Forum menu
Mrs plecostomus has recievied a parking ticket from these chaps after parking on a small retail site, using the shops on that site and then leaving the car park to go to another shop- on foot. The parking company have hen taken a picture of the car at 10:12 am when the ticket is issued after the car was recoreded initially entering the car park at 09:59 am.
They have issued the ticket after she left the car park premises to for to another shop but not on the retail park she was parked on. This second shop was 500yards away and she returned approximately 20 minutes later.
The ticket has been issues with a fine of £90.
Are the dvla allowed to give your details out to these companies? And also can we just ignore the letter (junk mail) or does anybody know a way around this? We have looked at launching an appeal but can't find proof of purchase from the shops she visited.
I didn't think private companies had any rights to enforce this anymore, only councils.
Credit card bill?
What he said^^^
It's not a fine, it's an invoice dressed up to look like a fine. Ignore that and any following correspondance.
Don't pay it. It's unenforceable.
Google the name of the company and have a read, there will be loads of info.
But basically it will all say the same thing, bin it. And bin anything else they send.
They will stop sooner or later as there is nothing else they can do but send letters and hope that you pay.
Just ignore it, it will go away. Reply, and it won't
Just ignore it
if it says 'parking charge notice' on it then bin it.
only respond to tickets issued by the police or the council.
if you appeal, your appeal will be refused, there are numerous threads over on the money saving expert website about this.
they cant legally enforce a parking charge notice as they have no idea who was driving at the time and the registered keeper doesnt have to disclose who was driving.
The first thing they have to do is prove who was driving the car, I think you cant be "Fined" for something you didnt do. The DVLA gives info out on who its registered to not who parked it, there is a lengthy article somewhere on the net about not paying google and see.
Beware that the law changed on 1st October 2012 and much of what you find online is out dated. Even if it has been posted since then, it may be regurgitating old advice.
Yup as Poly and IRC you will now have to pay it.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/news/9578849/Wheel-clamping-banned-on-private-land.html
Well, that's ever so slightly tedious.
You now have to tell them who was driving, I still don't see why you'd have to pay it though?
well ive been digging around for a fair bit of information on this it seems a little vague! ive now just been on the ukpc site and you can enter details of your car and a reference number to see more pictures of the car, it shows her car with a ticket in a plastic envelope attached to the screen which wasnt there when she returned to the car!
a trip to citezen advice is planned for tomorrow.
Anyone if this law also covers Scotland (where clamping has illegal for years)? I've noticed UKPC signs popping up in various new places recently 😡
Nope Scotland has it's own laws.
Piecotomus it's not vague, the law changed if they're a member of the British Parking association the owner is obliged to tell them who was driving. The old 'the ticket wasn't there' routine won't work, that's why they carry digital cameras and use CCTV.
I'm trying to get my head around why the ticket has been issued.
From what you say, the ticket was issued 13 minutes after she drove into the carpark. Is it a pay & display car park? Did she pay to park? Why did they ticket her? What signage is there at the carpark to explain what tickets are issued for?
Sorry to be a numpty, but why exactly has she been fined? If it was for leaving the site on foot to go elsewhere, are there any time limits or clearly signed restrictions? The attendant is pretty quick off the mark after only 13 minutes (allowing for time to park and visit the shops on site).
I read it as she left the car park in the car and then came back in her car, thinking the ticket was still valid.
well thats a pita, i wasnt aware the law had changed.
OP says "on foot".
It's almost as if they patrol the boundaries. I think she was probably lucky there are no minefields, attack dogs, or sniper towers 😯 Got off lightly...
No she parked in the car park - which is supposed to be for the shops that are next to it. She then went in one of te shops on that site then came out of shop out purchased goods in boot then walked to the next shop that is across the road from the car park leaving her car where it was. The fine has been issued as she left the site of the car park (on foot) with her car left in the car park.
I said it was vague as everything I've read on the net says to ignore all corrospondence since that new post giving the website with the new information on I now see the new reasons and it looks like we may have to pay it. £90 is a bit steep for a short shopping trip.
Surely even under the new changes, if you provide a random name and address of the person you believed to be driving at the time, you are no longer liable?
My first instinct would still be to ignore all correspondence, as it still highly dubious a) whether a contract actually exists between you and the retailer, and b) whether the breach of that contract has cost the retailer anything like the amount being claimed by the parking company scumbags.
Presume ticket was issued for shopping at shops other than the ones the car park is intended for (as well as intended shops).
I hate the way they do that, but suppose they are trying to stop people popping in the shop then leaving their car there all day when they are elsewhere.
Edit: think I would ignore it.
DOH!
Now I'm confused too.
Did she pay for a ticket or not?
I said it was vague as everything I've read on the net says to ignore all corrospondence since that new post giving the website with the new information on I now see the new reasons and it looks like we may have to pay it.
That's outdated.
It seems unfair if she used the shops in question too for her shopping.
How do they know that she left the 'approved' shops?
Buggers will have been sitting in a van, lying in wait, watching and photographing folk. It's an utterly grim way of running a business, both for the parking firm and the retailers involved. I wouldn't use any retail park where those sort of tactics were employed.
No it's a free car park for use of visiting four shops.halfords matalan some cheap home shop and a paint place.
Does she have a receipt with the time on for the shops she used that car park is for, does this cover the time they issued the charge for?
What do the good folks over at PePiPoo recommend? I didn't think that the October legislation change made these private companies' tickets any more enforceable. The honestjohn answer for overstaying/unauthorised parking at one point was "send a £5 cheque in full & final satisfaction for the loss of parking opportunity/loss suffered" (or similar).
Do they know that she was the only person in the car? Maybe the op drove the car in and out, his wife popped to the other shops while he was checking out the new Apollo range in Halfords....
Do the terms of parking there say you have to visit certain shops, or say that you can't visit other shops even if you've spent £500 in matalan?
Nope no reciepts from any purchases on that day nor card/ bank statements she paid cash and with free money before hand.
Hang on.
Why was the ticket issued? Because she parked on a 'customers only' car park? She's a customer, she bought goods there.
Whatever. Just ignore it. Do not be temped to try and reason with them. That will only make it worse. Bin all the letters.
Whatever. Just ignore it. Do not be temped to try and reason with them. That will only make it worse. Bin all the letters.
Errrr that's not the case anymore.
I wouldn't use any retail park where those sort of tactics were employed.
Has anyone considered telling the retailers directly why they have stopped using them? After all, they are the ones who can influence the contracting of these service providers who do such a sterling job of making our car parking experience such a joyous affair.
That HonestJohn update is interesting, and a licence to print money - goes away to find a piece of land in town to lease...
You want to be making a stink with the local papers and radio stations
and the managers of the 4 shops concerned I am sure they would love the gestapo type tactics involved here
Surely it is up to UKPC to prove your wife didn't use the shops in question, and how can they do that. I'd get the retailers involved, email their head office stating you boughts goods from them and have now been issued a ticket, and can they offer you a reproduction of the till receipt otherwise you will be forced to shop elsewhere. You can narrow down the time, so the shop manager shouldn't have a huge problem finding the transaction.
Not really a license to print money
test it all the way to the supreme court i would
however no one seems interested in taking me there for the odd one or two i have picked up over the years
Errrr that's not the case anymore.
By failing to reply the only thing that appears to have changed is that you can't use the 'prove it was me' get-out clause.
You're officially liable, but you'd still argue that you're liable for nowt, or next to nowt, by virtue of the dubious contract-forming and lack of actual provable financial loss by the retailer in most cases.
So they'd still have to take you to court to extract the money, and it will be interesting to see if they are any more willing to risk that now than they were last year.
Piecotomus it's not vague, the law changed if they're a member of the British Parking association the owner is obliged to tell them who was driving. The old 'the ticket wasn't there' routine won't work, that's why they carry digital cameras and use CCTV.
You are not obliged to tell them who was driving but the registered keeper is NOW liable whomever was driving - that is the change. in the past, if taken to court, they also would have needed to prove who was driving.
IMHO as long as enough folk pay to make the "business" profitable they wont bother to take the rest to court as its not worth their hassle when enough mugs pay out.
I would just ignore it tbh
Its worth noting they loose a fair few court cases as well when they actually bother to try especially as the charges are likely to be viewed as excessive in comparison to their actual losses [ a space if the car park is full
Errrr that's not the case anymore
Nothing much has changed.
They still issue "invoices" rather than "fines"
So the legal situation hasn't changed at all.
They would still need to take you to court to extract any money from you. So the same advice still applies.
I would Bin it and ignore every follow up.
(This is what I did in December 2012 and it seemed to have worked already. Nothing other than the first two letters, the last if which arrived 17th December)
The way I understand it the owner is liable for the debt not being paid, they no longer need to go to the court for this as law changed. The can seek the owner for the debt if the refuse to say who the driver was.
yes they can and if you ignore it they would need to take it to court as before
Will they
I doubt it personally though of course they will talk tough.