I'd rather just pay the extra fiver for another hour ta.
Parking Charge UKCPS
- Thread starter securespark
- Start date
- Status
- Joined
- 11 Jan 2004
- Messages
- 46,038
- Reaction score
- 3,575
- Country
Nose: Well, that's just it, there were no charges for parking, so how is £100 an enforceable (and fair) penalty?
MB: Mrs Secure has sent off a letter with the wording you suggested. I posted it the other day by recorded delivery, so we shall see what happens and I will let you know.
Thank you!
MB: Mrs Secure has sent off a letter with the wording you suggested. I posted it the other day by recorded delivery, so we shall see what happens and I will let you know.
Thank you!
As do I, if it's a clearly chargeable car park.
But if some randomer wants money off me for dubious reasons, I'd establish the facts first.
- Joined
- 1 Apr 2016
- Messages
- 13,606
- Reaction score
- 550
- Country
So where do you stand in an ANPR controlled car park if you drive to pick someone up and then leave within a few minutes?
Are you liable for a fine?
Are you liable for a fine?
I'd establish the facts first.
- Joined
- 31 May 2016
- Messages
- 25,393
- Reaction score
- 5,635
- Country
Not a fine but a charge - potentially.
There is nothing in law that grants them the right to issue a parking ticket. It's all down to the terms of a contract and the ability to convince a judge that you agreed to the terms. There must be all the elements of a contract and they must show you agreed. I actually preferred the old days of clamping as you could play them at their own game.
This is an example of someone who is a bit dim, trying to create such a contract.
Its fatally flawed.
There is nothing in law that grants them the right to issue a parking ticket. It's all down to the terms of a contract and the ability to convince a judge that you agreed to the terms. There must be all the elements of a contract and they must show you agreed. I actually preferred the old days of clamping as you could play them at their own game.
This is an example of someone who is a bit dim, trying to create such a contract.
Its fatally flawed.
You stand wherever the "contract" you enter into by entering the car park says you stand.
When TFL handed over the operation of station car parks to NCP I asked them that very question, and they said that there was a 10-minute grace period so that you could drop people off, or collect them.
If you do only need to be in a car park for a few minutes you must surely be allowed the opportunity to read the terms and conditions displayed to decide if you do want to be a party to them?
- Joined
- 11 Jan 2004
- Messages
- 46,038
- Reaction score
- 3,575
- Country
I got this reply today (letterhead cut off):
This was printed on the reverse:
There are several points I immediately notice:
I don't recall seeing BPA on the other letter from them.
The date and time mentioned by them does not match the date and time on the other letter.
They are refusing to enter into further correspondence, but will discuss "the outstanding debt" by phone?
The letter is not signed, nor is there a name.
This was printed on the reverse:
There are several points I immediately notice:
I don't recall seeing BPA on the other letter from them.
The date and time mentioned by them does not match the date and time on the other letter.
They are refusing to enter into further correspondence, but will discuss "the outstanding debt" by phone?
The letter is not signed, nor is there a name.
The phrase that jumps out to me is
"We will not enter discussions about the legality of parking on private land or of the landowner's right to impose parking conditions on their property."
Which (to me, anyway) suggests one of two things:
- it has been discussed elsewhere in your correspondence(s)
- they haven't any grounds on which to get the money from you, and they're hoping you cave in anyway.
(Others will be better able to advise on this, though).
"We will not enter discussions about the legality of parking on private land or of the landowner's right to impose parking conditions on their property."
Which (to me, anyway) suggests one of two things:
- it has been discussed elsewhere in your correspondence(s)
- they haven't any grounds on which to get the money from you, and they're hoping you cave in anyway.
(Others will be better able to advise on this, though).
- Joined
- 11 Jan 2004
- Messages
- 46,038
- Reaction score
- 3,575
- Country
Thanks, Brig.
We did not discuss that, but I suspect other victims have, so they print it on the reverse Out of the way and possibly missed?).
This is what we did write, as kindly advised by MB:
In reply to your letter sent on the 16th January 2019, I have not received any previous correspondence from you regarding this claim or particulars of the parking charge and therefore dispute the debt.
In your letter, you refer to powers under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. I note that you have not complied with the necessary requirements of Schedule 4.
We did not discuss that, but I suspect other victims have, so they print it on the reverse Out of the way and possibly missed?).
This is what we did write, as kindly advised by MB:
In reply to your letter sent on the 16th January 2019, I have not received any previous correspondence from you regarding this claim or particulars of the parking charge and therefore dispute the debt.
In your letter, you refer to powers under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. I note that you have not complied with the necessary requirements of Schedule 4.
¿Que?
- Joined
- 11 Jan 2004
- Messages
- 46,038
- Reaction score
- 3,575
- Country
I presume what they mean is that there will be papers screens and conversations in the building all revealing personal data and none shall pass (unless they are employees).
- Joined
- 11 Jan 2004
- Messages
- 46,038
- Reaction score
- 3,575
- Country
Plus, it keeps the marauding riff-raff away from their domain.
https://assets.publishing.service.g...file/9155/guidance-unpaid-parking-charges.pdf
6.1 When a parking contravention is detected, a landholder may place a ticket on a vehicle or give it to the driver at the time of the contravention. In these circumstances the landholder must wait 28 days after which, if there is no response, he/she may submit a request to the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA) for details of the vehicle's registered keeper. He/she may then write to the registered keeper to seek details of the driver or payment of the parking charge.
6.2 Where a contravention is detected remotely (such as by cameras), the landholder may request registered keeper data from the DVLA immediately and must write to the registered keeper within 14 days seeking details of the driver or payment of the parking charge.
As the first you knew about it was the letter, I'm guessing they didn't ticket you (although they could claim that it could have been ripped off by A N Other, I suppose). In which case, para. 6.2 is relevant?
If so, they fail; ".....and must write to the registered keeper within 14 days......"
(If the above is correct - @motorbiking ? - I still wouldn't tell them where they're going wrong, just that they are failing.)
6.1 When a parking contravention is detected, a landholder may place a ticket on a vehicle or give it to the driver at the time of the contravention. In these circumstances the landholder must wait 28 days after which, if there is no response, he/she may submit a request to the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA) for details of the vehicle's registered keeper. He/she may then write to the registered keeper to seek details of the driver or payment of the parking charge.
6.2 Where a contravention is detected remotely (such as by cameras), the landholder may request registered keeper data from the DVLA immediately and must write to the registered keeper within 14 days seeking details of the driver or payment of the parking charge.
As the first you knew about it was the letter, I'm guessing they didn't ticket you (although they could claim that it could have been ripped off by A N Other, I suppose). In which case, para. 6.2 is relevant?
If so, they fail; ".....and must write to the registered keeper within 14 days......"
(If the above is correct - @motorbiking ? - I still wouldn't tell them where they're going wrong, just that they are failing.)
- Joined
- 31 May 2016
- Messages
- 25,393
- Reaction score
- 5,635
- Country
Having been notified that there is a problem with their claim, it would appear they are unwilling to enter in to dialogue with you. They also don't appear to dispute not sending you any previous correspondence. This looks like a standard dunning letter written to cover off anyone who argues the toss. I suspect you will be getting several more.
this letter doesn't require a reply, but subsequent more threatening letters (the letter before action setting out court costs) needs to be responded to - "As per my letter dated xx, the debt is disputed as you did not follow the procedures set out in schedule 4 of the PoF Act. You therefore have no right to recover the debt from the RK. Your opportunity to rectify this has now expired.
@Brigadier - seems reasonable, but again, its not your job to tell them what they should have done, only that they didn't do it.
this letter doesn't require a reply, but subsequent more threatening letters (the letter before action setting out court costs) needs to be responded to - "As per my letter dated xx, the debt is disputed as you did not follow the procedures set out in schedule 4 of the PoF Act. You therefore have no right to recover the debt from the RK. Your opportunity to rectify this has now expired.
@Brigadier - seems reasonable, but again, its not your job to tell them what they should have done, only that they didn't do it.
- Status
