Parking Charge LDK

[Swifty 26]

I recently received a parking charge for an expired parking ticket from LDK in a private car park. The parking charge is for £60 in 14 days or £90 thereafter i sent a letter off to appeal but received an unsuccessful letter back.

What should i do, should i pay the £60 or offer a £5 payment as their loss would of been £1 for the over stay time.

[dx100uk]

read this forum...

 

there is no 'appeals' they always fail anyhow

 

what you have is a speculative invoice

 

it is NOT a FINE

 

it has no standing within any laws

 

ignore

 

dx

[Swifty 26]

Thanks for the reply, i think i may of shot myself in the foot as in the appeal letter i put the following so whilst i regret and agree i have falling fowl of the parking conditions bla bla bla.

Will this give them more of a case in court ?

Edited January 5, 2013 by Swifty 26

[queensclose]

private parking companies are waiting or each other to test the new rules. so can not rule out that they wont take you to court. be ready for loads of WE MAY DO THIS AND WE MAY DO THAT. letters.

 

me i would write back and thank them for considering the appeal and you will notify the driver at the time of the outcome. who you wish not to disclose

[DBC]

There may be "new rules," but these haven't changed the basic fundamentals of contract law which states that the landowner (but not the parking company) can only claim for their actual material loss, and not some imaginary figure dreamt up by the parking company.

[Swifty 26]

The new regulations state the RK can be held responsible if they will not name the driver at the time, here is the address - assets.dft.gov.uk/publications/guidance-unpaid-parking-charges/guidance-unpaid-parking-charges.pdf to the new regs, interesting reading.

[DBC]

"responsible " for an unenforceable invoice.

 

It's worth repeating this yet again:-

 

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", "enforceable" or "valid". 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)

[Swifty 26]

The bottom line is that this is a civil matter not a criminal offence so it’s down to the PPC as too how the outcome ends, either ultimately let it go after a number of letters or chase it through a civil court and accept the judge’sdecision.