Parking fines

[lichtgilphead]

In Scotland they have no right to know who the driver was. Fact.

Aye, but they have the right to know who the registered keeper of the vehicle was.

If I was Parking Eye, and had the registered keeper's name, address & a decent photo of someone of the same sex driving the vehicle in question in and out of the carpark, I might be willing to take a punt on raising a small claim against them.

[invergowrie arab]

I would disagree slightly with your first point, as the decision relates to a case from 2013. Wouldn't the courts come to the same conclusion for any "fine" issued after that date?

Possibly but until I get another letter from parking eye which relates to the original charge I wont be doing anything and i certainly wont be entering into any correspondence with any debt collectors.

i also have my defence of the siting of the sign all lined up. its 10 foot up ffs and i only know that because i went back to look for it. also this was at night and the signs arent lit. genuinely had no idea it was a time limited car park.

Edited November 19, 2015 by invergowrie arab

[lichtgilphead]

Possibly but until I get another letter from parking eye which relates to the original charge I wont be doing anything and i certainly wont be entering into any correspondence with any debt collectors.

i also have my defence of the siting of the sign all lined up. its 10 foot up ffs and i only know that because i went back to look for it. also this was at night and the signs arent lit. genuinely had no idea it was a time limited car park.

Don't get me wrong - I would still advocate total silence until a court summons drops through the door.

Had it happened in my case, I would have been confident of winning too - the signs were no more than a week or two old, the sign wasn't readable at the entrance & there was no sign I could have been expected to see & read between the entrance to the car-park and my exit directly into the station. When the first notification arrived, I still had the train ticket (showing date & time), and I happened to be visiting Helensburgh through work later that week - I photographed everything in tand around the carpark. I was almost disappointed when they gave up sending letters!

I've found another free carpark near Helensburgh Central though, and now use Dalreoch park & ride if I'm at meetings in Glasgow/Edinburgh

[strichener]

I have read the legal opinion you provided. Let us park (lol) the issue of this being in Scotland and who the driver is etc for one moment.

The legal opinion you have provided pre-dates the Supreme Court judgement. The basis of this advice boils down to:

Is the maximum charge of £100 recommended by British Parking Association (“BPA”) and Independent Parking Committee (“IPC”) lawful? If the £100 charge is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss then it will be deemed to be an unenforceable penalty clause. In most cases a charge of £100 is likely to be held to be an unenforceable penalty as Opinion of Mark Lindsay QC 14 it will be extravagant and unconscionable in amount in comparison with the greatest loss that could conceivably be proved to have followed from the breach.

The Supreme Court found that the £85 parking charge from parking eye need not be a genuine pre-estimate of loss as it was a commercially justifiable instrument. It therefore does not constitute a penalty clause.

They also found that the charge was not for a breach of contract but a term of the contract that was tacitly agreed to.

It is not : by parking for more than an hour you are in breach of contract and will be fined

It is: by parking here for more than an hour you agree to the terms of the contract which include a charge for parking for more than an hour

Anyway, we are into mooting territory now and I agree that the end result in Scotland is probably no change.

The legal opinion includes the ParkingEye vs Beavis Supreme Court ruling from Page 29.

Edited November 19, 2015 by strichener

[lichtgilphead]

The legal opinion includes the ParkingEye vs Beavis Supreme Court ruling from Page 29.

Sorry mate, I think you're confusing a reference to the Appeal Court (ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] EWCA Civ 402) with the Supreme Court ruling (ParkingEye Limited (Respondent) v Beavis (Appellant) [2015] UKSC 67)

I believe that the Citizens Advice Scotland paper was updated in July and has not yet been further updated to take account of the Supreme Court decision

[invergowrie arab]

The legal opinion includes the ParkingEye vs Beavis Supreme Court ruling from Page 29.

It's not, it's the court of appeal. However, I have read the ruling incorrectly in any case.

I said the court said it was not a penalty but part of the contract. In the court of appeal one of the judges said that the DE facto situation may be that that was the case but that they were not being asked to rule on that and in any case would make no difference to the consumer.

The supreme court said it was a charge for breach of contract but did not fall under the penalty clause because there was a legitimate commercial justification in charging £85 that whilst not a pre estimate of loss, was not "extravagant or unconscionable" in the circumstances.

It would appear the case has far wider implications than just parking and goes to the very heart of penalty clause. Would be interesting to see any recent commentary but it looks to me like pre estimate of loss is now entirely out the window if the charge for breach is 1. Reasonable and 2. Can be demonstrated to be necessary for the efficient running of a business.

Edited November 20, 2015 by invergowrie arab

[lichtgilphead]

The pictures I've seen from them aren't very good. Further to that, the wee disclaimer in their signs about if the driver cannot be identified etc etc doesn't apply in scots law because there is no basis for the driver to be forcibly identified.

I've seen the black and white pictures (that look like poor photocopies) that they send to their victims. Are you sure that those are the same photographs that they use in court?

I've not seen the disclaimer you refer to in any car-park in Scotland. My point doesn't relate to the disclaimer anyway!

Let's go through this in detail. Let's assume the following:

1. The signage is sufficient and that the driver overstayed the free period without any reasonable excuse.

2. Parking Eye know the registered keeper of the car and his home address as DVLA have supplied this for a small fee.

3. Parking Eye choose to take a chance & take this person to court.

4. On the balance of probabilities, the pictures are good enough to identify the driver.

5. The defendant is be in court to defend himself.

Are you seriously suggesting that the Sheriff won't compare the defendant with the photograph supplied? It's not a criminal case. All Parking Eye need to show is that it's more likely than not that the defendant is the pictured driver.

[strichener]

Sorry mate, I think you're confusing a reference to the Appeal Court (ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] EWCA Civ 402) with the Supreme Court ruling (ParkingEye Limited (Respondent) v Beavis (Appellant) [2015] UKSC 67)

I believe that the Citizens Advice Scotland paper was updated in July and has not yet been further updated to take account of the Supreme Court decision

It's not, it's the court of appeal. However, I have read the ruling incorrectly in any case.

I said the court said it was not a penalty but part of the contract. In the court of appeal one of the judges said that the DE facto situation may be that that was the case but that they were not being asked to rule on that and in any case would make no difference to the consumer.

The supreme court said it was a charge for breach of contract but did not fall under the penalty clause because there was a legitimate commercial justification in charging £85 that whilst not a pre estimate of loss, was not "extravagant or unconscionable" in the circumstances.

It would appear the case has far wider implications than just parking and goes to the very heart of penalty clause. Would be interesting to see any recent commentary but it looks to me like pre estimate of loss is now entirely out the window if the charge for breach is 1. Reasonable and 2. Can be demonstrated to be necessary for the efficient running of a business.

My mistake regarding the Supreme Court ruling.

ETA: We are going down a very dangerous route if commercial justification is replacing common law. It is actually undermining the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 by changing the underpinnings on which it was written. I cannot see a Conservative government taking the necessary parliament time to address this.

Also interesting is that the Supreme court declined to abolish the doctrine of penalties declaring that it is still necessary to protect parties from oppression in contracts which are not regulated in any other way. So basically, in terms of financial liability, we would have better protection if the Unfair Terms Regulations were abolished.

It is also interesting to see that the majority opinion even after this ruling is that it will not affect normal commercial contracts where even a whiff of discouragement will be treated as a penalty????

Edited November 20, 2015 by strichener

[Wee Bully]

We are going down a very dangerous route if commercial justification is replacing common law.

We don't really have a common law system in Scotland. Ours is a Civilian system (at least at its base)

[invergowrie arab]

We don't really have a common law system in Scotland. Ours is a Civilian system (at least at its base)

It's a mixed system and the area of law we are discussing is based on common law. The origin of common law in Scotland is distinct from the origin of English common law and is indeed drawn from the civilian or Roman system but is no less a form of common law for that.

[shawfield shed boy]

Friend got choice of 3 points and 100 for stopping on a zig zag or not paying and going to court, How long does PF got. 6 or 12months before it gies away she asks

[invergowrie arab]

Friend got choice of 3 points and 100 for stopping on a zig zag or not paying and going to court, How long does PF got. 6 or 12months before it gies away she asks

my vague recollections are that as this will be a summary case under statutory law the case must begin within 6 months of the offence having been committed, unless the act states otherwise, im assuming it will be road traffic act and im not familiar with it. The case will have commenced when a citation or warrant is granted by the court not when any trial starts.

[RandomGuy.]

UKPC have been banned from handing out fines after being caught doctoring tickets.

Ironically theyve been harrassing me for months now, and i got a letter from their "collection company" under a different name today telling me to pay in installments or ill be taken to court. Think we're now at 8 months of letters.

[Fudge]

There is a speed camera on the main road outside the estate my girlfriend and I now live in. We 'raced' there taking alternative routes from our current flat and she got flashed doing 35mph in a 30 mph zone. Get it right up her (fnarr fnarr)

[Zen Archer (Raconteur)]

There is a speed camera on the main road outside the estate my girlfriend and I now live in. We 'raced' there taking alternative routes from our current flat and she got flashed doing 35mph in a 30 mph zone. Get it right up her (fnarr fnarr)

Better than getting three points on her license.

[The Chlamydia Kid]

I got one in Falkirk from Parking eye about 3 weeks ago, just blanked and will continue to do so.

[Gaz FFC]

I got one in Falkirk from Parking eye about 3 weeks ago, just blanked and will continue to do so.

Where did u park?

Retail park, pets at home or Asda is my guess

[The Chlamydia Kid]

Was in a supermarket car park- think it was a Somerfield, was at a dentist on Grahams road

[Desp]

I've been getting letters through the door for a while now about a parking fine. It was claimed I stayed longer than the agreed 3 hours in Hamilton Asda car park. I quite clearly didn't, so have been ignoring the letters and binning them.

I got a letter at the weekend, from 'Zenith Collections'. Says they've now taken on the debt and will be chasing me for it before court action. Have offered to take reduced £80 fee to settle, rather than the full £120 fine.

What's the script with this lot? Do I carry on and ignore?

[Antlion]

I've been getting letters through the door for a while now about a parking fine. It was claimed I stayed longer than the agreed 3 hours in Hamilton Asda car park. I quite clearly didn't, so have been ignoring the letters and binning them.

I got a letter at the weekend, from 'Zenith Collections'. Says they've now taken on the debt and will be chasing me for it before court action. Have offered to take reduced £80 fee to settle, rather than the full £120 fine.

What's the script with this lot? Do I carry on and ignore?

Ignore. The fact they're "willing" to accept a lower sum than the one they're trying to bilk you out of pretty much illustrates how these chancers operate. If even 5% of people are hoodwinked into thinking "oh, wow, if I pay that I'll be saving a few quid" then they've got more than the *nothing* they get from the other 95%.