Darn it, parking 'ticket'
- Thread starter Dup
- Start date
Soldato
Did you just teach your dog to eat paperwork? You'll love that trick next time.
Soldato
Parking tickets for overstaying must represent the loss to the landowner, if it is a free car park they have no financial loss, therefore, the "invoice" it is an invoice not a ticket, is unenforceable.
If it goes to court, they will likely lose.
If it goes to court, they will likely lose.
This.
Ask them to chase the driver for the fine, not the registered keeper. Also add that if they write to you requesting the money again, you'll consider it harassment.
Wrong, DO ignore it. They've got nothing on you, they rely on idiots to pay up. It's a scam.
Well played.
Soldato
Please tell me your other dog is called Hedges.
Associate
- Joined
- 30 Nov 2003
- Posts
- 2,211
They're introducing this sort of parking management at work. 
I was off for a week, went back, saw the posters up all over the staff offices, and shouted "WWWAAAAAAAAAAAAIIIIIIIIIII?".
£80 if you stay more than 1.5/2 hours, I think it is. They're getting ANPR cameras put up at the entrance that just log when the reg plate enters and exits and automatically sends out a fake fine if it's longer than the time agreed with B&Q.
We have to give our reg plates to HR or something, but seeing as we evening staff work when there is no one in HR, I can't really be arsed.
Are these really unenforcable? Are they just relying on people being scared into paying them?
The only possible reason for introducing these is because the left hand top end of the massive car park is used by commuters during the day. But then that doesn't matter... BECAUSE THERE'S STILL HUNDREDS OF FREE SPACES.
Grrr.
I was off for a week, went back, saw the posters up all over the staff offices, and shouted "WWWAAAAAAAAAAAAIIIIIIIIIII?".
£80 if you stay more than 1.5/2 hours, I think it is. They're getting ANPR cameras put up at the entrance that just log when the reg plate enters and exits and automatically sends out a fake fine if it's longer than the time agreed with B&Q.
We have to give our reg plates to HR or something, but seeing as we evening staff work when there is no one in HR, I can't really be arsed.
Are these really unenforcable? Are they just relying on people being scared into paying them?
The only possible reason for introducing these is because the left hand top end of the massive car park is used by commuters during the day. But then that doesn't matter... BECAUSE THERE'S STILL HUNDREDS OF FREE SPACES.
Grrr.
They're introducing this sort of parking management at work.
I was off for a week, went back, saw the posters up all over the staff offices, and shouted "WWWAAAAAAAAAAAAIIIIIIIIIII?".
£80 if you stay more than 1.5/2 hours, I think it is. They're getting ANPR cameras put up at the entrance that just log when the reg plate enters and exits and automatically sends out a fake fine if it's longer than the time agreed with B&Q.
We have to give our reg plates to HR or something, but seeing as we evening staff work when there is no one in HR, I can't really be arsed.
Are these really unenforcable? Are they just relying on people being scared into paying them?
The only possible reason for introducing these is because the left hand top end of the massive car park is used by commuters during the day. But then that doesn't matter... BECAUSE THERE'S STILL HUNDREDS OF FREE SPACES.
Grrr.
Yes and yes.
They rely on contract law and due to that they have problems with enforcement.
1) Assuming a contract is formed, this is as yet unproved, the contract can only be formed with the driver. It is up to the PPC to prove who the driver is, the registered keeper is not obliged to give up the name of the driver to a PPC.
2) They can only claim losses against breach of contract, for a free car-park the losses amount to zero, for a paid car-park the losses amount to the price of a parking ticket.
3) A contract cannot contain unfair terms or penalties, the fees they aim to collect would likely be looked upon by a court as a penalty and this would negate their claim.
4) Most paperwork issued by PPCs can be argued to make false and probably fraudulent claims.
IANAL.
Associate
- Joined
- 30 Nov 2003
- Posts
- 2,211
Thought so.
The only thing that would concern me about ignoring it is that you're doing it on the basis that they can't prove who was driving - surely if the enforcement is based on CCTV footage, there's a reasonable chance they will have this proof?
Soldato
ignore it and dont worry about it, also your dog rocks
The PPC proving who the driver is only the first of the many problems they face, even if they have you bang to rights as the driver they would then have to prove:
1) That a contract was formed.
2) That they have a loss to recover.
3) That the amount of that loss is in anyway equivalent to the exhorting fee that they are trying to collect.
They know can't do any of the above so they only send out ever more threatening letters with increasing sums, hoping for a pay-out. They threaten court, they send out fake solicitors letters.
If on the very rare occasions they do try court then prove who the driver is, is the first line of defence but it is far from the only line of defence.
Soldato
tell them to foxtrot oscar!
You will have to go to court, and if you were going to court, you would definatley hear about it
You will have to go to court, and if you were going to court, you would definatley hear about it
The parking charge notice in the OP makes false and probably fraudulent claims.
"On the specified date, you were the registered owner, keeper or hirer of the vehicle in question. As such you are responsible to ensure that the terms and conditions for parking, as set down and clearly displayed in the car park, are complied with. Therefore you are required to pay the following excess parking charge within 28 days from this notice."
They have no claim in law against the registered owner, keeper or hirer and only an unproved and very dubious claim against the driver.
For them to claim that the registered owner, keeper or hirer is responsible is at best factually incorrect and at worst a blatant lie.
It would be laughed out of court.
"On the specified date, you were the registered owner, keeper or hirer of the vehicle in question. As such you are responsible to ensure that the terms and conditions for parking, as set down and clearly displayed in the car park, are complied with. Therefore you are required to pay the following excess parking charge within 28 days from this notice."
They have no claim in law against the registered owner, keeper or hirer and only an unproved and very dubious claim against the driver.
For them to claim that the registered owner, keeper or hirer is responsible is at best factually incorrect and at worst a blatant lie.
It would be laughed out of court.
Also, DVLA should not provide people's details for such purposes as the registered keeper has nothing to do with the "contract" they base their "fine" on.
Last edited:
Associate
My mum and dad got one of these, they pied it off and it is now in some shredded pieces.
I had a similar experience almost a year ago. The company, Vehicle Control Services of Sheffield (which is registered to the same address as Excel Parking) went away for a while but I now have a letter from Roxburghe debt collectors and a new one from solicitor Michael Sobell - who trades under the name of Graham White, for some reason.
Each letter is more hilarious than the last, full of bold writing and misleading or false claims.
Each letter is more hilarious than the last, full of bold writing and misleading or false claims.
Permabanned
Ignore it. I've loads of unpaid private 'parking tickets' from when I was working in the city centre.
They've no legal authority whatsoever. They are not official parking attendants and it's a scam.
The last ticket I never paid was priceless:
"If you do not pay within 7 days we will begin proceedings against you at Liverpool crown court." (paraphrased)
2 weeks later:
"This is a final demand for the sum of £XX.XX amount. If you do not pay within 7 days our client has been instructed to begin legal proceedings against you to recover the debt." (paraphrased)
2 weeks later:
"Because you have failed to pay the debt owed to our client, our Commercial Investigator will be calling on ..... to discuss the pending legal case against you."
No-one came. Lucky for him. Although the laws are a bit different in Scotland - we don't have bailiffs for a start.
**** 'em. Scamming *********.
They've no legal authority whatsoever. They are not official parking attendants and it's a scam.
The last ticket I never paid was priceless:
"If you do not pay within 7 days we will begin proceedings against you at Liverpool crown court." (paraphrased)
2 weeks later:
"This is a final demand for the sum of £XX.XX amount. If you do not pay within 7 days our client has been instructed to begin legal proceedings against you to recover the debt." (paraphrased)
2 weeks later:
"Because you have failed to pay the debt owed to our client, our Commercial Investigator will be calling on ..... to discuss the pending legal case against you."
No-one came. Lucky for him. Although the laws are a bit different in Scotland - we don't have bailiffs for a start.
**** 'em. Scamming *********.