Another parking ticket myth finally slain.

[BigglesPiP]

1. Contest it with Parking Eye - Use the letter templates from Money Saving Experts
2. They'll inform you that you've failed and will provide you a POPLA code

I was following this in parallel with my complaint to Odeon, they actually had to write to me and tell me my appeal had been successful since the land operator told them cancel it.

DO write to the company as well, as is mentioned on money saving expert, write a assertive complaint that DOES NOT confirm you were the driver.

 

[Nasher]

You have to respond or it will go to debt collectors and you won't be able to contest it, as it costs them something like £27 to run your plate through the DVLA to get your address.

1. Contest it with Parking Eye - Use the letter templates from Money Saving Experts
2. They'll inform you that you've failed and will provide you a POPLA code
3. Contest with POPLA
4. Win

Takes around 2 months for the entire process, this does not work with all parking tickets though.

MW

Yes but surely they need to know who to actually chase for the money. The DVLA only supplies them with the registered keeper.

 

[eatcustard]

I cant understand why some people think its ok to flout other "companies" rules when its clearly signed.

2 hours free then its £85, park with the lines or its £85
Its not hard to understand is it. If you dont like it park somewhere else.

 

[Mr-White]

It doesn't cost £27 to get registered keeper's details. It costs £2.50.

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/436690/V888_200315.pdf

A POPLA appeal does cost them £27 though.

Secondly they have to get a CCJ before being able to pursue debt in any meaningful way. Just passing it onto debt collectors is ineffective as you can just ignore them.

I re-read my thread from 18 months ago and it just says Parking Eye get charged £27+VAT per ticket, I must have made the rest up to where they actually get charged that lol. Also explains why they never defended them selves.

Yes but surely they need to know who to actually chase for the money. The DVLA only supplies them with the registered keeper.

No idea, I didn't let my ticket go that far to require further research

MW

 

[Bear]

Yes but surely they need to know who to actually chase for the money. The DVLA only supplies them with the registered keeper.

They don't care, they expect the registered keeper to tell who the driver was and if they don't, then they chase the registered keeper for the money

 

[pugheaven]

The problem with these things is fairly simple - the charges and conditions are punitive and often excessive.

Lets take this specific example - the claimant visited the retail park for 3 hours. If this retail park is like most others in the UK, it offers no way to pay for parking - you park for free. There is no pay and display. Most have a 2 hour limit. What if you wish to visit the retail park for 3 hours? How can you pay? How can you ensure the landowner is compensated?

You cannot.

You will doubtless argue, as you always do, presumably with use of the word 'strawman' 6 times, that if you don't like the rules you should simply not use the land. And in a world of black and white that's entirely the correct response.

But of course when you use a retail park like that you are not deciding to visit ABC Land Securities Ltd's carpark. You are visiting McDonalds, then perhaps Home Bargains, maybe Halfords. None of whom own the carpark...

In the retail park in Worcester there is a Pizza Hut. Inside this Pizza Hut there are enormous signs warning you about the problems they have with the carpark - it has 2 hour limit and presumably I guess for some people a family trip to Pizza Hut takes more than that, especially if they shop beforehand. So the operation of these schemes clearly adversely affects both tenant retailers and customers. There shouldn't be a need for apologetic signs warning you about the draconian parking restrictions in a Pizza Hut. People will generally respect and appreciate the purpose of regulations if they perceive them to be reasonable.

Nobody would dispute that parking on somebodies driveway or private carpark is wrong, but in the case of freely provided parking spaces for retail establishments if they made reasonable conditions for the use of the land then they'd cut out 90% of the noise from this sort of thing leaving just the genuine **** takers to deal with.

Well said!

 

[pugheaven]

I know in the past one one in Llandudno, I came out of the one side of the retail park after having dinner there etc, and I started the car, went out and back in again lol.

I did recently go through a case where I'd broken down in a services at Elton J14 M56. I'd pulled in for an hours kip as was tired. Alarm went off, car wouldn't start. Obviously by the time I'd fixed the problem it was over 2 hours. Couple of weeks later got a fine, to which I said stick it, I was broken down. they sent around 5 threatening letters to which I replied stating I will persue my own line of legal action if I receive ONE more letter, they backed down and bogged off.

 

[Nasher]

They don't care, they expect the registered keeper to tell who the driver was and if they don't, then they chase the registered keeper for the money

Only the council/police can force the keeper to pay up or hand over the driver's details though.

They could drag it through a civil court i suppose, but without KNOWING who the driver was it's just speculation.

 

[Dolph]

So...

That question on how it's a myth if it's needed case law to prove it?

It's a myth because it never stood a chance of being upheld. Forcing a case to the supreme court doesn't really change that. At every stage the judgement was clear.

 

[Dolph]

Only the council/police can force the keeper to pay up or hand over the driver's details though.

They could drag it through a civil court i suppose, but without KNOWING who the driver was it's just speculation.

That's not how it works since clamping was banned in 2012. The legislation specifically allows the parking company to invoice the keeper in some situations.

http://www.parkingcowboys.co.uk/keeper-liability/

 

[spoffle]

It's a myth because it never stood a chance of being upheld. Forcing a case to the supreme court doesn't really change that. At every stage the judgement was clear.

Yet it needed to be tried to be proven, so no...

 

[Itchytrigg]

Fox really has it in my eyes, free parking for x time and if overstay an ability to pay an amount for additional time.

This is how many a supermarket use to operate in town centres, in mine the Sainsbury's do. If I spend £15 in shopping I get 2 hours free parking, anything more is x per hour. It's by far the most popular car park in town. Use to be Morrisons, but the combination of clamping down on those outstaying their 2 hour free parking, and no ability to pay for more has driven customers away.

Ideal situation I know, but to me shows how being fair, upfront and reasonable can get you a long way. When it's a retail park with no parking alternatives, there's no incentive for the landowner to do anything other than charge high fees to those that overstay.

 

[spoffle]

Fox really has it in my eyes, free parking for x time and if overstay an ability to pay an amount for additional time.

This is how many a supermarket use to operate in town centres, in mine the Sainsbury's do. If I spend £15 in shopping I get 2 hours free parking, anything more is x per hour. It's by far the most popular car park in town. Use to be Morrisons, but the combination of clamping down on those outstaying their 2 hour free parking, and no ability to pay for more has driven customers away.

Ideal situation I know, but to me shows how being fair, upfront and reasonable can get you a long way. When it's a retail park with no parking alternatives, there's no incentive for the landowner to do anything other than charge high fees to those that overstay.

Well to me, it appears they don't do it like that to give themselves justification to try these fines on.