Parking Fine help!

[bocadillo]

When I looked into them when I got my invoice in December, I found examples of cases similar to Lako's but they refused to back down.

If they don't back down and it does finish up in court, it would be better to be able to show that you had made every attempt to pay the over-stay charge.

Do they have a legal right to do that?

I don't know whether they have or not. If a garage has done work on your car and you refuse to pay them for it, they have a right to keep your car until you do - something about tort applies. But if they do let the car go, they have no right to impound it when you make a future visit (perhaps to fill up with petrol) So I would guess that Moto (or whoever) have no legal right to do it - but once they have that clamp on, they have the advantage at that moment. You would at least be heavily delayed whilst they undid it and the it would be you that would be faced with court action to try to get your money back.

 

[Jeff]

I would guess that Moto (or whoever) have no legal right to do it

I think it would be foolish of them to try it. It's the person who parked the car who committed the "offence", not the car. They have no way of knowing if the car is being driven by the same person, it could have been sold in the meantime.

 

[bocadillo]

I think it would be foolish of them to try it. It's the person who parked the car who committed the "offence", not the car. They have no way of knowing if the car is being driven by the same person, it could have been sold in the meantime.

I agree - but I'm only telling you what is written in their T&C for using the car-parks. And their being wrong doesn't hep if you're on the way to a match and you miss the first half because they do something they should not have done.

 

[bocadillo]

Moto parking FAQs are here. It looks as though the overstay charge could also have been paid at the restaurant or at WHSmiths in the service area and at any time on the day in question - or online on return home.

 

[FryattFox]

Why do you think they haven't a chance of winning? If they have all the necessary signage in place and all of the signs and their procedure is within the law, I would say that they have a very good chance of winning.

Under contract law they have to prove that a contract was formed - so they can only pursue the driver, not the registered keeper - and they can only pursue the driver for genuine losses (liquidated damages). This would be the cost of the parking ticket had the machine been working (several pounds maximum) and NOT £80. Any charges over and above their actual losses would, under contract law, be deemed an unfair penalty and be disallowed by a court.

So yes, they could take you to court (although cases of this are few and far between). But it would only be for maybe £2.

Summarised by some ginger hottie on here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XAIcdi9niHA

 

[Lako42]

Under contract law they have to prove that a contract was formed - so they can only pursue the driver, not the registered keeper - and they can only pursue the driver for genuine losses (liquidated damages). This would be the cost of the parking ticket had the machine been working (several pounds maximum) and NOT £80. Any charges over and above their actual losses would, under contract law, be deemed an unfair penalty and be disallowed by a court.

So yes, they could take you to court (although cases of this are few and far between). But it would only be for maybe £2.

Summarised by some ginger hottie on here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XAIcdi9niHA

This sounds encouraging

 

[Steven]

This sounds encouraging

...... and then you realise it is Anne Robinson. :icon_conf

 

[Jeff]

somewhere along the line they were also asked for their pin number (absolutely outrageous) which I'm not sure is even legal.

I'm sure they misunderstood what was being asked for. You have to enter a four digit number to tell the system which car park you're in. They would also have been asked for the three digits on the back of their payment card.
There is no way they would have been asked for their card's PIN. The PIN is useless without the card so it would have been pointless asking for it.

 

[Jeff]

Is this the car-park on the Moto service area on the M42. If so, I'm surprised she had to pay for the first two hours parking.

Legally motorway service areas have to give two hours free parking. I think Lako has been given false information or has misunderstood what he's been told.

 

[bocadillo]

Under contract law they have to prove that a contract was formed - so they can only pursue the driver, not the registered keeper - and they can only pursue the driver for genuine losses (liquidated damages). This would be the cost of the parking ticket had the machine been working (several pounds maximum) and NOT £80. Any charges over and above their actual losses would, under contract law, be deemed an unfair penalty and be disallowed by a court.

So yes, they could take you to court (although cases of this are few and far between). But it would only be for maybe £2.

If you park and the signs are clear enough, you may be deemed to have entered into a contract by parking there. Why are you misleadingly introducing the driver/registered keeper at this stage? Lako's g/f was the driver and as she got the notice about the parking charge she is clearly the registered owner too, so your words are wasted. The charge for parking between 2 and 24 hours is £10, so I don't know why you choose to pull this figure of £2 out of the air. They would also add the cost of bringing the case and the court fees.

Yes, they could take you to court. And yes, only a small number do finish up in court. But I certainly wouldn't be risking it if there is a chance of avoiding it. Whilst there are many records of parking companies giving up on these sums, certainly in some areas of the country the number of cases that do reach the county court are somewhat greater than "few and far between".

 

[FryattFox]

If you park and the signs are clear enough, you may be deemed to have entered into a contract by parking there.

Agreed. But the onus is still on the car park operator.

Why are you misleadingly introducing the driver/registered keeper at this stage? Lako's g/f was the driver and as she got the notice about the parking charge she is clearly the registered owner too, so your words are wasted.

Sorry, can you please point me to where it is clear that she is the registered owner. I'm not doubting you, but I have failed to spot it (I would probably have written that my OH received a letter too, even if it was addressed to me in this scenario). And IF she wasn't the registered owner, then the registered owner is under no obligation to disclose who was, which makes the case a lot more difficult for them to pursue.

The charge for parking between 2 and 24 hours is £10, so I don't know why you choose to pull this figure of £2 out of the air.

Sorry, I didn't register the £10. Too many parking forums...

They would also add the cost of bringing the case and the court fees.

Given that this would almost certainly end up in a small claims court, from my experience it is unlikely that the court would order payment of their costs.

Yes, they could take you to court.

Very unlikely.

Whilst there are many records of parking companies giving up on these sums, certainly in some areas of the country the number of cases that do reach the county court are somewhat greater than "few and far between".

Well I can only comment on what I have seen across the forums that I have looked at. If you could please point me to anywhere that can suggest that they are not few and far between it would be much appreciated.

And even if they're more regular occurences, I'm struggling to find any where the defendent has lost and been ordered to pay anywhere near the fixed penalty amount. Again, I stand to be corrected, but all I can find is instances such as this (admittedly from 2008), with the key quotes being:

"But the far more important issue was that the judge found there was no justification for the 100 fine. He said it was a penalty charge and therefore unenforceable by the court.

I accept that this is only a CC and therefore not a precedent, but the fact there has been a precedent either way for several years speaks for itself.

 

[bocadillo]

Sorry, can you please point me to where it is clear that she is the registered owner. I'm not doubting you, but I have failed to spot it (I would probably have written that my OH received a letter too, even if it was addressed to me in this scenario). And IF she wasn't the registered owner, then the registered owner is under no obligation to disclose who was, which makes the case a lot more difficult for them to pursue.

If in asking for advice somebody gives misleading information they can hardly expect to get the proper advice. If Lako says that his g/f got the letter, I am inclined to take him at his word.

...all I can find is instances such as this (admittedly from 2008)

Not an altogether useful case to quote when the comments come in the main from the one side and are not in any case fair comment. You yourself picked up on the fact that a county court judgement can not set precedent despite what it says in the report. You did not draw attention to the fact that the wording of the signs was inadequate; another point that would undoubtedly of itself have led to the failure of the claim. You can be sure that parking companies will have taken note of this ruling and many will have made their signs more specific by now.

If you want evidence that some such claims are succeeding, look for instances of 'internet advisers' suggesting that people try to get cases transferred away from courts that they know to be unsympathetic.

 

[fitz]

Send a jiffy bag full of steaming tods with a cheque for the demanded amount.

 

[FryattFox]

If in asking for advice somebody gives misleading information they can hardly expect to get the proper advice. If Lako says that his g/f got the letter, I am inclined to take him at his word.

Fair enough. I don't disagree that it's unlikely, but it's always worth just checking these details. But let's not split hairs.

Not an altogether useful case to quote when the comments come in the main from the one side and are not in any case fair comment. You yourself picked up on the fact that a county court judgement can not set precedent despite what it says in the report. You did not draw attention to the fact that the wording of the signs was inadequate; another point that would undoubtedly of itself have led to the failure of the claim. You can be sure that parking companies will have taken note of this ruling and many will have made their signs more specific by now.

It's not a perfect case, no. And maybe the inadequate signs did have an effect. But this argument is regarding whether the £80 should be paid, and given that this 'penalty charge' appears to be unenforceable (I still await any case where it has been enforced) then I see no reason to pay this exorbitant fee.

If you want evidence that some such claims are succeeding, look for instances of 'internet advisers' suggesting that people try to get cases transferred away from courts that they know to be unsympathetic.

I have looked...still nothing? I am yet to find a successful case or one that has been settled as a result of the court action (apart from a few dubious ones that appear to be fake scare-mongering stories from the parking companies themselves, or ones that have yet to be settled).

I can in no way guarantee his g/f won't be taken to court and/or lose, but it seems incredibly unlikely all things considered.

 

[Billyjof]

Got another parking fine the other day 2 in a 2 months outside my house. Parking on this street is crap and I'm unable to get a permit. I went to move my car at 8.04 ticket issued at 8.02. Didn't see the warden he must have legged it the miserable fecker. Serves me right mind for not learning my lesson last time.

Best of luck Lako.

 

[spionfox]

somewhere along the line they were also asked for their pin number (absolutely outrageous) which I'm not sure is even legal.

Are you sure it was the PIN they were asked for and not the three digit security code off the back of the card?

Yes another idiot asking for help.

No offence like, but if anybody did actually supply their PIN then they are indeed an idiot :icon_wink

 

[Lako42]

Are you sure it was the PIN they were asked for and not the three digit security code off the back of the card?




No offence like, but if anybody did actually supply their PIN then they are indeed an idiot :icon_wink

No pin was given, it was my misunderstanding of what she said, happens all the time