely certain that docs were not received and then 'lost'?
If you're going to use your legal entitlement to apply for the court to recall the judgement on the basis you didn't receive the paperwork, I'd suggest being very certain about not being countered by the PPC or Court providing evidence that it was delivered or handed to your girlfriend. Might not affect your ability to recall - you personally could still legitimately claim you didn't receive it - but at least then you can give a clear explanation about why and hope they are sympathetic to the circumstances that might cause this.
you can represent yourself in any Scottish court - it doesn’t necessarily mean you should.i reckon your now at the point where you will be requiring legal representation even in Scotland.
As I mentioned there is a specific route to redress this kind of thing in scotland. It's called an 'application to recall a decree'. No lawyer required.
the sheriff won’t be interested in that when s/he considers the question of recalling the decree. Their mind will simply be on the question of were you properly afforded the ability to respond to the case. You probably can succeed at this without representation - but the burden is now going to be on you to prove a negative and someone who knows the system and understands what should have been done might be wise. There will be time limits on various things and you will need to explain why they have been exceeded etc.So basically. It looks like I'll have the chance to show him all the evidence i wasnt driving on the day I said I said I was
If you chase this, and still lose, you MAY be liable for costs. Ordinary simplified procedure doesn’t involve costs but recalling a decree might? And a sheriff *might* form a view that you could have resolved it quickly. Of course they might also form a view that you did nothing at all wrong and the parking company misled the court causing you a lot of stress and hassle and it would be perfectly reasonable for you to enlist professional help and award costs in your favour.
Your first mistake was even responding to the parking company
The fact they've gone after you in court for one ticket is bizarre. Aside from the claim you received no notification of the court case, you've likely done something that has made it a slam dunk case for them.
You may get the CCJ reversed, but someone, either you or your girlfriend, is going to have to pay up
I think I predicted it early on, but still tried to offer some hopefully useful info. Sorry it wasn't, but I kind of wish I hadn't wasted my time on it now, given the spirit in which it's being rejected. So on the basis you aren't here to make friends:
I think depicting the PPC from the outset as scum when there is as yet no actual evidence they have done anything other than follow appropriate (regulated) processes and in doing so had a court find in their favour is unfair. So far there is one party in the wrong here - morally if not absolute legally - and that's the party that committed a parking offence, had opportunity to fess up and pay the fine, but decided to try to wriggle out on a technicality.
I stand by my earlier statement that I'm sympathetic that you now have all the hassles of a CCJ to deal with, but on the basis of everything else I kind of hope the PPC turn up with evidence of having followed all due process and the Sheriff has one of those moments where spirit if not letter is actually followed, because that is the right outcome for me. I'll stop short of calling you scum, but I have a low opinion would be fair to say of those that work the system, it's people like you that mean we need PPCs to enforce landowner rights, because without, someone's always going to take advantage.
When I saw this one I thought about offering advice to engage with the parking firm but then saw the OP’s responses.
I thing you provide an excellent summary but do miss the crucial bit about his girlfriends lack of funds being the root cause.
The lack of funds from the girlfriend makes this even stupider though. The op has been deliberately evasive and trying to get this thrown out on one point of law, while ignoring the fact that there was a rule break in the first place even if it wasn't by him
At least op is aware they are not making friends, and enjoy your ccj. Op has the feel of someone who doesn't drive but travels
I thing you provide an excellent summary but do miss the crucial bit about his girlfriends lack of funds being the root cause.
That was disclosed after, but then opens up a further possibility as the gf has some history beyond being broke.
It's pure conjecture but when everything seems to rest on not receiving paperwork I'm not sure the only possibility is that it wasn't sent.
Oo I wonder if some of the posters here could be even more sanctimonious. Go on, please.
HNY 🙃
"A man who represents himself in court has a fool for a client"
Widely attributed to Abe Lincoln, it's good advice - not that the OP wants to hear any advice. I greatly look forward to hearing the outcome later this year. 🤣
Your first mistake was even responding to the parking company
Now that is a stupid piece of advice, not engaging in the process (for whatever reason, although I suspect theotherjonv may have suggested the most credible scenario) is what caused this to happen.
PPCs want their money and will pursue people right up to the point of court hearing. If a defence is entered, even a poor one, they tend to discontinue the case, what makes it a slam dunk for them is the defendant not engaging. In many respects tpbiker has done exactly what they wanted, posted on the Internet that is possible to get a CCJ if you don't pay a private parking invoice.
As for advice, I've clearly set out how these companies operate, including the multiple mailings between initial PCN and final court judgement but you've failed at every turn to consider how they all failed to arrive despite the first one getting to you and instead stuck your head in the sand intimating it was all under hand tactics from the PPC. I also suggested you post on FTLA where they often give good, structured advice on cases like this.
Your original point was correct, there is no keeper liability in Scotland, but that only works if you defend the case I court. Bit like having right of way as a cyclist but ending up under the wheels of a tipper truck, in the right but dead.
Before you do anything else you need to work out why you didn't receive any paperwork, this will be material evidence when to appeal to the sheriff. If the PPC racks up with mutiple proofs of posting (which is all they need) your case will sink pretty quickly and you'll be even more out of pocket.
Before you do anything else you need to work out why you didn't receive any paperwork, this will be material evidence when to appeal to the sheriff. If the PPC racks up with mutiple proofs of posting (which is all they need) your case will sink pretty quickly and you'll be even more out of pocket.
Yes I'll be at the court first thing Monday to ask for copies of the letters to check the address. It's them that sent the court summons, what the parking company sent isn't that relevant
According to my lawyer mate, the cost of a recall application is 72 quid. There are several possible outcomes.
1- It is granted. My ccj is wiped. The old decree is set aside plus the old costs. I then go to court and my liability is decided on whether I was driving, the fact I didn't respond to letters at this point becomes irrelevant. If I win I'm all good. If I lose then I am subject to the fine, any expenses (usually minimal and probably no more than the original 140 quid). Realistically no worse off than now
2 - it's granted. My ccj is wiped. Dont go to court, I pay 160 quid and it's done
3- the application is opposed by the parking company and the sherrif decides not to reopen the case. In very rare cases a nominal extra cost may be awarded to the opposer but it's not the cost of the solicitors time
If i decide to appeal he has agreed to help me complete the form. No representation is required in court for these types of cases.
Either way he assures me that at worst ill be a couple of hundred quid worse off than I am now, large expenses arent granted in these cases, however he feels that if granted I would most likely win in court. If granted However I may be tempted to suck it up and go for option 2.
So there you go. From an actual solicitor.
In scenario 3, what happens to your ccj? A couple of hundred quid is neither here or there (although could be considered expensive compared to the original charge), but having the ccj (decree) hanging around would worry me.
In scenario 3, what happens to your ccj? A couple of hundred quid is neither here or there (although could be considered expensive compared to the original charge), but having the ccj (decree) hanging around would worry me.
I still have it, nothing changes. If I pay it off my credit rating will improve but thr ccj remains. Only way to get rid of that is if the sherrif grants a recall
How much was the original fine if it had been paid within the two weeks (or so) having parked where the car shouldn't be ?
I managed to get one myself having parked 20ft the wrong side of a beech access this summer on holiday. Missed the 'residents only' sign. Got caught minutes before I left. Paid it same day and got on with my holiday. £35.
So there you go. From an actual solicitor
Well at least you listened to one bit of advice. you got legal representation .you may not have paid for it but you spoke to an actual solicitor and got non internet barrister facts.
There is another option; find where the directors live and hammer frozen sausages in to their lawns.
How much was the original fine if it had been paid within the two weeks (or so) having parked where the car shouldn't be ?
120 quid I believe.
Important point on option 1. Even if I lose in court, and a ccj is awarded against me, I have 30 days to pay before it goes on my record
So realistically, other than the chance of a very small additional expenses claim for option 3, I'm going to be no worse off than I am now.
£120 is a bit of a piss take
Agreed. If it had been 35 quid I'd have probably paid howver at the time neither me nor my partner had 120 quid going spare.
Fortunately my financial situation has improved significantly since then so costs (within reason) are no longer the deciding factor.
Worst case scenario, according to the lawyer ill end up a couple of hundred quid worse off than I am now. Happy to take that risk on to try to clear my ccj
Shouldn't have been more than £100, reduced to £60 if paid promptly.
I'm sure you know this given your background but getting a successful outcome to your recall petition won't clear your credit record automatically, you'll probably have to chase down all the credit agencies that have it on there and actively seek to have it amended. They're very good at getting the black marks added, less good at removing them!
you'll probably have to chase down all the credit agencies that have it on there and actively seek to have it amended. They're very good at getting the black marks added, less good at removing them
Yep. They'll need to take it off, but I'm sure it'll take alot of pestering. That said equinity we're happy to put a note on my file yesterday stating this was being disputed so maybe not.
My lawyer is requesting the court docs the day it reopens to see what's happening and if there was a reason I didn't receive it.
Given the amount of time and effort this has taken you, wouldn’t it have been easier to pay?
Given the amount of time and effort this has taken you, wouldn’t it have been easier to pay?
That ship sailed months ago and I get the feeling tpbiker would go through all this again rather than do the sensible thing if it happens again, cos he's RIGHT!
My lawyer is requesting the court docs the day it reopens to see what's happening
I think what's happening has already happened.
and if there was a reason I didn't receive it.
Doubtful. If you received the first letter I would imagine you are very likely to have had the others delivered also.
(Plus the court does not actually need proof that the notices have actually been delivered as this is assumed after a period of time.
But you probs knew that)
Let's see if the sheriff thinks I'm am arse before we start the online name calling..
Says the man who started the thread by calling car parking companies absolute scum
My lawyer is requesting the court docs the day it reopens to see what's happening
I think what's happening has already happened.and if there was a reason I didn't receive it.
Doubtful. If you received the first letter I would imagine you are very likely to have had the others delivered also.
(Plus the court does not actually need proof that the notices have actually been delivered as this is assumed after a period of time.
But you probs knew that)
for docs which actually need formally served in Scottish civil cases an assumption of delivery from ordinary post is not accepted. The rules for service in Scotland are tougher than England and require not only some confirmation of delivery but specific text on the outside of the envelope to reduce the risk it is ignored. It’s not impossible that someone mistyped 54 Main St rather than 45 Main St - or copies someone else’s address entirely.
Given the amount of time and effort this has taken you, wouldn’t it have been easier to pay?
it probably would - but having highlighted that he wasn’t the driver and had no obligation to tell them who was (and therefore who their contract was with) he could reasonably expect that if they wished to pursue him then he would get formal documents and could decide to pay at that stage.
Being a belligerent **** probably won’t help him - but if parking companies want to enforce stuff they need to follow the law - or install barriers to prevent mistakes; their model is based on intimidating people who make simple errors into paying up.
their model is based on intimidating people who make simple errors into paying up.
Because if they don't people won't bother, as this thread proves. We get the parking enforcement we deserve.
We get the parking enforcement we deserve.
Actually, you get the parking enforcement you get when the government doesn't properly regulate the industry and various cowboy outfits (who may or may not have links to organised crime) are allowed to use whatever tactics they see fit to intimidate people into paying.
Under this current arrangement using whatever 'loopholes' exist to ensure you are sticking only to the letter of the law is a good idea. You have no reason to assume the enforcement company are acting from any sort of moral or ethical high ground so you're under no obligation to 'do the right thing'. Only to ensure you are doing what is legally required and no more.
The solution is to regulate PPCs properly. Until then all you can do is protect yourself as best you can which is what the OP appears to be doing.
It is very strange that they received no communication after the initial email. I wouldn't be so quick to assume a PPC isn't trying to pull something.
Or it could be as simple as a typo somewhere.
Actually, you get the parking enforcement you get when the government doesn't properly regulate the industry and various cowboy outfits (who may or may not have links to organised crime) are allowed to use whatever tactics they see fit to intimidate people into paying.
I find some of the opinions on private parking companies quite odd tbh.
You have a business that is motivated to charge as many people as possible regardless of the justification. They routinely issue monetary demands, threaten court action, and actually take court action.
But despite that are not properly regulated.
I think our dog walker is better regulated.
I have no issue with the basic premise of private parking companies, there's clearly a need for them. But I definitely have an issue with the piss poor state lead regulation of them.
There's a clear legal framework for issuing private parking tickets since the Beavis vs Parking eye case in 2015. It ends in a completely impartial adjudication if it goes all the way.
People still making simple mistakes costs the private parking companies money, that's why you still get chased, if it's a genuine keying error you should be offered the £20 discount rate to reflect the fact that your cock up still costs someone else money.
As for the threatening letters, short of court how else are they going to make people pay up.
If people obeyed the car park rules there would be no private parkeng companies. The PCNs pay for the PPC, not the landowner who gets a free service funded by the people abusing their land.
who may or may not have links to organised crime
Utter rubbish, the big companies are proper business, often owned by private equity, its that sort of ignorant statement that perpetuates the myth these companies aren't providing a lawful and necessary service.
They could do with better regulation but when governments can't even regulate the water industry properly I don't have much hope.
MSE mentions some upcoming stuff that hopefully would address the lack of proper regulation.
The Government is currently working on a new code of practice which will be set out in law, in an effort to improve standards in the private parking industry and make it harder for firms to unfairly charge motorists.
It launched a public consultation in summer 2025 to gather information from across the industry before it begins work on this new legislation-backed code of practice, which will include guidance on fair practices and appeals.
(The parking trade bodies the British Parking Association and International Parking Community had brought in a voluntary code of practice in February 2025, but this arguably does little to address the issues affecting the industry.)
Utter rubbish,
Possibly. Although this sounds at least organised crime adjacent:
But yeah, maybe you're right. However, the fact that PPCs are able to operate in the ways described in this article doesn't exactly fill me with confidence when dealing with the industry in general.
the big companies are proper business, often owned by private equity, its that sort of ignorant statement that perpetuates the myth these companies aren't providing a lawful and necessary service.
I don't believe the OP said which PPC was involved. I'm assuming you would just say it was the OP's cock up if it turns out it was one of these big companies (because big companies are renowned for never acting in ethically questionable ways) but I'm curious if you would assume the same if it turned out this particular PPC was very small scale and shared its 'offices' with various small 'security' and 'car washing' firms?
Like I said, if we assume the OP is being truthful then something dodgy is going on (unless there was just a genuine typo somewhere). If you assume the OP is lying and just binned the multitude of very obvious letters that would have been sent to their home then I guess we don't really have much to talk about.
As for the threatening letters, short of court how else are they going to make people pay up.
Other countries seem to manage. Of course, in these other countries the PPCs are much more heavily regulated and so the opportunities to play fast and loose with how they charge people are far less. Fundamentally there has to be trust in the system for these things to work.
People do not trust PPCs and I don't think the reason for that is people like me saying mean things on a forum. I think the reason is the PPC's themselves.
However, the fact that PPCs are able to operate in the ways described in this article
Completely different type of private parking company and yes those sorts of dodgy meet and greet have been an issue for years. Totally outside the scope of regulating private companies that carry out enforcement on private land so totally irrelevant to this conversation.
Other countries seem to manage. Of course, in these other countries the PPCs are much more heavily regulated and so the opportunities to play fast and loose with how they charge people are far less.
Other countries don't use ANPR enforcement like we do although it starting to grow. Most car parking enforcement in northern Europe at least is still dominated by mechanical barrier systems which are expensive, unreliable and won't let you leave without paying whatever they demand, no chance of appealing, pay up or get stuck in the car park, not much difference to the old clampers who were outlawed 15 years ago in the UK.
People do not trust PPCs and I don't think the reason for that is people like me saying mean things on a forum. I think the reason is the PPC's themselves.
The reason is people don't like being told they've broken the rules and have to pay up, that's why people don't like private parking companies. People don't read the signage or just ignore it. There was a great case on FTLA recently where some woman was having a total melt down because her husband hadn't registered their car when he dropped her off for a medical appointment and got a PCN. When she actually bothered to speak to the medical centre they immediately cancelled the charge and explained they had to bring enforcement in because commuters were filling up the car park. How the PPC was supposed to know they were legitimate users and not the very people they were contracted to enforce against is anyone's guess. The woman however could not see the irony that the PPC was actually ensuring people like her could actually park.
I'm not denying there are some sharp practices out there, Excel parking having their arse handed to them by a judge at the start of the year for their ridiculous pay within 5 minutes of arriving rule. That has now been banned in the companies own joint code of practice, as long as you pay the correct amount before you leave you can't be given a PCN anymore.
As for deliberate dodgy behaviour from the PPC, what gain do they have taking someone through court, it costs money, all they want is their money owed under the contract the motorist entered into when they parked. PPCs will send multiple letters trying to get the motorist to pay up, issuing a letter before claim is part of the escalation process. IT IS NOT IN THEIR INTEREST TO GO STRAIGHT FROM PCN TO CCJ. In the OPs case either the letters from the PPC, the debt collectors, the legal letters and the court documents all got sent to the wrong address or someone at the OPs address was taking them before he saw them. We shall see when the OPs lawyer finally gets to the bottom of things next week.
MSE mentions some upcoming stuff that hopefully would address the lack of proper regulation
I wouldn't get your hopes up over that, they've been trying to sort a new code of practice out since 2019, the Conservatives made such a mess of it they were threatened with a high court injunction and gave up. They were basically going for the populist vote and reducing the PCN value down to what councils are allowed to charge despite the fact the councils were desperate to increase their PCN levels as they were uneconomic, all culture wars rubbish. Labour have now picked it up but are more than likely going to implement much of what is already in the joint code of practice which is pretty reasonable for the most part. They might try and remove the £70 debt collectors fee although that's what tripped the Conservatives up. Most likely the current PCN rate will be retained, although it should go up a lot as it was set in 2015 in a court ruling as a reasonable balance between deterrent and to cover the costs of enforcement. There's been a lot of inflation between 2015 and now as we all know.
The problem is there is nobody auditing the smaller companies in particular to ensure they are following the code of practice. That won't change even if there is a formal government approved code.
Totally outside the scope of regulating private companies that carry out enforcement on private land so totally irrelevant to this conversation.
Not really. They are allowed to operate because the private parking industry is not properly regulated.
And it's not properly regulated because the Private parking industry managed to block the legislation through lobbying. So we are still reliant on the BPA and IPC's own code rather than the Code that was on it's way to being made law. Before it got blocked by legal challenges from the private parking industry.
Other countries don't use ANPR enforcement like we do although it starting to grow.
ANPR isn't the issue. ANPR is common in a lot of places. Lack of trust is the issue. Parking your car is pretty much the same process anywhere in the world. However, the UK seems to be unique in the leeway it gives PPCs to operate. And in the way it uses the courts and legal action as it's means of enforcement. Again, more regulation would reduce the need to take people to court.
The UK isn't unique in how it deals with private parking compared to Europe, but it is unusual in the way it relies so heavily on the courts. Or rather, partially it relies on the courts but primarily it relies on the threat of civil action. Which obviously upsets people.
You have to ask why France, Germany, Norway, etc don't have this constant threats of civil action when it comes to parking contract disputes. I don't believe it's because British people fundamentally don't like paying for parking. Believe it or not, not wanting to pay parking fines is a human trait rather than a British trait.
The UK needs to move to administrative enforcement from it's current civil litigation business model. You can't have that without extensive oversight and controls in place. This is something the PPC industry is desperately fighting. I wonder why.
They are allowed to operate because the private parking industry is not properly regulated.
These rogue meet and greet companies are totally separate from the private parking enforcement industry, you try to conflate the two just undermines your arguments.
Private parking industry managed to block the legislation through lobbying.
That's not true, the Conservatives abandoned their efforts as the debt collection companies threatened a judicial review because the government failed to follow it's own consultations rules. Get your facts right.
However, the UK seems to be unique in the leeway it gives PPCs to operate
What are you talking about. To be able to access DVLA records the company must must be a registered member of one of the two trade bodies, their mode of operation is based on existing contract law and defined by the Beavis vs Parkingeye case. They also have to comply with POFA 2012 provisions. All of which is quite onerous.
And in the way it uses the courts and legal action as it's means of enforcement. Again, more regulation would reduce the need to take people to court.
I'd love to know how you came to that conclusion. How are you going to force people to pay a legitimate charge without ultimately relying on the courts for enforcement, are suggesting some other body with the force people to pay up, I'd rather rely on the courts personally.
You have to ask why France, Germany, Norway, etc don't have this constant threats of civil action when it comes to parking contract disputes.
I'd already explained that if you'd bothered to read my post properly. Paid parking in much of Europe is still reliant on expensive barrier infrastructure but that is changing rapidly as car park operator realise they don't have to spend hundreds of thousands on installing and maintaining expensive infrastructure when they can outsource the enforcement for free and keep all of the parking revenue.
This is something the PPC industry is desperately fighting.
No they are not, most of the bigger companies welcome more oversight and regulation, it will mean many of the multitude of smaller companies won't be able to operate. What they are fighting against is a reduction in the PCN value set by an independent court in 2015 which has already significantly devalued since it was et 10 years ago.
Ok..so first of all I'm taking legal advice, and should have done before posting the OP.
Now yes I've not had much patience for some of the responses, fair enough, I've had a terrible past few weeks (for unrelated reasons) so if you think im an arse based on this thread then fair enough.No hard feelings from me.
One thing I will point out however I've gone 50 years without ever being accused of a crime, never even had a speeding ticket, ever had a ccj, never being involved in a legal dispute. Up until last week my credit history was exceptional. I work in financial services. I am super aware of the importance of not ignoring letters from a court.
Many people think morrally i should have paid initially, that's entirely your prerogative. But legally I didn't need to.
Either way we have someone with my history who legally is in the right, vs a company who is part of an industry which has at best, not a great reputation for playing by the book.
Therefore I find it interesting that people are insinuating I've just 'ignored' numerous letters, rather than considering the possibily that, for whatever reason, I genuinely didn't receive them.
Anyways, there is a route to 'appeal' this, which I am exploring.
That's not true, the Conservatives abandoned their efforts as the debt collection companies threatened a judicial review because the government failed to follow it's own consultations rules. Get your facts right.
Feels a bit like you're desperately relying on some technicalities in order to be 'right'.
Who do you think mounted the legal challenge. You think the BPA was deperately crying 'No, no, we WANT this to go through!!'
They weren't.
Get your own facts straight and don't try to twist around in technicalities.
I'd love to know how you came to that conclusion. How are you going to force people to pay a legitimate charge without ultimately relying on the courts for enforcement, are suggesting some other body with the force people to pay up, I'd rather rely on the courts personally.
I suggest you look beyond this island. In most EU countries people pay parking fines without going to court (and without being threatened with court). This is done by regulating PPCs so that people aren't left wondering if they are paying a legitimate charge or if it is a scam of some sort.
I'd already explained that if you'd bothered to read my post properly. Paid parking in much of Europe is still reliant on expensive barrier infrastructure but that is changing rapidly as car park operator realise they don't have to spend hundreds of thousands on installing and maintaining expensive infrastructure when they can outsource the enforcement for free and keep all of the parking revenue.
No it's not. Get your facts right.
No they are not, most of the bigger companies welcome more oversight and regulation, it will mean many of the multitude of smaller companies won't be able to operate. What they are fighting against is a reduction in the PCN value set by an independent court in 2015 which has already significantly devalued since it was et 10 years ago.
Nope.
You really are living in some alternative reality.
The PPCs are quite happy with the mass civil litigation business model with limited government oversight because it is very profitable. Moving away from the civil litigation model and towards treating parking like an infrastructure issue with administrative enforcement would be better for society. No one likes getting threatened with court and it causes a lot of stress and a lot of frayed nerves, as this thread shows.
Let's not forget that since Brexit the UK has had a pressure for change removed. EU consumer law and proportionality principles severely limit what PPCs can do in the EU. As a result, most countries have far fairer systems with much greater oversight and all without additional pressure on the courts.
Let me be very clear. PPCs means of generating revenue being through the threat of legal action and actual legal action is NOT NORMAL. It's actually really weird, really bad for everyone, but also very profitable for the PPCs.
And as this thread also shows, people assume there is no alternative. There is.
this is even better than Jake Paul vs Anthony Joshua
I'm pretty sure that all the parking I've used in the last 3 years hasn't imoved from barrier to ANPR. I'm in Europe, and this
Other countries don't use ANPR enforcement like we do although it starting to grow.
is nonsense.
We get the parking enforcement we deserve.
I think it's perfectly possibly for this to be true and PPCs to be pretty shitty simultaneously. For exactly the same reasons.
As a collective we are a bunch of selfish shits. Look at the other stuff 'we' do around cars when we think we'll get away with it - the mindless tossing of litter out the window, the speeding when there's little chance if getting caught, the drink/drug driving. The collective 'we' act like total arseholes unless there is a very real chance of personal punishment. Given free reign in private car parks I am totally confident we'd treat them abysmally like the total arseholes we are.
The same 'we' run businesses like PPCs - they are not a different species. Can you really trust a collection of people who'll lob litter without thinking about it to run an ethical business that's not just about maximising their profit unless there is a bloody big stick ready to clobber them unless they behave reasonably?
My pet theory is that we're a culture grown from Christian foundations where doing the right thing was enforced by damnation rather than a humanistic approach of learning why living a good life is the right thing by default. But that's a debate for another day.
I think it's perfectly possibly for this to be true and PPCs to be pretty shitty simultaneously. For exactly the same reasons.
As a collective we are a bunch of selfish shits. Look at the other stuff 'we' do around cars when we think we'll get away with it - the mindless tossing of litter out the window, the speeding when there's little chance if getting caught, the drink/drug driving. Unless a collective 'we' act like total arseholes unless there is a very real chance of personal punishment. Given free reign in private car parks I am totally confident we'd treat it like the total arseholes we are.
Yeah, id agree with that. This thread also made me think of visiting car park funded trail centers, only to see 5k bikes being pulled out of 50k vans on the verge outside.
My experience is that private parking companies are quite thoroughly horrible. However, im sorry to say that the OP comes across very badly, since a fine was clearly due, but they’ve dodged it based in a technicality. Im sure a judge will be guided by legal due process and not feelings. But if I wouldn’t be a surprised if any more-human judge was unsympathetic to the insistance upon the loophole technicality (it’s wasnt me your honour, it was my partner who was parked there (in my car!)).
I don't think this is thread is about dodging a ticket on a technicality. The OP gave the information he was legally required to give and then heard nothing after that until he found out he had a judgement against him.
I think it's more a question of whether the PPCs have figured out a new and innovative way of screwing people over or was it an honest error that led to the court summons not arriving at the OP's address.
If it is a new PPC scam I'm not seeing what it is yet so I would assume it's an error somewhere. Interested in seeing the outcome.
Why are we comparing airport car parking with pcns ..... That's a very tenuous link at best.
I don't think this is thread is about dodging a ticket on a technicality.
A service was used and not paid for. This is unfair, even if the service provider is a shit. It also increases the service cost for the rest of us. Thus the shellacking. Ok sure, we've all done it - but it's a fair cop when you get busted.
A service was used and not paid for. This is unfair, even if the service provider is a shit. It also increases the service cost for the rest of us. Thus the shellacking. Ok sure, we've all done it - but it's a fair cop when you get busted.
If I'm reading the OP correctly, his main question was how come he got a court judgement against him without any correspondence.
Like I said, probably it's a mistake somewhere. But maybe the PPCs have figured out a new way to be shits.
I'd like to know the outcome.
I'm pretty sure that all the parking I've used in the last 3 years hasn't imoved from barrier to ANPR. I'm in Europe, and this
Other countries don't use ANPR enforcement like we do although it starting to grow.
is nonsense.
So SMART Parking. Peter Park, AvantPark and Apocoa to name a few aren't operating ANPR controlled car parks in Europe. Somebody better tell them quick.
Feels a bit like you're desperately relying on some technicalities in order to be 'right'.
Who do you think mounted the legal challenge.
Yeah the fear of a government losing a judicial review is a technicality, in your weird reality maybe, and it wasn't the BPA who threatened it, it was the Debt collectors. I think you referring to judicial review as a technicality is a tad desperate.
The PPCs are quite happy with the mass civil litigation business model with limited government oversight because it is very profitable.
No they aren't, it costs more to pursue a PCN through court than they get in revenue from the PCN, they aren't allowed to add costs onto the claim as it goes through the small claims process.
The whole private parking business is not as profitable as people think, the PCN payment ratio is a lot lower than people realise, if every unpaid PCN was taken through the small claims process the courts would collapse over night.
PPCs means of generating revenue being through the threat of legal action and actual legal action is NOT NORMAL.
It's very normal and how most businesses work, 2 parties enter in to a contract for to provide and receive a service, the recipient of the service pays the service provider. If they don't they get taken to court. Basic contract law and ruled on in 2015 for the parking industry.
But maybe the PPCs have figured out a new way to be shits.
And that makes no sense at all, they wanted tpbiker's money, there's no profit in getting him a CCJ.
Yeah the fear of a government losing a judicial review is a technicality, in your weird reality maybe, and it wasn't the BPA who threatened it, it was the Debt collectors. I think you referring to judicial review as a technicality is a tad desperate.
I guess LBC is lying as well then.
https://www.lbc.co.uk/article/9d3f29fa603e4b1cb86feef5590e2f6f-5HjcxMt_2/
Even the HoL are getting in on this slander:
The government “temporarily” withdrew the code on 7 June 2022 pending a review of the levels of private parking charges and ban on additional fees provisions in the code. This announcement followed two legal challenges launched by several parking firms against the government’s decision to introduce these changes.
https://lordslibrary.parliament.uk/private-parking-code-of-practice-latest-developments/
Just to be clear, when i say technicality, it's more because I'm saying that the Code of Conduct was withdrawn because the Parking Companies launched legal challenges. You are trying to worm out of that simple assessment with lots of, 'Well, technically...'
The simple truth is there would be a Code of Conduct if it wasn't for the Parking Companies mounting a legal challenge. Does that sound like an industry that would really like to be regulated better?
It's very normal and how most businesses work, 2 parties enter in to a contract for to provide and receive a service, the recipient of the service pays the service provider. If they don't they get taken to court. Basic contract law and ruled on in 2015 for the parking industry.
Yes, but if you compare it to how PPCs work in Europe it's not normal at all.
That's because there is more trust. The trust isn't a cultural thing. It comes from confidence in the oversight and limitations in what the PPCs can and can't do.
As far as I know, the UK is alone in letting PPCs use the courts as a bulk recovery tool. It's also alone in using PPCs as a privately funded enforcement tool as opposed to a publicly accountable one.
It really doesn't have to be this way.
And that makes no sense at all, they wanted tpbiker's money, there's no profit in getting him a CCJ.
Yes, like I said, if it's a new PPC scam I'm not seeing what it is yet and why I suspect it's a mistake somewhere.
If I'm reading the OP correctly, his main question was how come he got a court judgement against him without any correspondence.
Exactly this. I wasn't driving, I was absolutely within my legal right to challenge this (regardless of whether you think it was the morally right thing to do.) They rejected the appeal. I heard nothing from them after that, no letter, nor email. No final demand for payment before court. I reveived no court summons, and nothing since. I'm not lying about this point regardless of the insinuation by some that I am.
If I'd been invited to court and the sherrif had found me liable then I'd have paid it that day and we wouldn't be debating this. Likewise if the sheriff had told me to disclose who was driving, again I would have and they'd have had to contact my girlfriend
The parking co has every right to take me to court. I should have every right to defend myself in court. I didn't get that chance. If you think that's fair then so be it, but I don't. Neither does my solicitor.
As an aside, I still don't even know the exact amount I owe, nor how to pay it even if I decided to, because nothing has been sent to me
And that makes no sense at all, they wanted tpbiker's money, there's no profit in getting him a CCJ.
Agreed. But isnt there even the faintest possibility that they knew fine well that scottish law means i wasn't liable if I could prove i wasn't driving, so having me not turn up in court was probably the only way they were going to get my money,. As you say, the ccj is irrelevant to them
That said, I still believe it's just been an admin cock up on someone's behalf. Because yes they want my cash, but they can't want it that much if I haven't yet been provided a means to pay what I owe.
Because yes they want my cash, but they can't want it that much if I haven't yet been provided a means to pay what I owe.
They probably have but it's gone the same way as all the other letters.
They probably have but it's gone the same way as all the other letters.
Well if that's the case they are sending them to the wrong address, which is hardly my fault. I may have missed one letter, I won't have missed 3 (min).
Regardless of how folks perceive I come across on here, my letter of appeal was factual, brief, and completely non offensive. I stated I wasn't driving, my legal position and that was it. I got chat gpt to write it as I recall.
But if I wouldn’t be a surprised if any more-human judge was unsympathetic to the insistance upon the loophole technicality (it’s wasnt me your honour, it was my partner who was parked there (in my car!)).
I get your sentiment, but the law is the law. It's quite clear.
And if I get a 'more human' judge who doesnt follow that then that's my tough titty. Regardless I surely deserved the chance to present my defense. And if I'd lost I surely deserve the chance to pay the fine that the judge sets in a timely fashion (thus avoiding a court order on my record)
You can say ' he was an idiot he should have paid up front', but are you honestly saying I don't deserve due process?
I don't think this is thread is about dodging a ticket on a technicality. The OP gave the information he was legally required to give and then heard nothing after that until he found out he had a judgement against him.
I think it's more a question of whether the PPCs have figured out a new and innovative way of screwing people over or was it an honest error that led to the court summons not arriving at the OP's address.
If it is a new PPC scam I'm not seeing what it is yet so I would assume it's an error somewhere. Interested in seeing the outcome.
It’s about thinking you’ve outwitted a parking firm for a ticket on a technicality that you know was due fair and square. It’s now come back to bite the OP on the arse but it’s everyone else’s fault. It’s a classic **** about and find out.
Feel free to spout your conspiratorial nonsense and being mister right though as it’s adding hugely to this becoming an STW epic.
It’s about thinking you’ve outwitted a parking firm for a ticket on a technicality that you know was due fair and square. It’s now come back to bite the OP on the arse but it’s everyone else’s fault. It’s a classic **** about and find out.
Feel free to spout your conspiratorial nonsense and being mister right though as it’s adding hugely to this becoming an STW epic.
Interesting, so you think that this is some sort of new tactic the PPCs have come up with in order to bite their victims in the arse if they manage to avoid a fine?
How do you see it working, exactly? Like the OP says, they still don't have the money and the inconvenience doesn't really help them much since there is still nowhere from him to send the money.
I think it's reasonable for you to have the suspicion that the PPCs have come up with a new way to intimidate customers, capitalism and lack of regulation does create a fertile environment for innovative ideas after all, but I'm still leaning towards there being a typo somewhere.
but I'm still leaning towards there being a typo somewhere.
Not related to this necessarily but it's not the 90's - I'd be amazed if the address data was ever typed in manually at all.
The owner data would have come from the DVLA and fed into the PPC system automatically.
Those systems will then have used the same data for all subsequent processes (such as the court application).
If the letter came through once then it should come through every time because the exact same data would have been used for all correspondence.
I don't think this is thread is about dodging a ticket on a technicality. The OP gave the information he was legally required to give and then heard nothing after that until he found out he had a judgement against him.
I think it's more a question of whether the PPCs have figured out a new and innovative way of screwing people over or was it an honest error that led to the court summons not arriving at the OP's address.
If it is a new PPC scam I'm not seeing what it is yet so I would assume it's an error somewhere. Interested in seeing the outcome.
It’s about thinking you’ve outwitted a parking firm for a ticket on a technicality that you know was due fair and square. It’s now come back to bite the OP on the arse but it’s everyone else’s fault. It’s a classic **** about and find out.
Feel free to spout your conspiratorial nonsense and being mister right though as it’s adding hugely to this becoming an STW epic.
It’s about thinking you’ve outwitted a parking firm for a ticket on a technicality that you know was due fair and square. It’s now come back to bite the OP on the arse but it’s everyone else’s fault. It’s a classic **** about and find out.
Feel free to spout your conspiratorial nonsense and being mister right though as it’s adding hugely to this becoming an STW epic.
Interesting, so you think that this is some sort of new tactic the PPCs have come up with in order to bite their victims in the arse if they manage to avoid a fine?
How do you see it working, exactly? Like the OP says, they still don't have the money and the inconvenience doesn't really help them much since there is still nowhere from him to send the money.
I think it's reasonable for you to have the suspicion that the PPCs have come up with a new way to intimidate customers, capitalism and lack of regulation does create a fertile environment for innovative ideas after all, but I'm still leaning towards there being a typo somewhere.
Nice try on the selective editing Mr Right.