PCN - AS Securi-T

[CentralPark]

I received a Parking Charge Notice on the windscreen of my car from A S Securi-T, after parking for just over an hour in a Staples/Currys car park. I think this is a new arrangement as I have parked there a couple of times previously, usually whilst shopping at Staples. I was the driver and am also the registered keeper. The fine is £70 rising to £94 if I don't pay in 14 days. The notice was issued because I did not visit the providers premises (which is correct, I did not). AS Securi-T site photographic evidence just after I parked and about 10 minutes before I returned. Before AS Securi-T were employed, there were notices on the entrance and outside the shop saying "This car park is for use by Staples/curry's customers only". After I took the ticket off my windscreen, I looked around and noticed new signs which I assume say that AS Securi-T will issue a charge notice if you park there without using the premises (although I didn't go and look).

Having read this site, I gather AS Securi-T is one of the companies who have instigated court action.

Whilst it is a fair cop, I think £70 is unreasonable! So, have I understood the situation re: PCN's correctly? - it is the driver (not RK) who enters a contract when he parks in a private car park. If they can prove that I was the driver and did not visit the store, they would be likely to win a court case? If they cannot prove I was the driver, then I would be likely to win a court case (if I use the template letters on this site). In other words, should I cough up or is it worth fighting? I don't particularly want a CCJ against me for the sake of £70.

Thanks in advance for any advice from the forum.

[MikeBigg]

You are a long way from getting a CCJ - so rest easy.

Don't make contact with them until you receive a letter in the post - then use the template letters from this site.

Pete Jones who wrote the guide to private parking companies on this site has also started a thread asking for people who have a "ticket" from AS-SecuriT to contact him. The thread can be found here: AS Securi-T - READ IF YOU HAVE A TICKET FROM THEM.

Mike

[patdavies]

The 'ticket' issued by AS SecuriT is nothing more than an invoice - it has no legal force in law as a parking ticket.

It is little more than a scam that relies on people's confusion with a lawful ticket and just paying it.

In order to produce this invoice, they are relying in the driver having formed an implied contract by parking after having read the signs - the act of parking signalling acceptance of the contract. For this to stand up in a court of law, the signs must be obvious, sufficient and wordwd correctly.

MikeBigg's post provides you with te link to Pete's advice - which will provide you with all the background that you need. The other linked thread refers specifically to AS-SecuriT.

What we need to see is photos of the signs showing the details and further, the locations in the car park (IOW are the so obvious as to be unavoidable); whether the signs were obvious and readable from either where you drove in or where you parked.

Lastly, you are a long, long way from a CCJ. You may wish to contact Pete direct for advice, should it come to a small claims summons

[CentralPark]

I received the inevitable letter and used the template confirming I was the RK and advising they take the matter up with the driver. Immediately got a reply outlining the reason for the fine as if I had written to appeal, advising my appeal is unsuccessful and advising they will pass to their collections department.

Assume, I just write another letter, acknowledging their reply but emphasising that I have not appealed but pointed out that the contract is with the driver not the RK?

Having recently visited the store where I got the fine and bought a TV for £475, do you think I should write to the store manager and complain about being harrassed by their private parking contractor?

[Barnsley Boy]

I'd just wait for the next letter from their collections dept. and use the next letter in Bernie's series which notes that previous letter not adequately responded to, information requested still awaited.