Parking in a shopping centre

[falcon185]

Hi Popsy,

I would write to them stating that you have on numerous occasions advised them that you was not the driver at the time of the alleged offence, you are under no obligation to provide them with the details of who was driving at the time, any further threats or letters received from them will be deemed as harassment and will be reported to the relevant authorities should they fail to "cease and disist" from contacting you any further on this matter, you dispute the fact that the registered keeper is liable as you wasnt driving at the time and while this is disputed they have a legal obligation to refrain from passing this alleged debt on to a DCA.

Hopefully that will do the trick and silence them ;-)

Dont forget, as always, keep copies of all corres and send by recorded. You then have your evidence if required but you wont need it really

[sharhyste]

Hi Poca, thankyou for your response to my question, I have just looked at the relevant section. These companies really are the dregs, thank goodness for sites like this, I was on various different web sites trying to find information to help before coming across this one, Keep up the good work. Good Luck Popsy dont let them grind you down.

She

[falcon185]

Hi, thanks Falcon, intend to do just as you advise. This is an attempted form of edit - at least Dick Turpin had the decency to wear a mask

She

 

Hi She,

Dick Turpin actually stopped vehicles in order to rob those inside, these dregs wait till you park and leave your vehicle before pouncing. ;-)

 

Bazza

[popsy]

they have just sent me a letter from commercial collection services( a debt collecting agency??) saying i have to pay..should i just write and tell them i simply wasn't the driver and that they can take me to court?? how should i word it and should i send it to the dca or central ticketing? thnx

[falcon185]

Hi Popsy,

I personally would write to the DCA informing them that you are in dispute with the car parking company and this should not have been passed to them in the first place, this is totally unenforcable, you have advised them that you was not the driver at the time. Dont forget to send a letter to the car park company along the lines of what I posted earlier. As always, send them recorded so you have a record and keep copies ;-)

[cybelle_2000]

I have been following this thread with great interest as i'm in the same boat, (thanks Falcon185 for all your advice) just waiting for the ticket company to get my details from DVLA and write to me.

 

I'm going to follow the same course of action has has been recommended for POPSY but i'm just wondering if there has ever been a case where the parking company has ever asked the retail park for the CCTV film of the carpark from the day in question to use against you if they insist on taking you to court?

 

Would this be something that they would or could do?

 

Keep imagining myself in the magistrates court insisting it wasn't me driving and then all of a sudden out comes a video tape of, moi getting back into the car!!

[POCA]

1. It won't be the magistrates court, it'll be the small claims court.

 

2. They could but whether the store will hand over the tapes is another matter.

 

3. A penalty is not enforceable anyway, only a reasonable pre-estimate of loss is.

[cybelle_2000]

Thanks again POCA

 

I'm just trying to envisage the situation. and have all bases covered inadvance!!

 

If the ticket company did proove it was me in court by using photographice evidence, would I get into more trouble with the court aslo for wasting their time. Then I might end up with both court fines and parking fines aswell.

 

 

What would areasonable pre-estimate of loss be?

[POCA]

A civil court cannot fine you (except for contempt). It can only award costs against you.

 

Let's get away from the issue of fines here. A fine is a penalty imposed by the criminal law. What you're dealing with is a private contract under which a penalty is unlawful and cannot be enforced.

[patdavies]

 

Keep imagining myself in the magistrates court insisting it wasn't me driving and then all of a sudden out comes a video tape of, moi getting back into the car!!

 

1) This is a matter for a small claims court - which is a civil action.

 

2) If it were a magistrates' court matter,you woud be entitled to see all the evidence at least 7 days before you appear in Court.

 

3) Even at small claims. there is a prior exchange of documents and, in law, a video tape is a document

[PhantomReclaimer]

they have just sent me a letter from commercial collection services( a debt collecting agency??) saying i have to pay..should i just write and tell them i simply wasn't the driver and that they can take me to court?? how should i word it and should i send it to the dca or central ticketing? thnx

 

Ok, diving in to this thread but haven't read the whole of it as I'm off out in a few mins.

 

I'm presuming that you were parked in a private car park and overstayed, weren't parked properly, etc?

 

If this is the case you are breaching the contract you accpeted wen you entered the car park. Penalty charges are not enforcable at law in this Country so, personally speaking, I'd just ignore the EDIT

 

Wait 'till they issue a County Court claim then enter your defence as being that the claiminat has not disclosed a cause of action known to Law as a penalty is unenforcable. Then put in a counter claim for any expenses you have been put to. If they then decide to withdraw the claim and write off the ticket then sue them for your expenses anyway.

 

P.

[rogerebaker]

Hi Popsy,

I personally would write to the DCA informing them that you are in dispute with the car parking company and this should not have been passed to them in the first place, this is totally unenforcable, you have advised them that you was not the driver at the time. Dont forget to send a letter to the car park company along the lines of what I posted earlier. As always, send them recorded so you have a record and keep copies ;-)

 

Regarding the matter being in dispute and referring it to the DCA. I thought this was just the banking code. Is there something similar for parking. I fully appreciate that passing it to the DCA really means passing it across the desk to another thug in the same office.

 

Rog

[caro]

Hold on a minute! I started reading this thread, and confess to not reaching the end of it, but just could't let what I have seen go.

 

Poppy, on here you admit you parked in the space and didn't notice the sign. I am not an expert on parking but I know a tiny bit about the law. You have told the parking people you were not the driver of the car at the time, and they are now threatening court action.

 

I strongly urge you not to continue to lie as has been suggested, and that you do not perjure yourself in any official court documents, or in court itself, which seems to be the way this is heading. The DVLA must have reason to believe that this company can have your details to make a claim against you, so perhaps you should look into whether the charge is lawful. If the charge in unlawful then let them take you to court and you can prove your case, but if you lie about it you could be in all sorts of trouble.

 

Take a step back and check the legality, and for those advocating lying, please take your opinions away from this site as we will not condone such action here. We stand up for peoples rights, not perpetuating wrong-doing.

[falcon185]

Hi Caro,

I totally understand where your coming from, in my original post in reply to the start of the thread I actually stated I DONT CONDONE this. If someone decides to go down that road then that is purely their decision and once again I reiterate I would not condone it.

We appreciate your input as a moderator but on your own admission you have not read the complete thread. Maybe it would be more prudent to read the WHOLE thread prior to commenting. I personally would not advocate lying and please dont take my rambling as an attack on anybodys' honesty and integrity.

 

High Horse now dismounted ;-)

[jonni2bad]

It is irrelevant that Caro states that she has not read the whole thread.

 

The part of the thread being questioned is knowingly avoiding the issue by lying.

 

To suggest that just because you don't condone an action it is ok to post the example, simply doesn't work. How about "I don't think murder is correct, but I know others have resorted to it, so you could try that".

 

Caro has stated quite clearly that this site will not condone actions of this nature. If the thread continues in this manner, we will have no choice but to close it.

[falcon185]

Hi jonni2bad,

it appears that you guys are playing God, we are all entitled to our own opinions and to voice them whether right or wrong, its called freedom of speech in a Democratic society, you un-approved a post of mine on here without a right of appeal or to voice my opinion privately as you do not accept replies to private messages you send out.

you state that

 

"I don't think murder is correct, but I know others have resorted to it, so you could try that".

Try telling that to the women who have been abused throughout their lives by a partner, jailed then freed on appeal, they committed murder. I totally agree but there are mitigating circumstances that can be taken into consideration?

No doubt you may chose to un-approve this post too, which will confirm your Godlike status over us mere mortals trying to right wrongs on this site, my thread may have been misinterpreted by you and others, thats your right to interpretation.

You obviously took exception to me DARING to question, honestly, Caro, it was in no way an attack on her honesty and integrity, in taking exception to this you decided to retaliate to defend her honour, very noble of you but slightly misguided, please dont throw your Teddy in the corner anymore its unbecoming of someone we should be looking up to for guidance and assistance.

 

Maybe you might like to caniballize the thread called "I wasnt there but..."?? too.

That states something someone else did other than the poster, he, like me, was stating something he had been told, thats all!

 

High horse again dismounted!

[jonni2bad]

...we are all entitled to our own opinions and to voice them whether right or wrong, its called freedom of speech...

 

In the outside world, maybe - but not here. This is a website owned and operated by individuals and you do not have any right to post whatever you see fit.

 

The owners have appointed moderators to monitor such instances and have instructed them to remove any references to unlawful behaviour or anything that seems to suggest such an action and to make it very clear that the site in no way condones such.

 

...you un-approved a post of mine on here without a right of appeal or to voice my opinion privately as you do not accept replies to private messages you send out...

 

I have no idea what you are referring to here.

 

I accept PMs and have never turned them off and the thread was left open, thus giving anyone a right to pass comment, which you then took an opportunity to do. I think you must be confused.

 

...

you state that

 

"I don't think murder is correct, but I know others have resorted to it, so you could try that"....

 

Again, I think you may have been a little confused and I will clarify....

 

Your suggestion that to state you do not condone an action, but to then make a suggestion that someone might wish to do 'it', was not nearly a good enough reason to allow your post to stand. I stated the above to show just how illogical that argument can be if you escalate the idea to one of murder - it was not a statement of personal belief.

 

To then give reasons why murder itself might be ok does you no good.

 

...

No doubt you may chose to un-approve this post too, which will confirm your Godlike status over us mere mortals trying to right wrongs on this site, my thread may have been misinterpreted by you and others, thats your right to interpretation....

 

It may be your opinion that moderators act in a "Godlike" manner but I can assure you that I do not have a personality disorder and I am fully aware of who I am. I have explained above the reasons why moderators take certain actions - if you see reason to complain about these then you have the ability to contact the Administrators of the site.

 

Good luck with that - I don't think they will be willing to allow you to suggest that someone lies in order to evade a problem.

 

...You obviously took exception to me DARING to question, honestly, Caro, it was in no way an attack on her honesty and integrity, in taking exception to this you decided to retaliate to defend her honour, very noble of you but slightly misguided, please dont throw your Teddy in the corner anymore its unbecoming of someone we should be looking up to for guidance and assistance...

 

On the contrary - I am absolutely certain that Caro is a strong enough person to defend her own actions. What I take exception to is your insistence that you be allowed to post suggestions of that nature and then suggest that we haven't read all of the thread and so it must be unfair.

 

I did read the whole thread - if nothing more than allow me to see if you had corrected your misguided behaviour. Since you had not, it was essential that the posts were removed from public view.

 

I would suggest that your personal remarks actually do a great disservice to your own reputation - my post before here made no references to you in a personal capacity, so I would appreciate the same level of response from you in return. It seems as though this may have been an expectation too far.

 

...Maybe you might like to caniballize the thread called "I wasnt there but..."?? too.

That states something someone else did other than the poster, he, like me, was stating something he had been told, thats all!

If you would like to report a similar thread or post that requires our attention, please provide a link, or simply click the warning symbol () in the post itself.

[POCA]

Jesus...anyway, there's a difference between telling someone to lie and telling someone not to admit something. There is nothing wrong with putting the parking company to proof to prove who was driving.

[falcon185]

lol thanks POCA, that was essentially the point I was trying to get across ;-)

[PhantomReclaimer]

Hold on a minute! I started reading this thread, and confess to not reaching the end of it, but just could't let what I have seen go.

 

Poppy, on here you admit you parked in the space and didn't notice the sign. I am not an expert on parking but I know a tiny bit about the law. You have told the parking people you were not the driver of the car at the time, and they are now threatening court action.

 

I strongly urge you not to continue to lie as has been suggested, and that you do not perjure yourself in any official court documents, or in court itself, which seems to be the way this is heading. The DVLA must have reason to believe that this company can have your details to make a claim against you, so perhaps you should look into whether the charge is lawful. If the charge in unlawful then let them take you to court and you can prove your case, but if you lie about it you could be in all sorts of trouble.

 

Take a step back and check the legality, and for those advocating lying, please take your opinions away from this site as we will not condone such action here. We stand up for peoples rights, not perpetuating wrong-doing.

 

On the lying side of things. No, it's probably not the best course of action, and you most certainly shouldn't lie to a Court, but there really isn't any compelling reason why you can't say anything you like to a private company or person who is attempting to collect an unenforcable debt. They have no right to demand the money so you have no obligation to be honest with them.

 

There is nothing that actually requires you to tell them who was driving, even if you knew, so that is just lying by another name anyway.

 

P.

[caro]

How do you know they have no right to demand the money? If they decide to pursue the matter in court, and they keep letters to provide as evidence, it wouldn't give the person much credibility in court if they had already shown themselves as liars.

 

If the charge is genuinely unenforceable then there is nothing to worry about. Just put the onus on the company to prove they have the right to this money, in court if necessary. Obviously they won't go to court if they truly have no right to the money.

 

I simply don't see the need to lie about anything if you are truly in the right. What's the point? In my experience people who lie usually have something to hide. If you are simply lying to wriggle out of paying money that is truly owing, then my original comments stand, and there is no room for that kind of advice on this site.

[PhantomReclaimer]

How do you know they have no right to demand the money?

 

Because it's a penalty charge which is unenforcable.

 

If they decide to pursue the matter in court, and they keep letters to provide as evidence, it wouldn't give the person much credibility in court if they had already shown themselves as liars.

 

It would make absolutely no difference as, if they ever did get as far as Court, they would loose. What you had, or had not told them, is irrelevant.

 

If the charge is genuinely unenforceable then there is nothing to worry about.

 

Not the point though. You owe no duty to act honestly towards someone who is knowingly attempting to collect an unenforcable sum.

 

Just put the onus on the company to prove they have the right to this money, in court if necessary.

 

Precisely but, they should have to prove that the charge is enforcable before they start demanding information off you. There is no reason why they can't go to judicial review to prove that the charge is enforcable and to prove that you have to tell them what they want to know.

 

Obviously they won't go to court if they truly have no right to the money.

 

So why should you have to be honest with them?

 

I simply don't see the need to lie about anything if you are truly in the right.

 

But, refusing to tell them who the driver was even if you knew is precisely the same thing, wouldn't you agree? So, if you are going to refuse to tell them that, and you don't seem to be saying you should tell them, then why not lie in the first place?

 

What's the point? In my experience people who lie usually have something to hide.

 

What is there to hide if all you are "hiding" from is someone unlawful demand for money?

 

There is no reason why you should have to tell these people anything. It is no business of thiers what you were doing in a certain place at a certain time. Your movements and personal business are your own affair and have nowt to do with anyone else. There may be perfectly good reasons why you don't want others to know why or when you were in a certain place. If they were pursuing a genuinely enforcable debt then it would be a different matter but the debt we are talking about here is totally bogus.

 

If you are simply lying to wriggle out of paying money that is truly owing, then my original comments stand, and there is no room for that kind of advice on this site.

 

And I'd agree, but it's not money that is truly owing.

 

P.

[popsy]

moderaters i have been very thankful for the advice at the end of the day i am not lying at all! i am simply asking them to PROVE it was me driving..that is not illegal as far as i know and falcon has not told me to lie or anything of the sort

[caro]

You have been given advice from differing points of view and you are the one who has to deal with this Popsy. You are aware of both sides of the issue and you can choose to follow or disregard any or all of the advice offered.

 

All I wanted at the end of the day was for you not to encounter problems due to following advice which I personally consider dubious at best. Let's try and move on.

[born2bongo]

I've just read through this thread and it's all too familiar - I'm in a similar boat.

 

Here's my observations for what it's worth.

 

1. Sending a ticket, not issuing, is against 3.2 of the DVLA code of conduct. This is voluntary but I feel it helps to weigh against them. In my case we really can't remember who was driving because it took 4 weeks for the ticket to arrive.
   
2. I told them their contract was with driver not RK and they wrote back insisting the RK had a contract even if it was formed in their absence - they know they can't go to court on this one.
   
3. I'm now giving them a final warning about harrassment and am taking the case up with the Trading Standards, DVLA, parliamentary ombudsman and my MP for starters. Someone else mentioned pepipoo threads. They are a mine of information about legalities of parking charge notices, validity of signs (very few of them comply with rules about signs) and the whole process. I was going to pay up until I found them.
   
4. People on this thread still seem to have a basic faith in the DVLA as far as it is involved in these kinds of disputes. Don't. Please.

They are justifying breaking the Data Protection Act on the grounds of reasonable cause. Their reasonable cause seems to be that they have previously allowed the parking company to register with them and that company has since written that it is suing someone.

 

In my case the DVLA have on their file the name of a parking company whose status on Companies House register is "Proposal to strike off". Apparently they have never submitted any accounts and are regarded as not trading. I've decided to rename my house "B2B Car Park Solutions". Then I can get on the register and charge everyone who parks outside my house!

 

If the parking company told them they were suing me they were lying and the DVLA has not done enough to ensure that it has reasonable cause. This is the issue I will be taking up with my MP, the parliamentary ombudsman and even europe, if necessary. Our human rights are being violated and our government is responsible.