Parking Charge Notice advice

[gordondaviesmoustache]

Try this it was posted on here by another poster and I saved it just in case and the poster said it was the letter he had used for Stockport I presume peel centre and it worked.....said poster will know who he/she is when they see this and then can hopefully advise further

Dear {name of IPC member, only IPC members for this version!!!}

Re PCN number:

I am not ignoring your charge for a purported parking infraction. As this is purely a charge (not a statutory penalty) issued under a purported contract and the driver has not been identified, I require the following information so that I can make an informed decision:

1. Who is the party that contracted with your company for the provision of their services? I require their contact details.
2. What is the full legal identity of the landowner?
3. As you are not the landowner please provide a contemporaneous and unredacted copy of your contract with the landholder that demonstrate that you have their authority to both issue parking charges and litigate in your own name.
4. Is your charge based on damages for breach of contract? Answer yes or no.
5. If the charge is based on damages for breach of contract please provide your justification of this sum.
6. Is your charge based on a contractually agreed sum for the provision of parking? Answer yes or no.
7. If the charge is based on a contractually agreed sum for the provision of parking please provide a valid VAT invoice for this 'service'.
8. Please provide a copy of the signs that purportedly were on site which you contend formed a contract with the driver on that occasion.

If you believe you have a cause of action, send a Letter before Claim within the next 21 days and I will take advice and will respond.

In my opinion, there is a better alternative than legal proceedings, namely that we utilise the services of a completely independent ADR service suited to parking charges. This does not include the IAS appeal service - which lacks any transparency and possibly any independence from the IPC - unlike the alternative offered by the British Parking Association, POPLA, which is transparent and has been shown to be independent.

Do not send debt collector letters and do not add any costs or surcharges. I will not respond to those, so to involve another firm would be a failure to mitigate your alleged loss. In any case, the addition of any debt collector 'costs' is not my liability because the POFA 2012 can only potentially hold a registered keeper liable if certain provisions have been met and even then, the 'amount of the parking charge' is the only amount pursuable.

Yours faithfully

I like this.

 

[BerkshireBlue]

The ticket was issued for overstaying but Beavis appealed on the grounds that the charge levied was excessive, and didn't relate to the loss suffered by the landowner (known as "genuine pre-estimate of loss". The barrister for Parking Eye knew that this line of argument would almost certainly lead to the case being dismissed under established case law so used the concept of commercial justification.

This claimed that punitive charges were justified to deter offences against the car park restrictions. Hitherto the concept of penal charges had always been rejected by courts but this introduced a new line of argument. The argument was that the parking company were entitled to recompense for ensuring efficient use of the car park for their client.

Rather surprisingly a majority of the judges accepted this, saying that the charges were not unreasonable, despite the fact that a council or police penalty for a similar offence would be half of what was being claimed.

You've got the wrong end of the stick. If commercial justification can be shown like in the Beavis case then they can charge what ever they like but if they can't find any commercial justification like in Ric's case then they can't charge you a thing.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

You've got the wrong end of the stick. If commercial justification can be shown like in the Beavis case then they can charge what ever they like but if they can't find any commercial justification like in Ric's case then they can't charge you a thing.

You are wrong. The justification was that this was their remuneration for managing the car park and ensuring that it was being used efficiently. If there is a legitimate contract and they can show that they have the authority of the land owner to issue these charges then there is no way you can claim that damages can only extend to the loss suffered. In these cases, that line is closed, until such time as case law may change it.

 

[Barcon]

Just throwing this out there but, would there not have to be signs stating that cars must be parked within the parking spot lines or the owners could be fined?

 

[The Light Was Yellow Sir]

You are wrong. The justification was that this was their remuneration for managing the car park and ensuring that it was being used efficiently. If there is a legitimate contract and they can show that they have the authority of the land owner to issue these charges then there is no way you can claim that damages can only extend to the loss suffered. In these cases, that line is closed, until such time as case law may change it.

Doesn't the whole Beavis case hinge on whether the parking is paid for or not? Wasn't the fine the only way any money could be 'earned' as it was on a 3-hours free retail park?
One of the key points from the Beavis case was that the charge was necessary to deter overstaying; if they did not issue penalties then the car park would be unfairly used. The flip side of this is that if there were no legitimate interest, then the charge would be an unenforceable penalty…

The following are examples of charges that are arguably therefore penalties:

• Parking in a space you own but forgetting to display your permit
• Entering an incorrect VRN into a terminal
• Underpaying in a car park where by paying the vehicle is fully entitled to be there
• Parking outside a bay when no other cars are stopped from parking

From Rics point of view does the bottom one not apply?

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

Doesn't the whole Beavis case hinge on whether the parking is paid for or not? Wasn't the fine the only way any money could be 'earned' as it was on a 3-hours free retail park?
One of the key points from the Beavis case was that the charge was necessary to deter overstaying; if they did not issue penalties then the car park would be unfairly used. The flip side of this is that if there were no legitimate interest, then the charge would be an unenforceable penalty…

The concept of deterrence is not allowed in commercial law as far as I understand it. The parking company were being paid to manage the use of the car park efficiently and that was their legitimate interest is my understanding.

 

[Matty]

Not wanting to steal Ric's attention here but some advice required. My dad parked at Matalan in Stockport, paid for his parking ticket and went on his way. Received a parking fine today from Smart Parking. The reason. He was in my mum's car and put in the registration number for his car! He's a moron.

Is there anything he can do? Technically he was in breach of contract as he didn't pay for a parking ticket for the car he was in.

 

[aguero93:20]

Hoping for some advice off any legal types on here.

My missus recently received a Parking Charge Notice for "not parking correctly within the markings of the bay or space" at the Peel Centre in Stockport.

She did this deliberately as the car in the next bay on the right was parked very close to the line, whilst the bay to her left was a lot larger than a regular bay and, although there was a car parked in the space, there was still ample room so she straddled the line to allow space on either side of the vehicle.

The fine is £100 (reduced to £60 if paid within 14 days), but was just wondering if she could either a) ignore the notice (have heard these are scams that are different from regular parking tickets) or b) if she should appeal against it?

Here's the bay in question:

Find out where the company are based and get some bricks and smash their windows, cheeky cunts.

 

[Blue warrior]

Was in ashton today on my way back from the gym travelling up an hill got to the lights at the top and my car cut out. I managed to roll backwards so didn't obstruct vehicles behind me but ended up on yellows nothing else I could have done.

I had no phone no cash or bank card on me had to walk 3 miles to get home, my neighbour took me to a petrol station get some juice in case it was that anyway had a ticket when I got back to my car. I put a message on my window explaining my car cut out at lights.

Would you appeal? any advice appreciated!

 

[pfazz]

Was in ashton today on my way back from the gym travelling up an hill got to the lights at the top and my car cut out. I managed to roll backwards so didn't obstruct vehicles behind me but ended up on yellows nothing else I could have done.

I had no phone no cash or bank card on me had to walk 3 miles to get home, my neighbour took me to a petrol station get some juice in case it was that anyway had a ticket when I got back to my car. I put a message on my window explaining my car cut out at lights.

Would you appeal? any advice appreciated!

Might be the battery.