Free Traffic Legal Advice
Live cases legal advice => Private parking tickets => Topic started by: samir_d on July 23, 2024, 09:52:14 pm
-
Having examined the parking site in some detail, it is highly likely that the operator is simply using the 'law of averages' to make a good return - meaning that enough people pay up out of ignorance or fear.
Given the site layout, signage and very short consideration periods demonstrated on the PCNs, the operator probably knows full well that they would have very little chance if the matter went to hearing. As a result, they just play the game of statistical chess which gives them the best results without ever needing to set foot inside a courtroom.
As others have said, keep all evidence safe. Also be careful if you move house in the next few years because these firms do try and resurrect older cases - You don't want paperwork going to an old address as this can lead to a default judgement.
-
The letters stopped and I never did hear back from them so as far as i'm concerned, case is closed 🙌
They may well have given up, but don't throw anything away yet, they technically have up to 6 years from the date of the alleged parking event to begin court proceedings.
Good to know - Thanks!
-
The letters stopped and I never did hear back from them so as far as i'm concerned, case is closed 🙌
They may well have given up, but don't throw anything away yet, they technically have up to 6 years from the date of the alleged parking event to begin court proceedings.
-
Samir, did you get a reply? You never updated us on your case. I am in the same position, I want to know if it's worth appealing, or what the court said.
Hi,
The letters stopped and I never did hear back from them so as far as i'm concerned, case is closed 🙌
-
Samir, did you get a reply? You never updated us on your case. I am in the same position, I want to know if it's worth appealing, or what the court said.
-
3170 was a typo, should have been £170 :D
That's a relief, I know they're money-grubbing, but that'd have been a bit much!
;D ;D ;D
-
3170 was a typo, should have been £170 :D
That's a relief, I know they're money-grubbing, but that'd have been a bit much!
-
Thanks for the replies. Ok, will wait for the Letter of Claim (LOC).
3170 was a typo, should have been £170 :D
-
I've received a souple of letters telling titled "Notice of Transfer to Solicitors". They have stated this is this the last chance to pay "3170 before it goes to QDR Solicitors Limited. I'm not paying the fine so should I continue to ignore?
"Notice of transfer to solicitors" is male bovine excrement to try and intimidate you into paying up. It means nothing and is simply another debt collector trick.
The debt collector cannot instruct a solicitor to do anything about the PCN. Only the PPC can instruct a solicitor. As and when you receive an actual LoC, come back and show us for further advice.
What do you mean by 3170?
I think it is a mistype. 3/£
-
Yes - you are looking out for a Letter of Claim/Letter Before Claim, or if that goes missing for some reason, a claim form from the court.
What do you mean by 3170?
-
Hi there,
I've received a souple of letters telling titled "Notice of Transfer to Solicitors". They have stated this is this the last chance to pay "3170 before it goes to QDR Solicitors Limited. I'm not paying the fine so should I continue to ignore?
Thanks in advance
-
Thank you 🙌. In that case I won't bother with the IAS as it seems a pointless exercise. Regarding the letter of claim, what should I do when that arrives?
The response to an LoC is to deny any liability and demand that they provide proof of their allegation. There is a template you can use which lets them know they are not going to be dealing with low-hanging fruit on the gullible tree who are going to capitulate and pay up.
Cross that bridge, if/when it happens. Please don’t tell us about or show us any debt collector letters. They are powerless ans should be ignored. Some may be dressed up to look like an LoC but will only give you 14 days to pay. A real LoC must give you 30 days.
If/when you receive a real LoC, show us.
Got it! Many many thanks B789 🙌
-
Thank you 🙌. In that case I won't bother with the IAS as it seems a pointless exercise. Regarding the letter of claim, what should I do when that arrives?
The response to an LoC is to deny any liability and demand that they provide proof of their allegation. There is a template you can use which lets them know they are not going to be dealing with low-hanging fruit on the gullible tree who are going to capitulate and pay up.
Cross that bridge, if/when it happens. Please don’t tell us about or show us any debt collector letters. They are powerless ans should be ignored. Some may be dressed up to look like an LoC but will only give you 14 days to pay. A real LoC must give you 30 days.
If/when you receive a real LoC, show us.
-
Can I confirm the advice is to not appeal
The advice is that appeals to the IAS rarely succeed. If you want to roll the dice with the IAS, then go for it, doing so is not detrimental to your case, but if you're busy, then you may decide it is not worth the effort. If you choose not to, then ignore the debt collectors and wait for a Letter of Claim.
Thank you 🙌. In that case I won't bother with the IAS as it seems a pointless exercise. Regarding the letter of claim, what should I do when that arrives?
-
Can I confirm the advice is to not appeal
The advice is that appeals to the IAS rarely succeed. If you want to roll the dice with the IAS, then go for it, doing so is not detrimental to your case, but if you're busy, then you may decide it is not worth the effort. If you choose not to, then ignore the debt collectors and wait for a Letter of Claim.
-
You will still get “threatening” letters once the IAS reject your appeal. Whilst the letters may seem “threatening”, they are in fact, harmless. They are designed to get the low-hanging fruit on the gullible tree to capitulate and pay up because they don’t understand the process and imagine that bailiffs can simply come knocking at their door.
Are you low-hanging fruit ripe for the picking?
Hi, I was away and got back a few days ago. Can I confirm the advice is to not appeal and ignore the threatening letters NPM will no doubt send?
Thanks
-
If you insist, you can show what you intend to send for critique by someone who cares enough about an IAS appeal.
-
Should I go ahead and submit my appeal. I can probably edit and use the writeup that I originally appealed with? Should I include anything else?
Thanks in advance..
-
:D :D :D
No way!! Lets fight this all the way through IAS!!
-
You will still get “threatening” letters once the IAS reject your appeal. Whilst the letters may seem “threatening”, they are in fact, harmless. They are designed to get the low-hanging fruit on the gullible tree to capitulate and pay up because they don’t understand the process and imagine that bailiffs can simply come knocking at their door.
Are you low-hanging fruit ripe for the picking?
-
by official i meant that the the situation is formalised with no threatening letters from bailiffs instead if simply ignoring NPM letters.
As you said the appeal is rarely upheld so i prefer the route the IAS Appeal Route.
-
I'm not sure what you mean by official. The IAS is an appeal route provided by the accredited trade association of which the parking company is a member. Funded by their members, they tend to protect them, and rarely uphold appeals regardless of their merits.
-
Thanks.
In your opinion, What do you suggest? I'm ok with either but IAS seems like a better route as it's official right? If I go with the IAS route, do you mind helping me with the appeal writeup?
-
As expected. You have a choice now. Either try an IAS appeal or wait and see if/when they send a Letter of Claim (LoC). They have been warned that if they pass your details to a third party DRA they will be considered in breach of your GDPR which is something you can use later, if necessary.
If they do pass on your details, you can expect some debt collector letters which you can safely ignore. They are powerless to do anything except to try and scare you into paying. Ignore them.
If/when. They do issue a claim, it is to your advantage as a judge in the small claims track of the county court is the ultimate dispute resolution service. Any claim is easily defended.
-
Hi there,
They have replied and surprise surprise they did not cancel the ticket.
(https://i.imgur.com/7lJxurL.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/E22y6KP.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/minsqEy.jpeg)
-
Thanks DWMB2 & B789 for your detailed responses.
I have submitted an appeal as suggested by B789 today and hopefully it gets cancelled.
I will respond back when i hear something (Hopefully with good news).
Regards
Samir
-
Which is why the OP should submit the appeal suggested above. Everything else is for use later, should it ever get to that stage (doubtful).
-
At this stage it's probably worth sticking to the simple appeal, we risk creating a mountain of complexity from what are (at this stage) fairly simple mole hills.
-
I don't disagree. However, the keeper should not identify the driver. Any appeal should be as the keeper. A still from CCTV footage proves nothing.
For the OP, in the UK, the use of CCTV by private companies is governed by several regulations and guidelines, primarily focusing on data protection and privacy. The key legislation and guidelines include the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), the Data Protection Act 2018 (DPA), and the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) Code of Practice (CoP) for surveillance cameras.
Under GDPR, CCTV data must be processed lawfully, fairly, and in a transparent manner. This means that individuals must be informed about the use of CCTV and the purposes for which the footage is being collected and processed. CCTV footage can only be used for the specific purposes for which it was collected. For example, if CCTV is installed for security purposes, it should not be used for other purposes without proper justification and notification. Is there any indication what the exact purpose of the CCTV is for?
As far as the ICO is concerned, clear and prominent signs must be placed to inform individuals that they are being recorded by CCTV. The signs should include details of the purpose of the surveillance and contact information for the data controller. The use of CCTV must be justified by a legitimate aim, such as crime prevention or ensuring safety. Do those signs comply?
The Surveillance Camera Code of Practice (by the Home Office) states that the use of surveillance cameras must be for legitimate purposes, such as public safety or crime prevention. The use of surveillance cameras should be transparent, and the public should be made aware of who is operating the cameras and for what purpose. Is that apparent at the location?
Are there clear and visible signs informing drivers that CCTV is in operation? The signs should state the purpose of the surveillance, such as enforcing parking rules. Do the signs adequately inform of such use?
The CCTV footage should only be used for the purpose of monitoring parking compliance and not for unrelated purposes. Do the signs inform individuals about the use of CCTV and how the footage will be used? They should also include details on how to contact the NPM for more information. Do they?
Has NPM complied with all the relevant regulations on CCTV use? NPM must ensure that their CCTV system is used transparently, fairly, and for a legitimate purpose. Clear signage must be in place, individuals must be informed about the use and purpose of CCTV and the footage must be handled in accordance with data protection laws. Has NPM adhered to all these regulations?
-
So, the CCTV images of the unknown driver "disappearing" for a few minutes prove nothing.
I agree with all of the previous, my point was just that the OP should not suggest the driver considered the terms if he did not - we don't know whether he did or not (the OP might), and should not suggest versions of events that might be convenient.
Frankly I'd be surprised if there wasn't a strong argument that the signage was not suitably visible at the site, but we'd of course need pictures to confirm as much.
-
The vehicle was parked for less than four minutes and the driver was out of view for less than what, two minutes? This brief duration can be argued as insufficient to form a contract, particularly if the driver was merely looking for a sign and checking the parking terms and conditions.
For a parking contract to be valid, there must be clear terms displayed and the driver must have had a reasonable opportunity to read and understand these terms before deciding to accept them. If the driver was looking for signage and decided to leave, no contract was formed.
The burden of proof is on NPM to prove that a contract was formed and breached. The still images do not conclusively show the driver ignoring or accepting the parking terms. NPM needs to prove that the signage was visible, clear, and that the driver had adequate time to read and understand the terms.
The sign shown states that vehicles must be registered with a valid NPM E-Permit but does not provide information on how to obtain such a permit. Without this information, it is impossible for a driver to comply with the terms.
There is no explicit offer of parking on the sign. An offer must be clear and unequivocal, detailing what is being offered and the terms of that offer. The sign only states conditions for having a permit without making an explicit offer for parking.
For a contract to be formed, there must be a clear offer that can be accepted. In this case, the sign fails to make an offer that the driver can accept. It merely imposes a condition (having an NPM E-Permit) without providing a way to meet that condition or explaining the terms under which parking is allowed.
The absence of instructions on how to obtain the required permit means that a driver cannot reasonably comply with the terms, further undermining the formation of a contract.
Without a clear offer, there can be no acceptance, and thus no consideration (something of value exchanged between the parties). Additionally, the intention to create any legal obligation is doubtful when the terms are not clearly communicated.
So, the CCTV images of the unknown driver "disappearing" for a few minutes prove nothing.
-
The driver took less than 4 minutes to consider the terms and decided to leave.
I'd only include this sentence if true - the photos seem to be stills from a video, and appear to show the driver exiting the car and immediately proceeding round the corner out of camera shot - unless there is signage there, it might not be accurate to suggest they spent the time considering the terms.
-
There is no "offer" in that sign. There is no mention of parking. There is no mention of how a permit can be obtained. There cannot have been any contract.
As you are dealing with an IPC member company, this is not going to succeed at any appeal stage. The only way this will be won is if they decide to pursue you through the courts for the alleged debt.
They may never bother to take it all the way to court as they would receive a spanking due to their CRA breaches and their lack of contract. That does not mean that they are not going to try and scare you into paying into their scam with debt collector letters.
DRAs are powerless to do anything and are employed to simply try and scare the low-hanging fruit on the gullible tree into capitulating and paying into their scam. They can be safely ignored.
The way forward as I see it is to make a simple appeal as the keeper, which will be rejected. In the appeal, you deny any liability for the charge, pointing out the deficiencies and you also warn them that if they do not cancel the PCN, they should proceed directly to issuing a claim in the county court where you will vigorously defend and claim. You do not wish to participate the kangaroo court IAS secondary appeal and they must not pass your data to any third party DRA.
They are likely to ignore it all but they are now n notice that they do not have your permission to pass your data on otherwise they will be in breach of your GDPR and then liable to damages. We do want them to issue a claim as that is the only way this is put to bed.
In the very worst case scenario, there is a minute risk that should it proceed all the way to a hearing and your defence was not accepted by the judge, you would be liable for around ~£200 max, which if paid within 28 days of judgement has no effect on your credit file and is completely expunged fro the record. So, no risk of a CCJ on your file.
The most likely outcome is that they try and scare you into paying which you ignore. They then have to decide whether to litigate and that is a big risk for them. It will cost them to file a claim, which will be easily defended. The most likely outcome once the defence is filed is they either discontinue before they have to pay the hearing fee or that their claim is struck out.
It is for you to decide how you want to proceed. The advice is to appeal in the first instance to NPM and then wait and see what they decide to do after they reject the appeal.
This is what I suggest you put in your appeal:
As the keeper of the vehicle, I decline to identify the driver. I deny that I owe any debt and challenge the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) [PCN Number] issued on [Date] at [Location], in which you allege that the driver is liable to pay a parking charge to you, National Parking Management Ltd, as the creditor.
The driver has not breached any contract as the signs at the location do not make any offer. The driver took less than 4 minutes to consider the terms and decided to leave. Therefore, I suggest that the PCN be cancelled immediately.
I do not wish to engage in a secondary appeal through the Independent Appeals Service (IAS), as their reputation as a biased and non-independent body makes it a waste of time for all parties involved. Any offer of such an appeal will be disregarded.
Please take careful note, as this appeal will be used in evidence should this dispute ever reach court. If you refuse to cancel the PCN, there must be no passing or transfer of my details to a third-party debt recovery agent (DRA). Instead, you should issue a claim for the alleged debt in the County Court, where I will vigorously defend myself and you can expect a thorough examination by the judge.
Furthermore, any deviation from this requested path, including involving a third party for debt collection, will be considered harassment under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 and a breach of GDPR under the Data Protection Act 2018. Such actions may result in a Part 20 counterclaim against you for any distress and inconvenience caused by these breaches.
-
Hi,
I also review the Pictures on line the Contravention period is at it state sin the ticket From 18:05:16 to 18:07:48.
18:07:48 shows me getting back into the car. The 2nd to last picture is at 18:08:02 which shows me reversing out. The very last picture is of the sign and is below:
(https://i.imgur.com/tZdCzmN.jpeg)
-
Can it definitively be shown that the driver "left" the car park without reading any signs? Do the additional photos cover a longer period than that shown on the NtK?
-
I took a look at the additional images provided by the operator... They show a series of images of the driver parking, leaving and the returning. To play devil's advocate, the parking company may seek to argue that the driver left the premises without considering the terms on offer despite having had the opportunity to do so, and as such a consideration period was not required.
Photos of the signs would be useful.
-
And what was the background or reason the driver parked there? The PCN Notice to Keeper (NtK) only alleges that the vehicle was parked or stopped for less than 3 minutes.
What the signs with the terms and conditions say is crucial to any appeal or defence. There does not appear to have been any consideration period allowed if any of the terms are not prohibitory.
-
@b789,
Thanks for your response. You're right, i probably do have a lack of understanding of the process. Any advice on how to challenge this would be appreciated - Thanks.
Attaching revised Image of the Parking ticket
(https://i.imgur.com/hVBUwxy.jpeg)
-
Initially I was going to ignore this as these Parking tickets aren't enforceable however speaking to a friend he advised seeking advice because these private parking companies employ bailiffs, CCJ's and can also potentially affect my credit score. Does anyone know how I can navigate this to get the parking ticket cancelled officially from the parking management company.
Obviously, we need to see the PCN in order to fully advise properly. However, you have raised few points that indicate a lack of understanding of the process.
We have not advised anyone to simply ignore a PCN since 2012 when PoFA was introduced. “Parking tickets” are certainly enforceable. It just depends against who. The driver or the keeper? Are you aware of the distinction between the two in terms of civil law?
Also, these firms do not simply “employ bailiffs”, issue CCJs nor affect your credit score. No one can simply employ a bailiff. No one can come knocking at your door, issue a CCJ or affect your credit score without going through a lengthy legal process. I suggest you do some research of your own before jumping to the wrong conclusions.
The advice we dispense here will not lead to you getting a CCJ and, in the extremely remote chance you were unfortunate enough to actually get to the stage of a hearing to decide whether you owed a debt to the PPC and your defence was not accepted by a judge, any judgment against you is likely to for less than the original claim and as long as it was paid, in full, within 28 days of the judgment, would not appear not have any effect on your credit score.
-
I've removed that image. Unlike with council tickets, it's unwise with private ones to leave the vehicle reg and PCN number visible - with them people can access the full payment/appeals portal and potentially cause mischief. You should re-upload with those details removed.
-
Hi,
Looking for some advice pls. I received the below Parking ticket from a private Parking management company on Woodgrange road E7 with the reason of Vehicle not pre-authorised (no-e-Permit) .
Initially I was going to ignore this as these Parking tickets aren't enforceable however speaking to a friend he advised seeking advice because these private parking companies employ bailiffs, CCJ's and can also potentially affect my credit score. Does anyone know how I can navigate this to get the parking ticket cancelled officially from the parking management company.
[IMAGE REMOVED]