Thread: Re: Private Parking Fine

Hi - A private company is taking me to court for parking over time allowed in a private car park. I stated I was not driving the car - I would love to know the actual legislation that backs up the view/fact that they have to prove I was the driver, (ie what part of what act), so that I can state this in court if they chose to proceed. Can anyone help?

Similar Threads:

• Private Parking Fine- Ldl car park
• Private Parking Maximum Fine
• Private Parking Maximum Fine
• Parking fine on Private land;ADVICE PLEASE
• Private Parking Fine

For private parking there is no legislation that states that you have to name the driver. Is that what the parking company have told you? And what company is it that you are dealing with? Have they actually sent you court papers with the court seal stamped on them?

Also, the onus is on the PPC to prove who the driver of the vehicle is. They have to prove on a balance of probabilities who the driver was. It's the standard way of proving any case in a county court. They can't just claim that as the registered keeper that you are responsible.

I would also suggest you do a google search on "fightback forums" and then go to the parking section of that forum and post your story there as well.

have you received papers from the court ? or just some threatening bumf from the PPC ?

The company is Met Parking. They sent a bullying letter threatening to send baliffs before court action but I said that if they did I would report them to the DVLA as this is in breach of their guidance on supplying driver details to private companies. I also reported them to Trading Standards for threatening to do this and told them I had done so in my letter.

I know they used to give up before court but I have heard that now they often do go to court as drivers hardly ever actually turn up so they win that way.

I thought that if I could quote some legal precedent or actual legislation they might leave me alone as I dont want to have to take a day off work to go to court even if I do eventually win.

more chance of winning the lottery.

I dont want to have to take a day off work to go to court even if I do eventually win.

Originally Posted by lamma

more chance of winning the lottery.

I presume you mean there is more chance of MET winning the lottery than the court case against jay500?

You've got more chance of winning the lottery than this even going to court.

Met Parking are well known - they don't do court. You're worried about taking a day off work. Met are more worried about having to take a day off and stand in front of a judge with their flimsier than a wet tissue case.

It's simply bad business practice to bother with court. Their business model is a percentages game: 40 or 50% will pay up and the rest are binned. That's all they need to make a good living.

The only PPCs that go to court tend to be the ones with arrogant and dimwitted directors who do it more for arrogance rather than good legal and business reasons.

their letter threatening bailiffs before any court decision would land them in very hot water. judges love that kind of thing !
no chance of a court case here unless MET is committing suicide.

Slaughter and May are not lining up to head hunt in PPC land thats for sure.

"I note the contents of your letter and would wish to have it known that I have no intention to be uncooperative. I will of course release driver details promptly upon receipt of an authenticated S172 request to do so"

y/f

Thanks for all your responses its good to know that they are unlikely to proceed wiith this. If I get further correspondence from them I will just ignore it.