Parking Charge Notice

Merlin5 · 14 Jul 2020 at 14:31

Hi guys. I parked to go to Aldi which is right opposite a parking space for offices. So I parked in the office space around 8pm where the offices are closed after 6.30pm. In fact I've parked there a few times but this one time a camera caught me. To be honest, I was in the wrong but obviously have tried to get out of paying it. I posted about it at pepipoo. I've been there several times over the years and I've always won with their help. However this time I don't feel I've got much chance of winning and may well have to suck it up. Here's what's happened if you can be bothered to read it and I don't blame you if you don't want to.

So I got a PCN from UK Car Park Management last month, they want me to pay £100 or the usual £60 reduced amount if I pay within 14 days.

Here's the PCN:

Then I was told by pepipoo to write this letter which is what I sent as an appeal:

Then I received this reply, turning down my appeal.

Then the guy at pepipoo said "So a gamble with court and they may blink first. No contract is a major point. They always do reject an appeal, there's no money in accepting".

I said to him "I don't feel confident representing myself in court, I won't be able to say or remember all the legal stuff needed to win. The way I see it, the judge would agree with them and say that it's a cut and dried case because the sign says no parking without a permit, no? And if I lose, it'll be £100 plus costs."

No one else has waded in on that thread since and it makes me wonder if it's because they don't think I have a particularly strong case. Is it worth appealing any further or shall I just pay the £60? I was given another 14 days at the reduced £60 from the date of their reply letter which was the 8th. So I've got until the 21st if I'm going to pay it.

rhysduck · 14 Jul 2020 at 14:38

Ignore it. Should have ignored the first letter to be honest.

Dis86 · 14 Jul 2020 at 14:39

Seems to me like they would lose on justifying why the fine is £100 for no loss incurred by themselves.

Delta3D · 14 Jul 2020 at 14:41

Personally I'd say they're not happy that they'd win that case judging by the fact they've turned around and given you another chance at £60.

Last time I got one if you appealed it and they refused the appeal they'd whack it up to the full amount. You could probably fight that and win easy enough but obviously you've got to weigh out the risks you'd like to take

omnomnom · 14 Jul 2020 at 14:42

rhysduck said:
Ignore it. Should have ignored the first letter to be honest.

Yea dont do this.

Write to them again and ask if you can settle on 50% or similar is what id do personally. Ignoring it is pretty silly tbh.

Kenai · 14 Jul 2020 at 14:54

You're now at the point where no matter what anyone here says, you really have two (obvious) options open now:

1.) Give it up, pay the £60, avoid parking somewhere you know you shouldn't in future (or try to barter less than £60 as omnomnom suggests)

2.) Call their bluff, go through the next route of appeal, be prepared to see it all the way through to court, because they may well feel confident enough in their position to take it that far - if you go this route, you have to be prepared to see it through, if you bail out after trying to take it further you'll probably end up in a position where you're on the hook for £100 instead of £60. The ultimate risk is that they win and you have additional costs on top of the £100 fine.

Whilst I know plenty of people will happily post on here to tell you you're an idiot for doing so, personally for me the potential for grief and aggravation, maybe court cases etc. to get out of a fine incurred by knowingly parking somewhere you shouldn't have isn't worth £60 of my life.

This is exactly what these companies rely on and why they pick this sort of number - it's small enough that most people would rather just lose £60 than deal with the potential for aggro but it's easy to sit and say 'fight them all the way' when it's not you that's got to personally deal with the fighting.

Merlin5 · 14 Jul 2020 at 15:01

I agree with you Kenai tbh and feel very inclined to just write it off and pay the £60. I don't want to be going to court and taking on the stress of it. It's easy for me to write legal jargon and examples told to me by the experts at pepipoo, but what chance do I have standing in court with no one to help me say the right things, lol.
And from what I've read on pepipoo, this particular parking company are the most pro-active in litigation.

I can try and barter but what shall I say to them? "Dear sir, I accept your reply and would be grateful if we could settle on £40". Something like that?

Kenai · 14 Jul 2020 at 15:08

Dis86 said:
Seems to me like they would lose on justifying why the fine is £100 for no loss incurred by themselves.

I may be wrong but I believe since Parking Eye vs Beavis went to the Supreme Court on this topic and Parking Eye in effect won, that this is not necessarily a slam dunk win in terms of a route of appeal.

PiKe · 14 Jul 2020 at 15:18

Doesn't ALDI have its own carpark?

You admitted you were in the wrong in the OP so just pay it.

Merlin5 · 14 Jul 2020 at 15:34

PiKe said:
Doesn't ALDI have its own carpark?

You admitted you were in the wrong in the OP so just pay it.

Yes Aldi does have it's own cark park round the back, but I wasn't going to pay £1 (I'm a tight git

) when I can park right opposite for free. However, now that I know I can't park there anymore, I'll just put the car in a place that's fine to park, a 5 minute walk away which is where I normally park during the day to go to Aldi.

PiKe · 14 Jul 2020 at 15:41

Look at it this way, if you've parked there 60 times without getting fined, you've not actually lost out anyway.

Delta3D · 14 Jul 2020 at 15:51

Kenai said:
I may be wrong but I believe since Parking Eye vs Beavis went to the Supreme Court on this topic and Parking Eye in effect won, that this is not necessarily a slam dunk win in terms of a route of appeal.

You're correct with this.

Seems crazy that it got to Supreme Court!

Bear · 14 Jul 2020 at 16:53

Dis86 said:
Seems to me like they would lose on justifying why the fine is £100 for no loss incurred by themselves.

There is a loss though as there is an admin cost associated with issuing the ticket and the admin cost associated with the appeal. Whether you think it’s worth £60 is up for discussion but I don’t think it’s that unreasonable. It’s not £100

Raymond Lin · 14 Jul 2020 at 17:02

Delta3D said:
You're correct with this.

Seems crazy that it got to Supreme Court!

Some people thinks principles are worth the money and effort, until they lose.

Merlin5 · 14 Jul 2020 at 17:23

Thanks guys, however, I've decided I'm going to pay. Having now shared this with you and getting differing opinions, it doesn't feel quite so bad to pay it anymore.

Still, can anyone suggest a good way to word a settlement as suggested by omnomnom? But then, if they reply after my 14 day deadline to pay £60, they might then say I have to pay £100, so it might be risky wasting more time asking them to negotiate.

NVP · 14 Jul 2020 at 17:57

rhysduck said:
Ignore it. Should have ignored the first letter to be honest.

omnomnom said:
Yea dont do this.

Write to them again and ask if you can settle on 50% or similar is what id do personally. Ignoring it is pretty silly tbh.

It is what I have done and continue to do with anything not from the council - if one of the debt management companies down the line really want to take me to court I'll pay it then with an additional, hard earned bonus.

Although in this instance and where you're currently at, just fork over the £60 and skip on a meal out one week as recompense (??)

Dis86 · 14 Jul 2020 at 18:04

Kenai said:
I may be wrong but I believe since Parking Eye vs Beavis went to the Supreme Court on this topic and Parking Eye in effect won, that this is not necessarily a slam dunk win in terms of a route of appeal.

Interesting. Still, since it's outside of office hours it would surely be a hard justification for them.

Kenai · 14 Jul 2020 at 18:10

Dis86 said:
Interesting. Still, since it's outside of office hours it would surely be a hard justification for them.

I think the ultimate point of the ruling (as far as parking charges are concerned at least) was that they don't actually have to justify any kind of loss at all, the charge are in effect acceptable on a 'deterrent' basis (as long as they're not excessive, which is where the magic £60/£100 figures come in), as it would otherwise not be possible or practical to stop people parking when or where they shouldn't.

Dis86 · 14 Jul 2020 at 18:14

Kenai said:
I think the ultimate point of the ruling (as far as parking charges are concerned at least) was that they don't actually have to justify any kind of loss at all, the charge are in effect acceptable on a 'deterrent' basis (as long as they're not excessive, which is where the magic £60/£100 figures come in), as it would otherwise not be possible or practical to stop people parking when or where they shouldn't.

I disagree, I think you can levy a more reasonable charge as a deterrent. However...in this instance, why shouldn't he park there? It's outside office hours by a long stretch and highly unlikely someone will require the space.

Kenai · 14 Jul 2020 at 18:36

Dis86 said:
I disagree, I think you can levy a more reasonable charge as a deterrent. However...in this instance, why shouldn't he park there? It's outside office hours by a long stretch and highly unlikely someone will require the space.

I'm sure you do disagree (and FWIW I think it's a bit of a **** take too) but I'm just relaying on what the supreme court said.

Unlike in Cavendish v El Makdessi, the penalty rule is engaged. However, the £85 charge is not a penalty.
Both ParkingEye and the landowners had a legitimate interest in charging overstaying motorists, which
extended beyond the recovery of any loss. The interest of the landowners was the provision and
efficient management of customer parking for the retail outlets. The interest of ParkingEye was in
income from the charge, which met the running costs of a legitimate scheme plus a profit margin [99].
Further, the charge was neither extravagant nor unconscionable, having regard to practice around the
United Kingdom, and taking into account the use of this particular car park and the clear wording of
the notices [100-101].

They deemed £85 wasn't 'extravagant or unconscionable', I don't think you'd get very far trying to argue the case otherwise so soon after the Supreme Court laid out the above.