Thread: OPC Private Parking Tickets

I do not know much about this forum, I know a bit about bank charges though, so here goes.

I have an office and we pay £7K a year for 6 parking spaces. The car park in controlled by a private parking firm.

I must have received 30 tickets in the past 3 years or so, not paid any one of them, disagreed with them for a variety of reasons. They have not pursued very rigorously.

The reason I end up with tickets is that sometimes employees or visitors fail to display the correct permit, but are in our designated spaces or we park in a visitors spaces when our own spaces are full.

Notwithstanding all this, can a private parking firm lawfully issue a ticket that demands money that amounts to a penalty?

Similar Threads:

• do you have to pay parking tickets from private companies
• Parking Tickets
• parking tickets
• 3 x Parking tickets

Thank you, is there something here that I can use as a template to write to them with.

Probably gone over the top and erred a bit on the legal side, but I sent this letter last week:

We do not accept that the above Penalty Notice is valid. The vehicle in question was parked in one of our bays that we pay several thousand pounds a year for.

Notwithstanding the above, as you are probably aware Private Parking Companies rely on the law of contract as the basis for claiming and enforcing penalty notices. This differs from notices issued by police or local authorities that are issued pursuant to the Road Traffic Act 1991.

The long established remedy for breach of contract is damages and the measure of the same is to put the injured party in the same position had the breach not occurred. Clearly, therefore in this instance there can be no loss as the car in question was parked in our space that we have already paid for.

However, even if the car was not parked in one of our spaces, it would be for you to demonstrate the loss you have incurred due to the breach. It is trite law (Wilson v Love 1896, Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre v New Garage Motor 1915 et al) that you cannot charge a penalty for breach of contract, i.e. where the sum bears no relation to the potential loss. Indeed, it is noted that you even refer on the ticket several times to it being a penalty.

Additionally, the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulation 1999 and related Statutory Instrument 1999 No. 2083, in particular at section 5 states that unfair terms are:

(1) A contractual term which has not been individually negotiated shall be regarded as unfair if, contrary to the requirement of good faith, it causes a significant imbalance in the parties' rights and obligations arising under the contract, to the detriment of the consumer.
(2) A term shall always be regarded as not having been individually negotiated where it has been drafted in advance and the consumer has therefore not been able to influence the substance of the term.
(3) Notwithstanding that a specific term or certain aspects of it in a contract has been individually negotiated, these Regulations shall apply to the rest of a contract if an overall assessment of it indicates that it is a pre-formulated standard contract.
(4) It shall be for any seller or supplier who claims that a term was individually negotiated to show that it was.
(5) Schedule 2 to these Regulations contains an indicative and non-exhaustive list of the terms which may be regarded as unfair.

There is also the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 that states in section 4 that:

(1) A person dealing as consumer cannot by reference to any contract term be made to indemnify another person (whether a party to the contract or not) in respect of liability that may be incurred by the other for negligence or breach of contract, except in so far as the contract term satisfies the requirement of reasonableness.
(2) This section applies whether the liability in question –
(a) is directly that of the person to be indemnified or is incurred by him vicariously;
(b) is to the person dealing as consumer or to someone else.

Clearly the charging of £50 (increasing to £100) is wholly unreasonably.

Additionally, the Writer of this letter is not the owner or driver of the vehicle in question. Contrary to your assertion on the reverse of the notice you have no statutory right of access to the DVLA’s keeper information.

We have no intention of wasting any more time corresponding with yourselves. If you continue to pursue the matter this will constitute an offence under the Protection From Harassment Act 1997.

We are considering reporting the matter to the police pursuant to Section 40 of the Administration of Justice Act 1970, that states, it is an offence to coerce another person to pay money claimed from the other as a debt due to under contract if he or she:
(a) harasses the other with demands for payment which by their frequency, or the manner or occasion of their making, or any accompanying threat or publicity are calculated to subject him or his family or household to alarm, distress or humiliation;
(b) falsely represents, in relation to the money claimed, that criminal proceedings lie for failure to pay it;
(c) falsely represent themselves to be authorised in some official capacity to claim or enforce payment;
(d) utters a document falsely represented by him to have some official character or purporting to have some official character which he knows it has not. Paragraph (a) above does not apply to anything done by a person which is reasonable (and otherwise legal) for the purpose of :
(1) of securing the discharge of an obligation due, or believed by him to be due, to himself or to persons for whom he acts, or protecting himself or them from future loss; or
(2) of the enforcement of any liability by legal process.
It is also provided that a person may be guilty of an offence under paragraph (a) above if he concerts with others in the taking of such action as is described in that paragraph, notwithstanding that his own course of conduct does not by itself amount to harassment.

We look forward to your confirmation that the ticket has been withdrawn.

It seems to have had the desired effect, received a two line letter from the parking company saying it has been referred to their appeals department.

I received this 2 liner before last year (on some other tickets) after I may add, a more protracted exchange of letters and then never heard from them again.

Hopefully the letter in post 5 has achieved the desired result.

I now have a further 3 tickets.

I would appreciate any comments on my letter in post 5 as I am going to use it again.

Hi lakejen, I now have so many tickets from them I have lost count. I have received different types of responses from OPC, some saying they are sending the matter to their appeals department, they have withdrawn the ticket, they are passing the debt onto a factor, but I have not paid them.

The police are unlikely to be interested.

Let us know how you get along.

(ignore)

RichH6109 - They have told me Windsor Smythe are factors and not debt collectors - they are useless.

Do not take any notice of their threats regarding a CCJ against your name. To do this, first of all they will have to commence legal proceedings, you will get the opportunity to defend your position and then if you loose (unlikely) they will get judgment for the sum, this takes about six months.

Even if they obtain judgment providing you pay it within, I think 28 days, the debt will not be registered as unpaid.

Different story if you do not pay on judgment as then you will have an unsatisfied CCJ, but this is very unlikely.

Let us know how you get along, you may want to send a letter along the lines of my post 5.

OPC's behavior is reprehensible, just stand your ground and do not be intimidated by their lamentable threats.

Let us know how you get along.

(ignore)

I am no expert but I think my position is different to your link in post 11 as the ticket was issued by Dartford Borough Council, mine were on private land, although I am not sure of the position if through a private ticketing company on behalf of a council.

Additionally in that link it is not clear if the breach of contract, no penalty argument was pleaded. That seems to be the view of those here too CCJ Threat - Private pcn (OPC) - FightBack Forums.

I will ask someone who knows more to take a look.

Anyway initially your concern was a CCJ and that is a long way away, if indeed ever, you should see how things develop and then you can make a more informed decision as to whether to pay or otherwise.

Was your ticket issued on behalf of a local authority?

(ignore)

As I say above a CCJ will not appear 'out the blue'.

The police are unlikely to be interested as it is really a civil matter.

Someone is really having fun here.

OPC have taken to writing to the registered keepers of some of the cars, some belong to a lease hire company, so that lease hire company has forwarded the letters to me.

The lease hire company is Lloyds TSB Autolease and wait for it, I have just received an invoice from Lloyds TSB and they have charged me £25.00 for forwarding a OPC letter for an unlawful charge.

Needless to say it will not be paid.

Quite apart from that my OPC battle just rumbles on, I must have about 50 tickets now and they keep writing me threatening letters that I respond to in one batch each month.

Regarding the letter you wrote GuidoT as a business are you able to claim the protection offered by the various consumer protection legislation you referred to?

As I think you know only UTCCR only applies to consumers and not businesses. UCTA applies to both.

In my case, whilst in some occasions the business may own / lease the cars (notwithstanding that the pcn is unlawful) it is the individuals that OPC should be pursing for the PCN and not the business.

(ignore)

Sent this letter to Lloyds TSB Autolease:

'We are in receipt of your invoice dated x.

Initially, we do not accept that the OPC Penalty Notice dated x 2007 ref. x is valid as set down in our letter dated x 2007 (copy enclosed).

Additionally, we are absolutely dismayed that you have raised the said invoice due to the unlawful actions of a third party without even any consultation with ourselves and then to compound matter matters you advise that you intend to take payment by direct debit on the x 2007.

Notwithstanding that we emphatically reject the Penalty Notice and vehemently deny you have any entitlement to any payment, how you arrive at a charge of £25.00 + VAT, for simply placing a sticker on a letter and posting to us is wholly incomprehensible.

For the avoidance of any doubt, you are not authorised to deduct the said sum in August 2007 or in any subsequent months. We are sure that do not need to remind you, in particular given that you are part of Lloyds TSB, that the direct debit guarantee prevents you from taking such a sum.

In the event you receive any further letters from OPC regarding unlawful Penalty Notices, then please do not forward them to us and charge us £25.00 + VAT for the privilege.

Please issue a credit note for your said invoice.'