Parking Fine - despite paying for parking

TheGhost said:
This is not legal advice but if it’s a PCN parking charge notice and it’s not from the police, or council it’s unenforceable. Just ignore it. I had one from a Retail Park. I ignored. They sent me loads of threatening letters saying they were taking me to court. It got up to over £600 they were trying to claim from me. I was prepared to go to court over it. Then the letters just stopped. Not heard anything about it for well over a year.
Click to expand...
Utter rubbish!
Can’t believe people still peddle this bollocks.
 
First of all as it's not a council fine, it's much easier to challenge this as it's nothing but an invoice really.

You mention you've got proof that you did pay for parking, therefore send this to them as an official challenge to the invoice and with a bit of luck that will be that.

Failing that and depending what's contained within their letter, do some Googling as there are plenty of template letters out there you can use to contest the invoice. If there are any number of fundamental flaws in what they've sent you, it can be dismissed instantly anyway, it depends how switched on they are.
 
I had a bit of a run in with one of these types of firms a few years back. I appealed and they refused my appeal. I told them to take me to court which they eventually did. I filed my defence below and they didn’t contest it so I won by default and was awarded costs. Won’t be identical to yours but hopefully of some use.



I am metal blue, the named defendant in this matter and was the registered keeper of vehicle CU16 xxx at the time. I currently reside at xxxxxxxxxxx

I deny I am liable for the entirety of the claim for each of the following reasons

1. The Claim Form issued by Civil Enforcement Ltd was not correctly filed under The Practice Direction as it was not signed by a legal person but signed by “Civil Enforcement Limited” (Claimant’s Legal Representative)”.

2. The claimant makes no indication whether keeper liability is being claimed, and I request copies of any Notice to Driver / Notice to Keeper. It is indeed fact that I was not the driver at the time of the alleged breach and the claimant has made no effort to establish who was.

3. Notwithstanding point 2 it is also fact that the driver at the time did indeed pay and display in accordance with the posted terms and conditions at the time of the alleged breach and the claimant was made aware of that fact (with evidence) on 23rd July 2017.
i. The claimant rejected the clear evidence that the driver had indeed paid and displayed in accordance with the terms and conditions.
ii. The driver merely entered an incomplete VRN. The claimant should be able to demonstrate they clearly and sufficiently inform drivers that ANPR data will be used and compared against entered VRN's if they wish to bind drivers by this term.
iii. In rejecting the "appeal" the claimant provided no evidence of how any terms were breached nor how such terms were made clear to the public to make such terms binding

4. The claimant does not have proprietary interest in the land therefore it is for the claimant to demonstrate, with an in-redacted copy of the contract with the landowner to evidence the definition of the services provided. This should include a list of grace periods, charades and all restrictions authorised where a parking charge can arise.
i. Recent similar cases [where incomplete VRN's have been entered] published in the press for this site demonstrate that the landowner has instructed the claimant to cancel the so called PCNs as evidence that the claimant is not authorised to pursue this matter in the name of the landowner.
ii. The defendant asks the court to consider if it is 'unconscionable' for the claimant to penalise a customer, who have proved they have paid and displayed and not overstayed, at the same level as (for example) a trespasser, who parked all day across two bays without paying any tariff.

5. The defendant believes the charge is unconscionable with no overriding 'legitimate interest' to save it from offending against the penalty rule.
i. In their letter before action the claimant chose to reference the Parking Eye v Beavis case.
ii. The Supreme Court made if perfectly clear that the judgement was not a silver ballet which justifies all parking charges. Indeed, cases such as this which are not about a free parking licence but involve a simple financial transaction (e.g. paying a tariff and entering a VRN) were said at the Court of Appeal stage to be likely to fall foul of Lord Dunedin's four tests as an unenforceable penalty.

6. Consumer law always applies and no contract "falls outside" the Consumer Rights Act 2015.
i. The driver paid for, in good faith, a ticket to the best of their ability. The ticket issues was not 'fit for purpose'. The claimant took money to issue an invalid ticket and are now trying to charge a penalty for providing an invalid ticket. The invalid ticket was issued due to the ticket machine allowing the transaction to complete where an invalid VRN had been entered.
ii. The fundamental question is always whether the terms of a contract are fair. In this case the specific question is whether a reasonable person would, when parking in a place where they had paid the correct tariff for the privilege, also accept a further unknown liability in the case of a VRN error (that they were not informed was vital nor ran the risk of a huge fine).

7. The defendant wishes to draw the courts attention to case 3JD04791 ParkingEye Ltd v Heggie (Barnsley, 13/02/2013) where Judge Obhi ruled that zero loss had been occurred after Mr Heggie had entered the wrong VRN.
 
metalblue said:
I had a bit of a run in with one of these types of firms a few years back. I appealed and they refused my appeal. I told them to take me to court which they eventually did. I filed my defence below and they didn’t contest it so I won by default and was awarded costs. Won’t be identical to yours but hopefully of some use.



I am metal blue, the named defendant in this matter and was the registered keeper of vehicle CU16 xxx at the time. I currently reside at xxxxxxxxxxx

I deny I am liable for the entirety of the claim for each of the following reasons

1. The Claim Form issued by Civil Enforcement Ltd was not correctly filed under The Practice Direction as it was not signed by a legal person but signed by “Civil Enforcement Limited” (Claimant’s Legal Representative)”.

2. The claimant makes no indication whether keeper liability is being claimed, and I request copies of any Notice to Driver / Notice to Keeper. It is indeed fact that I was not the driver at the time of the alleged breach and the claimant has made no effort to establish who was.

3. Notwithstanding point 2 it is also fact that the driver at the time did indeed pay and display in accordance with the posted terms and conditions at the time of the alleged breach and the claimant was made aware of that fact (with evidence) on 23rd July 2017.
i. The claimant rejected the clear evidence that the driver had indeed paid and displayed in accordance with the terms and conditions.
ii. The driver merely entered an incomplete VRN. The claimant should be able to demonstrate they clearly and sufficiently inform drivers that ANPR data will be used and compared against entered VRN's if they wish to bind drivers by this term.
iii. In rejecting the "appeal" the claimant provided no evidence of how any terms were breached nor how such terms were made clear to the public to make such terms binding

4. The claimant does not have proprietary interest in the land therefore it is for the claimant to demonstrate, with an in-redacted copy of the contract with the landowner to evidence the definition of the services provided. This should include a list of grace periods, charades and all restrictions authorised where a parking charge can arise.
i. Recent similar cases [where incomplete VRN's have been entered] published in the press for this site demonstrate that the landowner has instructed the claimant to cancel the so called PCNs as evidence that the claimant is not authorised to pursue this matter in the name of the landowner.
ii. The defendant asks the court to consider if it is 'unconscionable' for the claimant to penalise a customer, who have proved they have paid and displayed and not overstayed, at the same level as (for example) a trespasser, who parked all day across two bays without paying any tariff.

5. The defendant believes the charge is unconscionable with no overriding 'legitimate interest' to save it from offending against the penalty rule.
i. In their letter before action the claimant chose to reference the Parking Eye v Beavis case.
ii. The Supreme Court made if perfectly clear that the judgement was not a silver ballet which justifies all parking charges. Indeed, cases such as this which are not about a free parking licence but involve a simple financial transaction (e.g. paying a tariff and entering a VRN) were said at the Court of Appeal stage to be likely to fall foul of Lord Dunedin's four tests as an unenforceable penalty.

6. Consumer law always applies and no contract "falls outside" the Consumer Rights Act 2015.
i. The driver paid for, in good faith, a ticket to the best of their ability. The ticket issues was not 'fit for purpose'. The claimant took money to issue an invalid ticket and are now trying to charge a penalty for providing an invalid ticket. The invalid ticket was issued due to the ticket machine allowing the transaction to complete where an invalid VRN had been entered.
ii. The fundamental question is always whether the terms of a contract are fair. In this case the specific question is whether a reasonable person would, when parking in a place where they had paid the correct tariff for the privilege, also accept a further unknown liability in the case of a VRN error (that they were not informed was vital nor ran the risk of a huge fine).

7. The defendant wishes to draw the courts attention to case 3JD04791 ParkingEye Ltd v Heggie (Barnsley, 13/02/2013) where Judge Obhi ruled that zero loss had been occurred after Mr Heggie had entered the wrong VRN.
Click to expand...


In legal terminology and colloquial parlance that can be interpreted as a "proper face fucking.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
✖
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.