Parking fines

[killiepiemuncher]

What's the average length of time do these cowboys keep the debt going. Or will I be offered chances to pay into my decrepit old age.

Sent from my iPhone using Pie & Bovril

[welshbairn]

What's the average length of time do these cowboys keep the debt going. Or will I be offered chances to pay into my decrepit old age.

Sent from my iPhone using Pie & Bovril

They gave up after about 6 months in my case.

[Grim O'Grady]

What's the average length of time do these cowboys keep the debt going. Or will I be offered chances to pay into my decrepit old age.

Sent from my iPhone using Pie & Bovril

You'll be thankful that someone's bothering to write to you at that age.

^^^

TMADT for this pish

Grimbo

[nsr]

My old man once received a letter demanding payment for parking illegally in Camden Town, which was impressive considering he's never been to Camden Town in his life and the vehicle captured by the camera was clearly a car while my dad's was a motorcycle.

[Gaz FFC]

Love this thread when someone else has a ticket that won't be getting paid.

Keep up the iffy parking guys

[killiepiemuncher]

Love this thread when someone else has a ticket that won't be getting paid.

Keep up the iffy parking guys

I don't think it's iffy parking just unfair picky rules some places apply.

I go to Tesco silverburn go in buy some stuff the as like everybody else does goes into the shopping centre. I potter about for a while shopping and take in a film at the cinema. Four hours pass and get fined for spending some money and keeping them all in a job.

I thing that really gets on my tits is that I spend a fortune with tesco. £100 a month in fuel. £50 a week shopping. £300 on car insurance. I even spent £250 on specks and £15 a month phone contract.

They really know how to lose customers. Fuckin angry.

Sent from my iPhone using Pie & Bovril

[Gaz FFC]

I don't think it's iffy parking just unfair picky rules some places apply.

I go to Tesco silverburn go in buy some stuff the as like everybody else does goes into the shopping centre. I potter about for a while shopping and take in a film at the cinema. Four hours pass and get fined for spending some money and keeping them all in a job.

I thing that really gets on my tits is that I spend a fortune with tesco. £100 a month in fuel. £50 a week shopping. £300 on car insurance. I even spent £250 on specks and £15 a month phone contract.

They really know how to lose customers. Fuckin angry.

Sent from my iPhone using Pie & Bovril

I hear you.

My favourite part is they lose your custom and you don't pay the fine either.

Boom!!!! Double whammy.

[Cardinal Richelieu]

Love this thread when someone else has a ticket that won't be getting paid.

Keep up the iffy parking guys

Got a ticket.

Not going to pay it.

[welshbairn]

I don't think it's iffy parking just unfair picky rules some places apply.

I go to Tesco silverburn go in buy some stuff the as like everybody else does goes into the shopping centre. I potter about for a while shopping and take in a film at the cinema. Four hours pass and get fined for spending some money and keeping them all in a job.

I thing that really gets on my tits is that I spend a fortune with tesco. £100 a month in fuel. £50 a week shopping. £300 on car insurance. I even spent £250 on specks and £15 a month phone contract.

They really know how to lose customers. Fuckin angry.

Sent from my iPhone using Pie & Bovril

I got done for overstaying by ten minutes at Lidl once, just after shopping there. Phoned up Lidl HQ in a fury and they got it quashed, just had to send the parking company proof of spending.

[Antlion]

I don't think it's iffy parking just unfair picky rules some places apply.

I go to Tesco silverburn go in buy some stuff the as like everybody else does goes into the shopping centre. I potter about for a while shopping and take in a film at the cinema. Four hours pass and get fined for spending some money and keeping them all in a job.

I thing that really gets on my tits is that I spend a fortune with tesco. £100 a month in fuel. £50 a week shopping. £300 on car insurance. I even spent £250 on specks and £15 a month phone contract.

They really know how to lose customers. Fuckin angry.

Sent from my iPhone using Pie & Bovril

You haven't been fined, ticketed or anything else. Bin it - it is designed to look like a parking ticket but legally is an "invoice", the basis of which is that you entered into a contract when you entered the car park owned by a private parking company, and then broke the contract by overstaying. There is nothing they will do beyond sending you begging letters dressed as threats. Bin them too.

['WellDel]

The wife got one in the Airdrie Aldi carpark over 18 months ago , got 4th letter in last week after a long silence which was from 'debt recovery agency' , aye nae bother - bins getting rather full now .

Basically ,

FPN - FPN on letter is Fixed Penalty Notice - Issued by police - Pay .

PCN - Penalty Charge Notice - Issued by local authority - Pay .

PCN - Parking Charge Notice - Issued by private parking company , made to look like local authority notice but absolutely unenforceable waste of paper - Bin it tae F*ck .

[RandomGuy.]

I'm at six months now, and an £160 "debt". Very interesting

[Lisa Cuddy]

The wife got one in the Airdrie Aldi carpark over 18 months ago , got 4th letter in last week after a long silence which was from 'debt recovery agency' , aye nae bother - bins getting rather full now

Mate, you need to empty your bins a bit more often.

[lichtgilphead]

Sorry to piss on everyone's chips, but a case was decided at the Supreme Court earlier on this month. As it's a Supreme Court case, the judgement should be followed in Scotland

ParkingEye Limited (Respondent) v Beavis (Appellant) [2015] UKSC 67

https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2013-0280-press-summary.pdf

"The court dismisses the appeal by a majority of six to one, and declares that the charge does not contravene the penalty rule, or the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999. Mr Beavis had a contractual licence to park in the car park on the terms of the notice posted at the entrance, including the two hour limit. The £85 was a charge for contravening the terms of the contractual licence. This is a common scheme, subject to indirect regulation by statute and the British Parking Association’s Code of Practice. The charge had two main objects: (i) the management of the efficient use of parking space in the interests of the retail outlets and their users by deterring long-stay or commuter traffic, and (ii) the generation of income in order to run the scheme...

...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. 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."

Obviously, this decision won't apply in all cases (I ignored a ticket from Parking Eye at Helensburgh Station, and would argue that the signage still isn't prominent enough) but in general, people should be aware that this judgement exists.

Edited November 18, 2015 by lichtgilphead

[RandomGuy.]

I almost hope they do take me to court tbh, I wasnt the owner of the car at the time, and the DVLA can prove it. Would be brilliant fun.

['WellDel]

Mate, you need to empty your bins a bit more often.

Fuckin' council cutbacks round our way have been horrific ???? !!

[invergowrie arab]

Sorry to piss on everyone's chips, but a case was decided at the Supreme Court earlier on this month. As it's a Supreme Court case, the judgement should be followed in Scotland

ParkingEye Limited (Respondent) v Beavis (Appellant) [2015] UKSC 67

https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2013-0280-press-summary.pdf

"The court dismisses the appeal by a majority of six to one, and declares that the charge does not contravene the penalty rule, or the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999. Mr Beavis had a contractual licence to park in the car park on the terms of the notice posted at the entrance, including the two hour limit. The £85 was a charge for contravening the terms of the contractual licence. This is a common scheme, subject to indirect regulation by statute and the British Parking Association’s Code of Practice. The charge had two main objects: (i) the management of the efficient use of parking space in the interests of the retail outlets and their users by deterring long-stay or commuter traffic, and (ii) the generation of income in order to run the scheme...

...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. 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."

Obviously, this decision won't apply in all cases (I ignored a ticket from Parking Eye at Helensburgh Station, and would argue that the signage still isn't prominent enough) but in general, people should be aware that this judgement exists.

Very interesting.

The point still holds that there is no "debt" unless a court decides there is a debt. Also interesting that this specifically refers to the penalty charges and not the additional charges that seem to get tacked on for non payment.

[lichtgilphead]

Very interesting.

1) The point still holds that there is no "debt" unless a court decides there is a debt.

2) Also interesting that this specifically refers to the penalty charges and not the additional charges that seem to get tacked on for non payment.

1) It's a supreme court case. It sets a precedent. In the same circumstances, any court in the UK should come to the same decision unless the case can be distinguished.

I've already alluded to that in my post above. When I received my previous "parking charge", I had parked up & taken the train to watch Arbroath at Albion Rovers. I would argue that Parking Eye's signage in that specific car park is not conspicuous enough - the sign at the narrow entrance to the carpark is not readable as you drive under it & there is no sign at the entrance to Helensburgh Central railway station.

If however, I had parked in the same carpark and exited via the passageway to the Co-op & Sinclair Street, I could hardly have missed the great big sign informing me of the charge.

Accordingly, if I had gone & done my shopping at the Co-op, the court would now follow the precedent above, and I would be liable for the "debt". Why would I throw good money after bad to defend a claim that I know I would lose?

2) Agreed. There's no mention in the judgement of any charges apart from the £85 charge and the 14 day discount period when the charge is "only" £50. However, going to court is expensive. I have no idea whether Mr Beavis is independently wealthy or whether the Consumers Association were picking up his legal costs, but it will have cost someone a pretty penny. To add insult to injury, he will probably have had to pay Parking Eye's legal costs too.

[killiepiemuncher]

Mr Buthead has got me all confused now.

[Cardinal Richelieu]

I think we can all agree that we were all having a perfectly lovely time laughing at all the private car parking charges we weren't going to pay, until lichtgilphead came along and pissed on our collective bonfire.

Maybe we should fine him.