What can i do...?

[jo5ephedward5]

Hi, i got a parking ticket in january, i paid £50 within the 14days 'discount' period and the cheque bounced (my bad!)

n e way, i didnt know this due to moving and being scared untill now of my bank statements i didnt look...


i returned to see my parents this week (my previous address) and found a letter from the islington council demading £100 as it bounced etc etc.

Can i just send them £50?

can i offer to pay it off in instalments?

or can i just return the letter with not known at this addess?

Fianlly what happens if i just ignor it?

Thanks

J

	Fight a Motoring Ticket kit Follow this link to read the review of the "Fight a motoring ticket" kit by Lawpack. Everything you need to challenge your motoring ticket. Most motoring tickets go unchallenged. Most which are challenged are challenged successfully.

[jo5ephedward5]

so looks like i'm gonna have to bite the bullet and pay £100 then?

i'm not actually at that address anymore (though the car is kept there)...just wondered the consiquences of not responding or paying up...is it a CCJ-able or worse offence?

[JimTheGent]

Firstly it is not an offence. This is a civil matter not a criminal one. You have not broken any laws and therefore are not guilty of any crime - hence it is a civil matter.

Now consider this very carefully. When you got the ticket, did it state the payment must be made within xx no of days to qualify for the discount? Did it then state this only applied to "cleared funds"? There is a reason for my asking.

1. If it stated payment needs to be made but does not specify anything about the actual method and whether funds are to be cleared in order to qualify for the discount, you "could" try to argue payment was made in good time. It would not matter if the cheque bounced - you fulfilled their requirement to pay with xx days. Therefore, technically they cannot really enforce the additional penalty.

2. You could argue the charges are a disproportionate penalty contrary to the Unfair (Contracts) Terms Act 1977 s.4 and under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999. Para.8 and sch.2(1)(e). Then you could offer to pay a penalty which is proportionate to their loss - i.e. the toll+any costs they incurred as a result of your over-staying, plus compensation of XX.

3. You could write to them accepting full liability and offer to pay the penalty in installments of £1:00 per week over 100 weeks.

If the matter is not resolved, they may call in the Bailiffs and then attempt to impound your car and assets from the address (it happenned to me once). The fees and costs would increase disproportionately and you would be expected to still pay the penalty+Bailiff costs + storage fees etc etc.

If you failed to pay these costs, they could file a CCJ against you, even petition for your bankruptcy (highly unlikely but possible).

If the vehicle was moved and they could not trace you for six or 7 years, the debt is written off.

You need to take some action to resolve this - ignoring it will not make it go away

[MondeoST24]

Do you still have the ticket? If not get it by Data Protection Act/FOIA, then check if it has two dates on. If it doesn't its a nullity. Have a look at other posts in this section for further details of this point.

[jo5ephedward5]

yes i still have the ticket but its all in order.

Jim - thanks for the advise...i guess i'll draft a letter up and make an offer of re-payment - i'm not trying to get out of it i just have very few funds free at the moment!

[patdavies]

Originally Posted by JimTheGent

2. You could argue the charges are a disproportionate penalty contrary to the Unfair (Contracts) Terms Act 1977 s.4 and under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999. Para.8 and sch.2(1)(e). Then you could offer to pay a penalty which is proportionate to their loss - i.e. the toll+any costs they incurred as a result of your over-staying, plus compensation of XX.

Interesting idea of using the Unfair Contract Act to overturn the provisions of the Road Traffic Act 1991. Even if you gnore that the RTA is later and therefore takes precedence, who are you accusing of unfair terms - HM Government?

[Rich44]

No he's accusing the local council of that not the Government - big big difference but still I wouldnt have thought it would hold water either way lol

[jo5ephedward5]

i'm just not smart enough to sort out a letter to challange this lol

i'll just write to them and offer monthly payments - i will post this on monday and hope for the best.

[patdavies]

Originally Posted by Rich44

No he's accusing the local council of that not the Government - big big difference but still I wouldnt have thought it would hold water either way lol

But the local council are merely enforcing statute (RTA1991) - they have no discretion to vary any 'terms'. The 'terms' are laid out in the Act as passed into law by parliament.

There is currently a consultation going on (for London) regarding the possibility of graded penalties, but as the law currently stands it is either the same penalty as everything else or no penalty.

[JimTheGent]

Originally Posted by patdavies

But the local council are merely enforcing statute (RTA1991) - they have no discretion to vary any 'terms'. The 'terms' are laid out in the Act as passed into law by parliament.

There is currently a consultation going on (for London) regarding the possibility of graded penalties, but as the law currently stands it is either the same penalty as everything else or no penalty.

Not too sure if this is correct but isn't the "contract" between the individual and the council. It is not between the individual and the Government. Therefore the council has the contract with the Government. If they lost a case under "unfair contract" then would it not be for the council to take the matter up with the Government?

As I said, I don't know the law on this so would be interested to hear what it is.

[Rich44]

the local council are enforcing their interpretation of statute I think you will find this is why there have been so many PCNs struck out and appeals won because the councils interpretation is wrong hence you are NOT taking on the government you are taking on the local council