Parking Charge Notice advice

[Markyrp]

Hi everyone,

 

Apologies if I'm covering old ground here but some advice would be much appreciated.

 

I have received a PCN for exceeding the maximum stay in a small retail park car park.

 

I was not even aware of any time limits, but I have subsequently revisited the location and have identified that there are numerous boards in the car park stating that the maximum stay is 60 mins.

 

The PCN gives exact times for entry and exit and I have noticed what appear to be cctv cameras pointing toward the entry/exit point of the car park. The times indicate that I was parked for approximately 2.5 hours.

 

I feel very angry about the situation. This is not a pay and display car park and as a result, I feel that the £70 charge is countermount to extortion. Even the offer of £45 for early payment is unacceptable.

 

I find it incredible that I have received a PCN from a firm in Hertfordshire for parking in a free car park in Scotland. I have no intention of paying this fee and was hoping for some advice on the the best course of action.

 

I have read a number of posts on this subject and there is differing advice depending on individual circumstances.

 

My gut feeling is to ignore this PCN and if or when I receive further correspondance, request some sort of photographic evidence to determine the identity of the driver.

 

Any thoughts or advice will be much appreciated.

[Graham117]

Your gut feeling is correct. Ignore it, and have a read of some of the other threads on this forum. Post back if you need moral support!

[Markyrp]

Thanks for that. Obviously I will have to wait at least a month to see what they send me next.

[mark14]

Hi Mark

I am in a similar situation. I have just received a charge.

This is profiteering at its worst by private companies.

I am going to stick it out.

We can expect letters and threats over the coming months, but it is worth making a stand.

 

Thanks Mark14

[asmodeus]

It is called entrapment

 

The retail parks almost certainly get a rake off from the PPC's and the whole system is designed to maximise profits as the time allowed is ridiculously short for a retail park - my wife can easily spend a whole morning looking round a couple of clothes shop

 

You are one of the lucky ones in that you have found this site and not been captured by the [problem]

 

You will receive some very official looking and nasty letters now from the PPC, their debt collectors (tea boy) and solicitor (lady on the street corner) and will take around 3 months

 

All can be ignored as all you have is an unenforceable invoice and all they can offer is empty threats

 

It would not be profitable for them to take this to court and PPC's rarely do this anyway. It would be a long way (Hertfordshide to Scotland) for a wasted journey. Free car park so loss to the owner is £0.00

 

We can expect letters and threats over the coming months, but it is worth making a stand.

 

Definately - there are real charities out there that desperately need money and are a much better cause than these scamsters

 

[problem] mail can all be recycled (the 'Green' approach)

Edited November 12, 2009 by asmodeus
Edited to include reply to Mark14

[Al27]

Depends how you look at them. Just treat them as junkmail and remember that it costs them about a fiver in DVLA fees and stamps.

 

Who's laughing now?

[Markyrp]

Just to update.

 

I received a final reminder this morning. Very official looking and lots of red text threatening legal action.

 

Warning states that failure to pay "could result in the balance outstanding being registered as a debt in the County Court. A warrant may then be issued to bailiffs to recover payment......"

 

At the end of the warning the following is stated "Your ability to obtain credit in the future could be affected"

 

I have no intention of paying, but is the general opinion one of ignore all correspondance from these people, or to contact them and inform them that unable to determine the identity of the driver at the time of incident.

 

Many thanks,

 

Mark

[cymruambyth]

Hi I've just had the same letter, bits in red are on my thread; Borehamwood post office must be thriving!

[Jamberson]

I received a final reminder this morning.

 

Good - then they are on the point of giving up.

 

Very official looking and lots of red text threatening legal action.

 

There's no legal significance in the colour of the ink they use. They're just trying to worry you.

 

Warning states that failure to pay "could result in the balance outstanding being registered as a debt in the County Court. A warrant may then be issued to bailiffs to recover payment......"

 

At the end of the warning the following is stated "Your ability to obtain credit in the future could be affected"

 

"Could" is a good word. Anything "could" happen, but nothiing will - unless they decide to sue you. What are they waiting for?

 

I have no intention of paying, but is the general opinion one of ignore all correspondance from these people, or to contact them and inform them that unable to determine the identity of the driver at the time of incident.

 

What would you gain from contacting them? You'd just get more letters hypothesising on things that "could" happen. If they had any intention of suing you, they would have to assess the stregth of their case, and they know whether they can identify the driver or not.

[Prawns25]

Just to update.

 

I received a final reminder this morning. Very official looking and lots of red text threatening legal action.

 

Warning states that failure to pay "could result in the balance outstanding being registered as a debt in the County Court. A warrant may then be issued to bailiffs to recover payment......"

 

At the end of the warning the following is stated "Your ability to obtain credit in the future could be affected"

 

I have no intention of paying, but is the general opinion one of ignore all correspondance from these people, or to contact them and inform them that unable to determine the identity of the driver at the time of incident.

 

Many thanks,

 

Mark

 

It's tempting to write back and fight but, if you do, then you are just taking part in the game. Best ignore.

[Blagton]

Just to update.

 

I received a final reminder this morning. Very official looking and lots of red text threatening legal action.

 

Warning states that failure to pay "could result in the balance outstanding being registered as a debt in the County Court. A warrant may then be issued to bailiffs to recover payment......"

 

At the end of the warning the following is stated "Your ability to obtain credit in the future could be affected"

 

I have no intention of paying, but is the general opinion one of ignore all correspondance from these people, or to contact them and inform them that unable to determine the identity of the driver at the time of incident.

 

Many thanks,

 

Mark

 

As everybody is saying contine to ignore. They will give up after their Final letter (which may follow the previous Final letter).

 

Nothing is going to effect your Credit Rating, Bailifs won't come round and take your childs Pet Rabbitt and so on. Its wording made to make those who would think what they are reading as correct into handing over some dosh.

 

For Bailifs to become involved you must:

 

1. Have been taken to court.

2. Lost the case.

3. Refused to pay after the Court decison.

 

On the basis PPC's don't go near Court as they have less legs to stand on the a table with no legs what they say in their letter is complete doodaa.

[lamma]

"Warning states that failure to pay "could result in the balance outstanding being registered as a debt in the County Court. A warrant may then be issued to bailiffs to recover payment......"" Rubbish, misleading rubbish that is against Consumer regulations. the usual laugh-o-gram from them

[Markyrp]

Many thanks to everyone who has added to this thread.

 

I await with baited breath the next actions from these [problematic].

 

I find it incredible that there is no legislation in place to prevent these companies from operating.

 

I will update when/if I receive any further threats.

 

Mark

[letshelp]

You will get a final, final and then very final reminder.

regards

[Markyrp]

Again, thanks to everyone who has added to the thread.

 

I will update when I next hear from these [problem] artists.

[majornews]

Bear in mind that legally they are probably correct and within their rights to issue you with this piece of paper, assuming they have addressed it and sent it to the driver of the vehicle at the time.

 

Although they disgracefully make it look like a parking ticket, and issue warnings, etc, its legal standing is that of an INVOICE. By parking in their car park, assuming the signs are visible and clear, you have agreed to their terms and conditions.

 

Because you went over the free time limit, they are entitled to send you an invoice to charge you for the time you have used. They are also entitled to take you to court for non-payment of the invoice.

 

In practice, I agree it is a disgraceful way to run a business by frightening drivers with this kind of paperwork, and I also suggest they will probably not take it as far as court. They will probably take the decision that it's not worth it, and that they make their money out of drivers who pay.

 

But, in all this, please bear in mind they could take you to court and - if you were the driver - they would probably win. The law is likely to be on their side.

[Blagton]

Bear in mind that legally they are probably correct and within their rights to issue you with this piece of paper, assuming they have addressed it and sent it to the driver of the vehicle at the time.

 

Although they disgracefully make it look like a parking ticket, and issue warnings, etc, its legal standing is that of an INVOICE. By parking in their car park, assuming the signs are visible and clear, you have agreed to their terms and conditions.

 

Because you went over the free time limit, they are entitled to send you an invoice to charge you for the time you have used. They are also entitled to take you to court for non-payment of the invoice.

 

 

Err...on the assumption (can be dangerous) it was a free car park what charge can they make ? They could only claim for their loss which for a free car park is...er...nothing !

 

But, in all this, please bear in mind they could take you to court and - if you were the driver - they would probably win. The law is likely to be on their side.

 

Er..nope. The law isn't on their side which is why they won't go near court but if they did they wouldn't win.

 

Blagton.

[majornews]

The car park was free for a set period of time - 60 minutes. Assuming the sign details that £70 is payable after that, then it's entirely enforceable. If the sign didn't state that, then it's not.

 

In law it's not a "free car park". It's a car park where the owner charges nothing for the first hour and, it appears, £70 after that. And that's why the owner can invoice.

 

If the sign did not specify the £70 charge, then it would not be enforceable.

 

However, I do agree that it is unlikely the owner will proceed to court.

[kiptower]

and under what law of the land did you take this from ? "it's entirely enforceable"

 

sorry Laws from "planet perky" dont apply on planet earth

[Blagton]

The car park was free for a set period of time - 60 minutes. Assuming the sign details that £70 is payable after that, then it's entirely enforceable. If the sign didn't state that, then it's not.

 

In law it's not a "free car park". It's a car park where the owner charges nothing for the first hour and, it appears, £70 after that. And that's why the owner can invoice.

 

 

I'd be interetsed to know where exactly "In Law" a free car park is defined - or when is a free car park not a free car park.

 

A charge of £70 (or any other arbitary figure) for overstaing a stated time is complete doodaa and would be considered as unfair/unreasonable as per the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977.

 

As I understand things under contract law they could only claim for their loss with regard the overstay. They have no loss as no charge is made for parking - they might be denying somebody else to park there but they would park for free too so they still have no loss.

 

If you pay £1 to park your car at £1 per hour and you overstayed by one hour their potential loss is £1. That is what they can claim. Claiming £70 would be unreasionale as per the above Act.

 

Blagton.

[majornews]

It would be possible to challenge it under the Unfair Contracts Act 1977, I agree, but with no guarantee of success.

 

An unpaid invoice is enforceable under civil law.

[kiptower]

before you start giving advice do more reading on civil law

 

first they have to prove you entered into a CONTRACT , because you drove past a sign IT DOES NOT prove you agreed to the contract they claim was formed

[JimmySpangle]

If a car park charges £2 for an hour and you overstay, you have deprived the car park owners of £2 for each hour you overstay, so they can claim £2 per hour or even part of. They will try and charge you £120 sometimes, but they can only claim for their loss.

 

If in this case the car park is free, irrespective of the time it is free for, it is still free. If you stay for a month you have deprived someone else of free use thus there loss is zero.

 

There is no case to answer.

 

Threat-o-grams will start, and continue. IGNORE everything they send. Do not write. Do not phone. Don not think anymore about it.

[majornews]

For the benefit of Mark, who posted the request in the first place, please don't rely on the information in this forum. I have a different opinion from some of the other people posting - and I am sure everyone is putting their honestly held opinions. My concern is that you have entered into an implied contract by parking on this site. Others clearly disagree with me. Do take further advice if you want.

[Jamberson]

I'm not a legal expert but my understanding is that if someone breaches contract then they can be sued for damages.

 

So, if you believe a contract was entered into, one party breaches it and the other sues for losses - but they can't sue for the "charge" they invented when they put the signs up - in other words they can't force you to honour the contract. That part, the charge, is therefore unenforceable.