He was certainly aware of the situation with regards the legal status (or lack thereof) of the ticket. However being a reasonable and fair-minded individual himself, I recall that he mistakenly believed that such organisations could be reasoned with "on appeal" and didn't expect the obvious trap which ultimately provided proof for breach of contract. It was, of course, a surprisingly naive belief. It's a cruel world and we know these organisations to be far from reasonable. That said, today's understanding as to the nature of parking "[problematic]" is more advanced than it was in 2003, which I think was the year that this happened. As an aside, PO's are naturally disinclined to become embroiled in legal disputes owing to pressures from within and are therefore demonstrably prone to seeking early resolution - this, by extension, only serves to highlight how easy it is for the ticketers to apply pressure upon the general public. Also, PO's are (by their own admission) not lawyers and are just as likely to make silly slip-ups as anyone else, at least so far as contractual law is concened. I think that little episodes like this can be helpful to everyone and I have used my friend's experience to my own benefit when considering my response to such tickets. Oh, and for everybodies benefit, "my friend" is not an alter-ego of my own, hahaha! So please, read my remarks and judge for yourselves but please don't think that this constitutes "official" legal advice from an officer of the law.

heinzbeanz47, in response to your recent post: Exercise caution if you choose to go down that particular route. Mitigation is a means of negotiating the extent of your liability but this will probably involve you having to make an admission of it in first instance. I would therefore suggest that you should avoid doing so unless it can be proven by the party in question that you are indeed liable. In the case of PPC's, they will normally find doing so very difficult, although the exact circumstances of your case aren't especially clear as yet. I'd repeat advice issued previously and say that you need not feel under any pressure to communicate with the issuer of the ticket as they have no status as a legal authority. It is too easy to say the wrong thing and give them a case, which is the outcome that they are seeking. Non-communication is an effective defence in the greater majority of cases. If you feel the need to write to them at a later date, your right to do so is absolutely unaffected. I would like to give you an example of the dangers of trying to mitigate a case, one which a close friend experienced - the chap in question was issued with a PPC for overstaying a time limit on a private car park, which served a retail complex. He was in a position to be able to prove by reciepts that not only had he remained on the complex at all times, but also that he had spent over three times the amount of money on site that the issuer was claiming in damages. So he chose to cite these facts in writing, believing that the claim would be dropped. He was spectacularly wrong. When the final letter came through and the amount had, of course, accrued extra costs taking it to £200, we discussed the matter for the first time. I saw that in the manner in which he had worded his letter, he had made an acceptance of liability by proving that he was (as claimed by the PPC) present at the time, the driver of the vehicle, in full knowledge of the terms of contract and that he was in breach of those terms. I also pointed out that the amount spent was an irrelevence giving that the PPC was a sub-contractor of the retail park and that they would not care one iota about customer relations. My friend saw this and after much cursing chose to settle. I feel that he probably had no option. I should point out that my friend had, some 10 years previously, attended a series of courses in (criminal) law as a professional requirement. The point is this; if you write, be careful. Anybody can make mistakes. He did - and he, in case you wonder, is a Police Officer. Regards, his_nibs

Steven_A, You and I are apparently in the same boat. I have been cited with a "parking contravention" by said cretins, which could even be at the same car park in L***aster, since CEL only monitor 2 in the city. My case involves the K****way site. I have no intention to pay a single penny to them, let alone the ridiculous demand for £150. The so-called "28 day period" (I have the same invoices as you) is coming to an end and I am waiting to see what they intend to do. I am defending this case irrespective of how they approach it as they simply have no way of proving either existence of contract or, in the improbably slight likelihood that they can, of my liability towards them. That said, if you could be more precise about what exactly they are saying that would appreciated as I could prepare a defence in advance. Be confident, however you decide to proceed, as the odds are stacked in your favour. I have fought these types off before with success and will do so again. The advice you have received is perfectly valid (that is, to ignore) but I appreciate that you may be having a few panics about this. It hasn't been explained to you how this advice is reasonable, so I shall give you my take on it; namely, that non-communication cannot be taken as an implicit admission of liability in the eyes of the law and in spite of what this company claims, is a position that you can take that in no way affects your legal rights to mount a defence at a later date should the need arise. Because you are under no obligation to converse with them out of court (they are not a legal authority, after all), it cannot be considered as being unreasonable and don't let them tell you otherwise. They want you to respond because they know that there is a good chance of you, not being a legal professional, inadvertently admitting liability to them in writing - which you must of course avoid. It is the prerogative of the plaintiff under the law to prove "in the balance of probabilities" that you are liable to them. They have what is termed "burden of proof" - they must prove you are liable to them. To do this, sufficient evidence must be presented to a magistrate. I can make an educated guess that the company will only be able to prove that you are the registered keeper and that the vehicle was parked on their clients' property. That will only be sufficient evidence to prove a case for liability when hell freezes over (you may not believe this, but it is true), so they are attempting to goad you into giving it to them. Again ... don't! They need more information than they can prove without your co-operation. For example, they would have to prove existence of contract (dubious - hard to prove your identity, difficult to prove consent to be bound) and that damages were incurred (they weren't - it is a free car-park). They have not a hope of doing this without your admissions to those effects. Bear in mind also that the owner of the park may be obliged under another contractual agreement to provide car-parking. I refer, of course, to planning regulations. In this case, I am fairly confident as a resident of the area that L***aster CC made such a stipulation in the case of both the K****way development and the Currys/Comet/Halfords site off North Road. You may want to have a look at this more thoroughly. Look at it like this, though - if they had a case, you'd already have a CCJ because they wouldn't have bothered to write as by now they'd have simply been able to take it straight to court. You don't have a CCJ or even court papers. QED I prefer to argue my case in writing, but in your case I'd advise not to say anything to them unless you are certain of what you are doing. If you do, then state your position and your defence, don't tell them anything that they don't know, don't answer their questions and demand that they prove their assumptions (and there will be many) by citing evidence. Avoid admitting to or denying anything that gives them information that they haven't already proven that they possess. This requires a bit of thought, and in most cases for most people I think it is better to ignore them totally. Be confident though. Look around you at the examples you see - these charlatans can never win unless you let them. his_nibs