1st of Jan 2019, I parked at a store car park , it was shut ,so I wasn't depriving them in lost sales . There was 3 hours parking and went to a football game . Got back to the car after 2hrs and 40 minutes , and set off for home . With all the other car parks emptying , it took over an hour to get to the main road , which I reckon was only 1/4 mile away ,and my car was photographed at 3hrs and 5 minutes ,when the camera , half way down the slip road registered .my exit ,despite having been moving ,albeit slowly for 25 minutes and was therefore NOT PARKED
I received loads of letters from two different legal firms , where the fees kept increasing ,and I continually ignored the letters . Till August 2019 ,when the bill had reached over £550 ,and then they stopped .
Today I received another one asking for £150 .Plus costs to 237.29
Personally I want them to take me to court so I can challenge the costs based on these facts . Why wouLd they drop the amount ,and surely a year of not chasing , makes their claim unlawful . I intend to ignore it , but does anyone have good knowledge of the law
|
I did go through the ignoring process for a Transport Police one a few years back, the last letter they sent was the one threatening the bailiffs then I heard no more. There was a website which included a forum and the particular car park had been called out as one where they couldn't legally ticket you so I felt reasonably safe but even so the bailiffs letter was a bit worrying.
However the law was changed not long after that and I think some of those "loopholes" were closed so if you are reading up on the web make sure the info is fairly current.
|
Wasn't the 'Beavis' case the ground breaker?
IANAL.
www.parkingcowboys.co.uk/parkingeye-vs-beavis/
|
|
Thanks for the responses , the Beavis case is interesting but he over stayed by an hour ,whereas I was out of my parking bay within the 2hrs 40 mins ,but it took 25 minutes to get to the camera , which is totally unfair , why Not have the camera on the m4 half hour away ,and as the shop was Shut , they lost nothing .
|
I think Duncan is right, the Beavis case was a gamechanger. IANAL either and what follows is based on observation as a person with an interest in the process.
In effect the Supreme Court in Beavis endorsed the view that there was a right to enforce and that charges in the order levied in that case were legitimate. Since then the parking companies have been much more confident in pursuing these cases in the County Court. There are also anecdotal reports that Judges in the County Court are quickly chucking out ill prepared cases relying on pre Beavis concepts of what is legitimate.
I'm assuming from what Wotspur said that he's ignored these communications from the outset and didn't try and follow the parking company's appeal process. FWIW I hear that the BPA one, initially operated by the London Tribunals that deal with Council tickets and now by The Ombudsman Service Ltd (TOSL) is good and reasonably fair. The other one, IPC, is not. There is legislation pending on this.
If they're just going to pass it around various debt collection companies then provided you're OK ignoring them, even if they call in person, then I think you'll be fine. The thing you have to watch for is the County Court process starting. The fact that it's a claim form is crystal clear on the face of the document. If you get one of these then you must follow the process and file a defence.
They're still well in time for that, I think the limit is 6 years.
The only other thought is to make sure non of the documents refer to a judgement. I've heard of people who say they didn't get the claim form or more likely binned it unopened as junk mail. They don't advertise on the envelope that it's a court communication!! In that case judgement gets entered by default and the Bailiffs move in.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Sun 20 Sep 20 at 09:01
|
In Wotspurs case*, the "fine" has clearly been sold on to other collection agencies at ever decreasing percentages in the pound, which indicates to me its of questionable recovery through the correct legal process. The decreasing sums being asked means no-one is going to court over it. I would ignore it.
*In this case. You cant do that with every "fine" tho Wotspur, its not advisable, the correct action up front would have been to tell them you were not paying, why you were not paying, and how your perfectly valid reason for not paying would be upheld by any legal tribunal they cared to invoke.
Last edited by: Zero on Sun 20 Sep 20 at 10:28
|
Thanks for your response . In the last two years , I managed to get off 5 of these parking invoices . 3 In Woking ,whilst my son was having a radio fitted and another 2 days when it had to be replaced and refitted and it took longer than the 3hrs and 2hrs on Friday , because of a local mosque .....they were easy to Sort, then my son , (18) parked in morrisons for 5.5 hrs when he visited a friend , a bit harder , but a bit of well I shop there and editor of a local website ,got that sorted . This one is just a pain , being in Cardiff ,and not easy to revisit . Think I’ll ring Costco and say lo9k I parked in your car park , you were shut can you get this cancelled .
If no luck , I’ll do a google map of the area ,and ask the concil EXACTLY where the camera is , then go to the solicitiors and ask them to Prove I was parked ,beyond the 3hrs , being out the car and moving Is not parked , and NOT in The road where the camera was , which would impossible at that time of day and exiting the site ,and appeal to logic and I like a fight
|
|
5 in two years, I've not had that many in my life. Butting heads against the powers that be, I think you and zippy need to compare notes.
|
>> In the last two years , I managed to get
>> off 5 of these parking invoices . 3 In Woking ,whilst my son was having
>> a radio fitted and another 2 days when it had to be replaced and refitted
>> and it took longer than the 3hrs and 2hrs on Friday , because of a
>> local mosque .....they were easy to Sort, then my son , (18) parked in morrisons
>> for 5.5 hrs when he visited a friend ,
>>
Anybody who didn't know might think you and your family make a point of overstaying in car parks.
Five and a half hours in Morrisons! You are joking, of course?
|
He’s 18 and niave about car parking and over staying . The others were problems fitting a radio and a windscreen , neither locations , at the time said , oh the car was here beyond the time allowed ,we will get the ticket cancelled , or IF/when you get a ticket ,bring it in and we’ll get it cancelled , so they coukd have stopped them even being sent out
Ooooh just remembered another one in Epsom at a sheltered accommodation I was told I could park at , see the manager , but she was off . Innthe 20 minutes I was there , parked in the managers bay , I got another ticket , she managed to get it cancelled
|
>> I think Duncan is right, the Beavis case was a gamechanger. IANAL either and what
>> follows is based on observation as a person with an interest in the process.
>>
>> In effect the Supreme Court in Beavis endorsed the view that there was a right
>> to enforce and that charges in the order levied in that case were legitimate. Since
>> then the parking companies have been much more confident in pursuing these cases in the
>> County Court. There are also anecdotal reports that Judges in the County Court are quickly
>> chucking out ill prepared cases relying on pre Beavis concepts of what is legitimate.
IIRC, "they" chose badly when they chose Beavis to be a test case.
|
>>IIRC, "they" chose badly when they chose Beavis to be a test case.
In what way?
|
The Beavis case gave the thieving parking companies an open season on their practices.
In the incident described above the film processor will be aware of the gridlock situation by the amount of contraventions. They don't care. They will chance their arm and issue as many PCNs as they can. Turn down the appeals and rely on a percentage throwing in the towel and paying up.
|
>>IIRC, "they" chose badly when they chose Beavis to be a test case.
>
>The Beavis case gave the thieving parking companies an open season on their practices.
Ah, in that case I guess I don't understand who "they" was?
|
100% agree..
Only last week wife received a £90 fine for overstaying at a newly opened Lidl's by six minutes, apparently you only get an hour and an half but due to it being very busy and vacating the parking space well within the limit she had to sit in the jam to exist the carpark, the ANPR camera does stop until you've gone out onto the busy main road, which means when turning right you could be there some time.
We paid up... from our previous experience at another shop the companies make it very clear that due to 'Beavis' we would lose any appeal.
|
On what basis can they claim £90 for a few minutes over?
Thought the whole thing was that the parking companies were supposed to only claim for realistic losses?
Next time do as I previously did. Cover your number plates as you pass through the cameras.
|
>> On what basis can they claim £90 for a few minutes over?
Those regulated by the BPA are supposed to allow a grace period for overstayers per para 13.3 of their Code of Conduct. The Supreme Court decision in Beavis also refers to a clause in the Code about allowing reasonable time for exit but this does not appear in the current version.
I still think that would be a reasonable argument to run in an appeal or in County Court proceedings. The 'Parking Event' described in the code ceases when you vacate the space (possibly when you return to your car if congestion stops you leaving the space). I heard on a case locally where the entire area was gridlocked because the nearby Hungry Horse pub was on fire and the fire service were blocking roads. She only sought help much later when threatened with debt collectors so too late to appeal. She was given advice as to her options but as ever in these sort of instances I don't know what happened next.
|
I'm sure that whilst trawling through the internet regarding the Fraudulent PCN thread I digested something in relation to proposed legislation which was put on hold due to the Brexit shenanigans.
One of the bodies had suggested that if there were extenuating circumstances then they would reduce the charge to £20.
Perhaps trying to show how considerate and caring they are :/
|
>> >>IIRC, "they" chose badly when they chose Beavis to be a test case.
>>
>> In what way?
>>
I am relying on my memory here, and as I recall, whoever chose Beavis as the case to fight, simply didn't choose the best case.
It's a few years ago now, and I am afraid I can't be more precise. It is simply a recollection on my part.
|
|
What, in fact or law, is missing in Beavis that might have led to a different decision?
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Sun 20 Sep 20 at 21:18
|
I don't think its the principal that's being disputed. Its heavy going but to summerise:
It was the argument about 'pre-estimate of loss' i.e. damages for breach of contract should only put the claimant back in the position they would have been in had the breach not occurred. In a free car park, the damages would therefore be little or nothing. As opposed to 'commercial justification' whereby the amount' should be sufficient encourage drivers from breaching the car park rules.
This 'pre-estimate of loss' is what a lot of people believe is excessive and therefore ignore the PCN however when push comes to shove the parking companies have been given the green light to base their claims on 'commercial justification' with quite a high approved penalty.
The Supreme Court ruled (6 to 1) that ..... a clause will not be regarded as a penalty if it ‘serves a legitimate purpose’ and is not ‘manifestly excessive’.....
And in the case of Beavis it was held that the figure of £85 to be reasonable.
Last edited by: Fullchat on Sun 20 Sep 20 at 23:14
|
That’s a clear summary of the situation. You won’t get anywhere claiming a penalty is “unfair”. If it isn’t excessive in the eyes of the law you have no excuse for not paying it.
I guess the moral of the story is to make a note of the time on the ticket and give yourself good time to exit the car park or alternatively park somewhere else.
|
>> That’s a clear summary of the situation. You won’t get anywhere claiming a penalty is
>> “unfair”. If it isn’t excessive in the eyes of the law you have no excuse
>> for not paying it.
My take is that post Beavis that is pretty much an accurate summation. You won't get anywhere arguing about loss etc; that ship has sailed.
However that does not mean Beavis is a green light for any and every egregious practice. There is a legitimate reason for being 'late over the finish line' at the exit camera if congestion delays you leaving. Neither does Beavis justify the sort of activity Fullchat describes in the Fraud thread. Wotspur may have been on a sticky wicket appealing as the car park conditions almost certainly start with 'customers only'. I don't think there's any obligation, other than perhaps being seen as charitable, why a shop should allow freeloading on its car park even if it is closed. Our local Sainsbury's, close to the grounds of both 'The Cobblers' (footie) and Saints (Premiership Rugger), allows three hours but two on matchdays.
I'm fed up of the number of times I've struggled to park at Halfords because the car park, private and with time limits but no ANPR, is full of spectator vehicles. There's a perfectly good 2000 space Pay/Display car park no further away. If you can afford £25+ a head for match tickets you can manage the few quid extra for the car park.
|
>> £25+ a head for match tickets
£25 a head!
When was the last time you went to Franklin Gardens?
|
>> When was the last time you went to Franklin Gardens?
Why, how much are they normally?
Last edited by: VxFan on Tue 22 Sep 20 at 02:20
|
>> Why, how much are they normally?
>>
Depends where in the ground your seat is, but perhaps double?
|
|
Really that's pretty steep, there's no seats under 50 quid? Even the PL isn't that pricey.
Last edited by: VxFan on Tue 22 Sep 20 at 02:20
|
>> When was the last time you went to Franklin Gardens?
Once 20 years (or so) ago. Went with a group of blokes from the village to see them play London Welsh. I don't 'get' rugby. I was supposed to play it at school but I'm not front row size, cannot catch a ball for toffee nor run fast. Just stood around and got frozen silly. CWOT.
Ben Franks, who played for Saints last season, lived over the road. He and I stood next to each other caused some mild amusement as we're at opposite ends of the centiles for normal male size.
£25+ was plucked from the air.
|
. I was supposed to play
>> it at school but I'm not front row size, cannot catch a ball for toffee
>> nor run fast. Just stood around and got frozen silly. CWOT.
RL surely?
|
>>why a shop should allow freeloading on its car park even if it is closed
Indeed.
"I am going to a football match, I want to park in your car park, and you shouldn't be able to sop me because it's not costing you money".
Fine. Then is there any particular reason why I shouldn't park on your drive when I want??
It's one thing when stupid rules impact customers. Be that congestion getting out, taking longer shopping than you should have done, etc. etc. I have no sympathy for the parking companies and car park owners whatsoever.
But when the car park is being used by non-customers who then complain about the Ts&Cs, they need to get a life. And so what if it is closed? It's still not yours.
Like Bromp, it psses me right off when I want to use a car park for shopping and it's full because of a local event.
Here the shopping car parks run a scheme related to spend. Everybody has to pay for parking. If you show a current till receipt for $x then you get y minutes free. Where x & y are proportional. Spending less than $5 gets you 15 minutes free. And $50 gets you the first three hours free. Without that free period the car park is damned expensive.
Or something like that.
|
>> >>why a shop should allow freeloading on its car park even if it is closed
The car park did not just happen as part of gods 6 days of work. Someone somewhere is paying rates, maintenance, rent. No reason on earth why you should get it free. At any time.
|
Parking fines and time scale . - smokie
