Why has the advice changed (used to be "always ignore")?

[Tom87]

Hello,

 

This is not an individual query about an invoice, just a general question about why the CAG experts' advice on parking charges has done a complete U-turn from what it used to be.

 

A few years ago, the blanket advice was "ignore, ignore, ignore" "do not enter into communication with the PPC", etc.

 

Why are the instructions now the complete opposite? Is it because of POFA or did some PPC manage to win against an "ignoring" person when in the past it was thought this was impossible?

 

Thanks,

Tom

[citizenB]

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?412953-Have-you-received-a-fine-from-a-Private-Parking-Company-DO-NOT-IGNORE-IT

 

The above link will advise why the advice has changed.

[armadillo71]

Hello,

 

This is not an individual query about an invoice, just a general question about why the CAG experts' advice on parking charges has done a complete U-turn from what it used to be.

 

A few years ago, the blanket advice was "ignore, ignore, ignore" "do not enter into communication with the PPC", etc.

 

Why are the instructions now the complete opposite? Is it because of POFA or did some PPC manage to win against an "ignoring" person when in the past it was thought this was impossible?

 

Thanks,

Tom

 

Because of this;

 

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2012/9/schedule/4/enacted

[unclebulgaria67]

Blanket ignore advice may not be best. Each case on its own merits.

 

Are that many people being taken to court because of unpaid private parking penalties ?

[Conniff]

Because of this;

 

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2012/9/schedule/4/enacted

 

 

If you break that down right from the beginning, it says:

 

Introductory.

 

 

1 (1) This Schedule applies where—

 

 

(a) the driver of a vehicle is required by virtue of a relevant obligation to pay parking charges in respect of the parking of the vehicle on relevant land; and

 

(b) those charges have not been paid in full.

 

(2) It is immaterial for the purposes of this Schedule whether or not the vehicle was permitted to be parked (or to remain parked) on the land.

 

 

2 (1) In this Schedule—

 

“the appropriate national authority” means—

 

(a) in relation to relevant land in England, the Secretary of State; and

 

(b) in relation to relevant land in Wales, the Welsh Ministers;

 

“the creditor” means a person who is for the time being entitled to recover unpaid parking charges from the driver of the vehicle;

 

You will notice it says

 

"the driver of a vehicle is required by virtue of a relevant obligation to pay parking charges in respect of the parking of the vehicle on relevant land; and (b) those charges have not been paid in full".

 

But there is no charge in supermarket carparks, (as well as millions of others), and

 

"entitled to recover unpaid charges", but if there is no charge, then there is nothing to recover, so the whole thing must be irrelevant.

Edited August 3, 2015 by Conniff

[SabreSheep]

Blanket ignore advice may not be best. Each case on its own merits.

 

Are that many people being taken to court because of unpaid private parking penalties ?

 

1000's were taken to court by parking eye alone in 2014

 

 

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/255014/response/627902/attach/html/2/AFINALShipp%2096114.xls.html

[Tom87]

Thanks everyone for the clarification. Have a wonderful day!

[armadillo71]

If you break that down right from the beginning, it says:

 

 

 

You will notice it says

 

"the driver of a vehicle is required by virtue of a relevant obligation to pay parking charges in respect of the parking of the vehicle on relevant land; and (b) those charges have not been paid in full".

 

But there is no charge in supermarket carparks, (as well as millions of others), and

 

"entitled to recover unpaid charges", but if there is no charge, then there is nothing to recover, so the whole thing must be irrelevant.

 

 

 

 

In my opinion it is an ill thought out piece of legislation.

 

 

The 'relevant obligation' is due to what is written on the signs that the driver read apparently....

 

 

 

 

“parking charge”—

(a)

in the case of a relevant obligation arising under the terms of a relevant contract, means a sum in the nature of a fee or charge, and

 

(b)

in the case of a relevant obligation arising as a result of a trespass or other tort, means a sum in the nature of damages,

[caro]

1000's were taken to court by parking eye alone in 2014

 

 

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/255014/response/627902/attach/html/2/AFINALShipp%2096114.xls.html

 

I'm not suggesting people should ignore if taken to court, but I wonder how many cases were won by default and how many defended cases were won by PPCs.

 

Also, how many PCNs were issued that didn't go to court and were ignored.

 

I guess we'll never know.

[unclebulgaria67]

I'm not suggesting people should ignore if taken to court, but I wonder how many cases were won by default and how many defended cases were won by PPCs.

 

Also, how many PCNs were issued that didn't go to court and were ignored.

 

I guess we'll never know.

 

Quite a lot by default i would think. They must only take a percentage of people to court and not everyone they issue a parking ticket to, which is not paid.

 

I should imagine that few people can be bothered to go to court and defend. In the end there is probably some agreement to pay a fee for parking, plus the claimants court fee, so in the end the amount is not much different than the original parking ticket. So could be a waste of time.

 

Best advice is to challenge the parking ticket immediately after it is issued or agree to pay a reasonable parking fee.

[caro]

Quite a lot by default i would think. They must only take a percentage of people to court and not everyone they issue a parking ticket to, which is not paid.

 

I should imagine that few people can be bothered to go to court and defend. In the end there is probably some agreement to pay a fee for parking, plus the claimants court fee, so in the end the amount is not much different than the original parking ticket. So could be a waste of time.

 

Best advice is to challenge the parking ticket immediately after it is issued or agree to pay a reasonable parking fee.

 

I got 3 tickets last year, given at the same place. Had lots of letters for a few months, the last one for each said the dca would refer back to the parking companies solicitors and they'd advise prosecution. I have not engaged with them at all. No court papers yet and that was months ago.

 

Company is PCM who are members of the IPC.

 

I'm not saying everyone should do that but it's right for me and if they take me to court they will have a fight on their hands.

[armadillo71]

 

Best advice is to challenge the parking ticket immediately after it is issued or agree to pay a reasonable parking fee.

 

 

Quite shocking and wrong advice.

 

So you appeal a NTD straight away? And give away the drivers name and address even though the PPC is not using the POFA?

 

You need to be more informed about how this murky world of PPCs actually works, before mis-informing OPs how to deal with these invoices.

[unclebulgaria67]

Quite shocking and wrong advice.

 

So you appeal a NTD straight away? And give away the drivers name and address even though the PPC is not using the POFA?

 

You need to be more informed about how this murky world of PPCs actually works, before mis-informing OPs how to deal with these invoices.

 

Explain more please.

 

E.g if i parked at say Lidl and overstayed the 90 minutes allowed and received a parking ticket, what would you advise. I am the sole driver of the vehicle and i did overstay the 90 minutes free parking. There are loads of signs explaining the parking at the entrance to the car park, throughout the carpark and inside the store. I am provided with evidence of my car being in the car park beyond the 90 minutes allowed.

[Bazooka Boo]

Well first off, do they have the authority to issue tickets on that land?

Then do they have authority to erect signs on that land and have they gone through the relevant planning process for that permission.

 

A NTD should be ignored, and await the NTK simply because if they fail to issue it within the timescale laid down under the POFA

(not earlier than 28 days after, or more than 56 days after the NTD was issued) then they have failed, and no action can be brought.

[unclebulgaria67]

Well first off, do they have the authority to issue tickets on that land?

Then do they have authority to erect signs on that land and have they gone through the relevant planning process for that permission.

 

A NTD should be ignored, and await the NTK simply because if they fail to issue it within the timescale laid down under the POFA

(not earlier than 28 days after, or more than 56 days after the NTD was issued) then they have failed, and no action can be brought.

 

Ok so they send the NTK within the time frame, what next ?

[Bazooka Boo]

Appeal to them, they issue you with a POPLA code, or appeal to the IPC and using various arguments of appeal, including GPEOL, you

state your case.

[unclebulgaria67]

Appeal to them, they issue you with a POPLA code, or appeal to the IPC and using various arguments of appeal, including GPEOL, you

state your case.

 

So if i had a ticket for £60 for say a 10 minute overstay, i could appeal to POPLA using GPEOL argument, plus say long queue at the tills and POPLA may agree my appeal ?

 

When i was in the local Lidl they had many people with tickets complaining at the tills. Not sure how they spent 90 minutes on a shopping trip, but one was an old lady who needed a walking stick to get around.

[Bazooka Boo]

Yes most definitely!

Plus a formal complaint to Lidl management saying that you will never shop there again because of their

clueless PPC, the fact that you have shopped at the store, and that the car park is free, so there is NO loss

to anyone, least of all the extortionate £60 parking lie try and con out of drivers.

[armadillo71]

Explain more please.

 

E.g if i parked at say Lidl and overstayed the 90 minutes allowed and received a parking ticket, what would you advise. I am the sole driver of the vehicle and i did overstay the 90 minutes free parking. There are loads of signs explaining the parking at the entrance to the car park, throughout the carpark and inside the store. I am provided with evidence of my car being in the car park beyond the 90 minutes allowed.

 

Athena are the normal PPC for Lidl I believe. As you parked in the car park to shop in Lidl, then provide a copy of the drivers receipt and the charge will be cancelled.

 

Or is that not on the loads of signs at the entrance and throughout the car park and inside the store??

 

No it is not. A hidden clause then...

[unclebulgaria67]

Athena are the normal PPC for Lidl I believe. As you parked in the car park to shop in Lidl, then provide a copy of the drivers receipt and the charge will be cancelled.

 

Or is that not on the loads of signs at the entrance and throughout the car park and inside the store??

 

No it is not. A hidden clause then...

 

Never had a parking ticket. I always check parking signs to see the conditions for usage and have never gone beyond the time allowed.

 

But plenty of people don't read signs or ignore what they say !

 

They make good money from these private parking fees and they will pursue them.

 

It is deciding the best way to deal with it, which i guess depends on each individual circumstance.

[armadillo71]

You asked the question in post# 13.

 

I answered it.

[unclebulgaria67]

You asked the question in post# 13.

 

I answered it.

 

Yes !

 

Perhaps an idiots guide to private parking taking into account new laws would be useful. I.e a simple flow chart.

[armadillo71]

Yes !

 

Perhaps an idiots guide to private parking taking into account new laws would be useful. I.e a simple flow chart.

 

A 'simple ' flow chart is not that simple to do and would be quite time consuming!

 

There are some on other websites but they become out of date when you consider different ATAs and whether a certain PPC is using the POFA etc. Also the Beavis result may or may not change things dramatically when we hear it....

 

Also GPEOL is not a winner at POPLA currently due to Beavis.

 

The current winner is lack of standing.

[unclebulgaria67]

Lacking of standing ?

 

What would be a typical situation for a successful appeal using this ?

[armadillo71]

Lacking of standing ?

 

What would be a typical situation for a successful appeal using this ?

 

You request proof at POPLA that the PPC has the authority to issue and pursue parking charge notices at the site in question.

 

This does not work at the kangaroo IAS, but then not much does...

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?446777-POPLA-win-on-no-contract.