Is parking ticket valid

[00765]

If you receive a parking ticket in an Asda parking lot can it be enforced?

 

Thanks

[i hate bailiffs]

best thing to do with private parking tickets is Ignore

[Conniff]

NO! It's not even a parking ticket. It's an invoice 'inviting' you to pay. Has no legal standing whatsoever so keep the money for your family at Christmas and not give it to them to spend on theirs .

[00765]

Thank you both. That's one less bill i have to fret about

[i hate bailiffs]

Thank you both. That's one less bill i have to fret about

 

you will get some beg letters and possibly a fake solicitors letter before they give up

[Conniff]

Some of them have a very pretty shade of red

[i hate bailiffs]

Meant to look scary

[Surfer01]

Isn't this in the wrong forum?

[ims21]

Thread moved to Private Land Parking forum

[DJ67]

How does the new parking charge legislation that came in last month (October 2012) affect this? Can't they now pursue the registered keeper?

I just want clarification. I ignored several "tickets" prior to the change in legislation and happily received letter after letter, knowing that they would eventually go away. Can I still do this in the future?

[ims21]

Simple answer is yes you can ignore them or send them a very brief denial of liability letter.

 

These speculative invoices are still just that and nothing more.

[DBC]

This, from another forum, neatly sums it up:-

There is a lot of misinformation around concerning the Protection of Freedoms Act. This is largely pedalled by the private parking companies in an attempt to add some kind of legitimacy to their charges, not helped by sloppy and lazy journalism which regurgitates what the parking companies say without checking if it's true or not.

 

Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 introduces the concept of Keeper Liability for private parking charges if the registered keeper fails to divulge who the driver was. That is all.

 

* It does not make parking charges enforceable (or any more enforceable than they were before, which, on the whole is not enforceable at all)

 

* It does not require the registered keeper to name the driver on request - there is no obligation. If the keeper fails to name the driver, the "liability" (such as it is) reverts to the keeper (see previous point). If the driver and keeper are the same person, then there is no difference anyway.

 

* It does not set out any kind of statutory framework for parking charges, they are still based on contract law or trespass, and in that respect nothing has changed

 

* It does not define the wording that must be used to make parking charge notices "legal" or "enforceable". The Act sets out wording and points that must be included in order for the parking company to be able to apply keeper liability, but using all the correct words does not make the notice any more legally enforceable than it was before (see point 1)

[DJ67]

Thanks so much for the replies. I really appreciate your advice.

[Mikes1992]

This, from another forum, neatly sums it up:-

There is a lot of misinformation around concerning the Protection of Freedoms Act. This is largely pedalled by the private parking companies in an attempt to add some kind of legitimacy to their charges, not helped by sloppy and lazy journalism which regurgitates what the parking companies say without checking if it's true or not.

 

Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 introduces the concept of Keeper Liability for private parking charges if the registered keeper fails to divulge who the driver was. That is all.

 

* It does not make parking charges enforceable (or any more enforceable than they were before, which, on the whole is not enforceable at all)

 

* It does not require the registered keeper to name the driver on request - there is no obligation. If the keeper fails to name the driver, the "liability" (such as it is) reverts to the keeper (see previous point). If the driver and keeper are the same person, then there is no difference anyway.

 

* It does not set out any kind of statutory framework for parking charges, they are still based on contract law or trespass, and in that respect nothing has changed

 

* It does not define the wording that must be used to make parking charge notices "legal" or "enforceable". The Act sets out wording and points that must be included in order for the parking company to be able to apply keeper liability, but using all the correct words does not make the notice any more legally enforceable than it was before (see point 1)

 

 

What about the issue of being unwilfully forced into a contract? can the contract still apply even though they don't have proof the keeper agreed to the terms? or is this just to have reasons to charge the keeper when they don't know the driver?

 

I'm really worried about this new act since we're trying to avoid paying a parking ticket we believe is unfair and if anything is damaging the retail park. One big thing we could use is that the parking charge was given by an ANPR which is located on the entrance which logs your number plate as you drive in/out, so it's not actually a charge for parking right? It was busy and it took a long time to get parked and exit and we went over by 27 minutes and for all they know we could of been driving around in circles for 2 hours. we got a "£60 early" £100 parking charge. We was christmas shopping and probably spent more then £100 on the retail park.

 

Upto now we just sent a letter denying we ever agreed to a contract with them (which is kind of true, since we was totally unaware of ever doing so and the monitorisation is new on the site) and never will enter a contract with there company and included our terms and conditions which more or less says by persueing the matter they will be charged and will be responsible for legal cost and that there company agrees to the terms by doing so (I found some resources online lol).

[DBC]

Stop taking this too seriously. Just ignore from now on , they will never take you to court.

[Mikes1992]

Stop taking this too seriously. Just ignore from now on , they will never take you to court.

 

Well the contract I found online states

 

Further action on my part will incur charges which be chargeable to your company.

 

My charges will be invoiced at the following rates...

 

Initial Charge of £250 then £100 each time I have to respond in relation to this matter. All legal expenses and costs will be charged in addition to the above charges. Pursuing this matter will trigger these charges and by doing so, your company agrees to these terms.

 

 

So do you think that'll put them off even sending mail back to us and opposing us?

[Mikes1992]

Oh it's with Vehicle Control Services.

[DBC]

Stop contacting them from now on and treat all their letters as you would any other junk mail.

[Mikes1992]

I found something in the POFA, it says that

Conditions that must be met for purposes of paragraph 4 (claiming unpaid charges from the keeper)

(5) The first condition is that the creditor—

(a)has the right to enforce against the driver of the vehicle the requirement to pay the unpaid parking charges; but

(b)is unable to take steps to enforce that requirement against the driver because the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver.

 

The PPC does not have the right to enforce anything have they? Unless they won a court case. In which case they don't have the right to claim from the keeper unless decided upon by a judge.

I'm sorry but I do need information as it's not me the charges are against, It's my mum and she's really worried and I think she'd cave in to there pressure if she isn't entirely convinced.

[havinastella]

show her this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Er2KVAx5B9A

[Surfer01]

Well the contract I found online states

 

Further action on my part will incur charges which be chargeable to your company.

 

My charges will be invoiced at the following rates...

 

Initial Charge of £250 then £100 each time I have to respond in relation to this matter. All legal expenses and costs will be charged in addition to the above charges. Pursuing this matter will trigger these charges and by doing so, your company agrees to these terms.

 

 

So do you think that'll put them off even sending mail back to us and opposing us?

 

What don't you understand about the facrt that there are no parking regulations on private land? What don't you understand about the "offence " being trespass and not parking. What don't you understand about the term "damages"?