Disabled Parking Bay's
- Thread starter Swordfish
- Start date
No, I don't condone lying to them. A letter just has to say: Please address this letter to the driver of the car. I am the registered keeper. If you have any evidence that I was also the driver at the time, please provide it to me."
You could have been the driver as well, but they don't know this and you are not lying. Remember that a car can belong to one person but have 2/3 people insured to drive it.
Only one insured to drive I'm afraid
You can let people with DOC cover drive it.
You have no legal obligation to pay it. Look here for one of the members getting a private parking ticket. http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showthread.php?t=17639302&highlight=728i
swordfish that doesn't matter - your car could have been driven by someone who was using DOC...
If it's private land, as has already been stated the law is rather complicated but it boils down to
1: A company cannot fine an individual.
2: The companies will argue that by parking their the driver entered a contract with them (dubious)
3: They can only contact the registered keeper via the DVLA - the registered keeper may be one of multiple drivers, or may not even drive (and thus no contract with them*...)
4: They cannot force the registered keeper to name the driver...at least not outside of court and it's unlikely they will take it that far due to costs and the outcome being far from certain.
I'm not suggesting anything, but you could ask for proof of the driver at the time - a picture or similar (i'd ask for that just to be bloody awkward regardless of if I was the driver, or if it was a disabled spot/normal spot).
I really dislike the current manner in which private companies are setting what are often unrealistic parking restrictions for their customers - mcdonalds trying to fine people wor spending more than 45 minutes in their carpark (not exactly long at busy times), supermarkets 2-3 hours - especially when they are big stores with restraunts/cafe's inside etc.
*At the moment my car has 3 drivers on the insurance, and 2 of them aren't the registered keeper - in the past our cars have been registered in my mum's name and she's never had more than a provisional licence (20-30 years ago).
If it's private land, as has already been stated the law is rather complicated but it boils down to
1: A company cannot fine an individual.
2: The companies will argue that by parking their the driver entered a contract with them (dubious)
3: They can only contact the registered keeper via the DVLA - the registered keeper may be one of multiple drivers, or may not even drive (and thus no contract with them*...)
4: They cannot force the registered keeper to name the driver...at least not outside of court and it's unlikely they will take it that far due to costs and the outcome being far from certain.
I'm not suggesting anything, but you could ask for proof of the driver at the time - a picture or similar (i'd ask for that just to be bloody awkward regardless of if I was the driver, or if it was a disabled spot/normal spot).
I really dislike the current manner in which private companies are setting what are often unrealistic parking restrictions for their customers - mcdonalds trying to fine people wor spending more than 45 minutes in their carpark (not exactly long at busy times), supermarkets 2-3 hours - especially when they are big stores with restraunts/cafe's inside etc.
*At the moment my car has 3 drivers on the insurance, and 2 of them aren't the registered keeper - in the past our cars have been registered in my mum's name and she's never had more than a provisional licence (20-30 years ago).
What this guy said, who was the fine from? If its from one of these local people dont pay it nothing they can do about it.
Fine was from Central Ticketing. Letter already states that he was driving, so no joy with that avenue.
I'm gonna pay fine for him to get matter solved but for the next time knowledge is power!!!
I'm gonna pay fine for him to get matter solved but for the next time knowledge is power!!!
To build on one of gilly's points, the company cannot impose a 'fine' on him, they are however entitled to seek reasonable damages from him. The notion that they suffered to the tune of anywhere near £60 due to his overstaying his hour for a bit is laughable.
Point out that punative terms are probhibited, and challenge them to jusify why they think they are entitled to £60 for losses that most resonanble folk would place at under a fiver
Point out that punative terms are probhibited, and challenge them to jusify why they think they are entitled to £60 for losses that most resonanble folk would place at under a fiver
HA! i had one from these guys last year for parking "obstuctively" ( my tyre was on the white line due to the guy next to me being so far across as well ) . I just told them to sod off by letter and that was the end of that.
They would have to take you to court to enforce it and they dont stand a cat in hells chance of winning so they wont. If they pass it onto a debt collector simply inform the collector that the debt is still in contention and to not harras you again, if they do you will report them ( they can get into big trouble for harrasing people for money where the case isnt settled ).
In short tell them to go swing for it.
theres a way to solve it and be £60 better off.........dont pay it
send a letter back telling them to **** *** politey of course
I think you are can work and still claim some disability benefits at the same time.
Yup - disability living allowance, mobility component for example is down to how disabled you are and disregards your financial circumstances completely (it's to help with the cost of getting around, over and above what would be the case if you weren't disabled).
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 17 Nov 2003
- Posts
- 36,750
- Location
- Southampton, UK
Simply don't pay it, unless you want to waste money. Even if they took you to court, they could only claim damages amounting to the parking fee on that day. It would be a lot cheaper to pay this than £60.
Read the clipping from this post, it's all you need to know: http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12028886&postcount=19
Burnsy
Last edited:
Even if you admitted that they were the driver then you can claim that the penalty is an unfair term in a consumer contract.
Last time I got a private ticket for overstaying my welcome at a supermarket car park (while I was shopping in the supermarket
) I sent something similar to the following:
Furthermore, and in the alternative, even if a contract were to exist with the driver of the vehicle (which is denied) the charges would amount to an unfair term in a consumer contract as per the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract regulations [Statutory Instrument 1999 No. 2083], Unfair Contract Terms Act [1977], and common law.
I refer you to the cases of:
• Lord Elphinstone v. Monkland Iron and Coal Co [1886]
• Wilson v. Love [1896]
• Castaneda and Others v. Clydebank Engineering and Shipbuilding Co., Ltd. [1904] 12 SLT 498
• Commissioner of Public Works v Hills [1906] AC 368
• Campbell Discount Co Ltd v Bridge [1962] AC 600
• Philips v The Attorney General of Hong Kong [1993] 61 BLR 41
• Murray v. Leisureplay (2004)
• First Commercial Bank and Others v. the Owners of "Mandarin Container", "Kingdom Container" and "Liberty Container" (2004).
Every time they sent me a letter I sent the same thing back. Couple of months later and they appear to have given up
Last time I got a private ticket for overstaying my welcome at a supermarket car park (while I was shopping in the supermarket
) I sent something similar to the following:Furthermore, and in the alternative, even if a contract were to exist with the driver of the vehicle (which is denied) the charges would amount to an unfair term in a consumer contract as per the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract regulations [Statutory Instrument 1999 No. 2083], Unfair Contract Terms Act [1977], and common law.
I refer you to the cases of:
• Lord Elphinstone v. Monkland Iron and Coal Co [1886]
• Wilson v. Love [1896]
• Castaneda and Others v. Clydebank Engineering and Shipbuilding Co., Ltd. [1904] 12 SLT 498
• Commissioner of Public Works v Hills [1906] AC 368
• Campbell Discount Co Ltd v Bridge [1962] AC 600
• Philips v The Attorney General of Hong Kong [1993] 61 BLR 41
• Murray v. Leisureplay (2004)
• First Commercial Bank and Others v. the Owners of "Mandarin Container", "Kingdom Container" and "Liberty Container" (2004).
Every time they sent me a letter I sent the same thing back. Couple of months later and they appear to have given up