Mumsnet has not checked the qualifications of anyone posting here. If you have any legal concerns we suggest you consult a solicitor.
APCOA parking fine(12 Posts)
My husband picked me up on 17May at Birmingham Airport at the layby by Ibis Hotel. The suitcase was thrown in the car and we left the airport after a couple of minutes. Today 3 June a Parking Charge Notice has been received in the sum of £100 and if paid within 28 days only £50 is payable. I am the registered keeper of the vehicle and from the photo in the Notice both my husband and I can be seen. Is this a scam or so I have to pay it? The Internet gives quite a few answers but I don't want to be hounded by these people if I am brave enough to ignore this notice. Any help would be appreciated.
You have to pay a Parking Penalty issued by the police or traffic warden. Anything else is an invoice. I suppose they can go to (civil) court to claim the money from you by providing evidence - but I don't know of a single invoice of this nature that this has happened to.
but I don't know of a single invoice of this nature that this has happened to.
Now there is one. Backed by the Court of Appeal.
So far seems unlikely to go to the Supreme Court, so it stands.
If the invoice is presented correctly, it's valid.
Oh my! Did he challenge it or just ignore it do you know?
Current consensus is that he won't be able to challenge it, unless he has very deep pockets. And it's interesting that all the usual "ignore these notice" organisations have gone very quiet. The bottom line is that unless the judgement is appealed to the Supreme Court, it stands (because that's how law works).
For him to appeal to the Supreme Court means that ParkingEye are entitled to ask him to prove he can pay their costs if he loses. If he can't the court won't hear the case.
Now it's be ruled on, in a court of law, if he ignores it, ParkingEye will be able to send in the bailiffs.
This is a good example of people who don't understand the law giving incredibly bad legal "advice", about "ignoring" these invoices (something I have noticed still happening on MN). Anyone who says that now is being an irresponsible twunt.
I meant initially, did he challenge it initially when it came through the post? Or ignore it like everyone else has done, in the past obviously!
from the article
After Mr Beavis first refused to pay the £85 he received a court summons and was told the charge had increased to £150.
He challenged this last May at Cambridge County Court, where a judge ruled the £85 charge was lawful and did not breach the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations.
^His challenge at the Court of Appeal was against the county court verdict.
Prof Stephen Glaister, director of the RAC Foundation, said it was "deeply frustrating" the case has gone against Mr Beavis.^
The entire case hinges on contract law for a start, which can be the most subtle and nuanced areas of law (snails in lemonade etc.). Hence the reason that discussions in the public arena aren't very useful.
As things stand, unless someone appeals this to the Supreme Court (and despite their "frustrations", the RAC foundation have yet to offer - it's almost like they know they'd lose) the situation is that a motorist parking on private land can be deemed to have entered into a contract to recompense the owners of the land against their losses caused by the motorists presence.
So far, so good. This has always been the case.
However the next step, which the CoA ruled in, is that any claim for such losses must be commensurate with the actual losses. You can't just claim £10,000 because you feel like it. This is where the case "made law" (and incidentally for someone who has just been to court, Mr. Beavis demonstrates a woeful lack of understanding of common law), as the court agreed that the £85 ParkingEye charged was reasonable - and therefore due.
To be honest, there's nothing at all contentious in the CoAs ruling. It's entirely consistent with long-established case law. One has to wonder what legal advice the plaintiff received prior to lodging the case. Or indeed whether he ignored it or followed it. The fact that no-one has rushed to offer him a few thousand to appeal his case (or take it pro bono) is highly suggestive that he has no case.
Beavis has raised the funding needed to take the matter to the Supreme Court. He lodged his appeal today.
Beavis ignored ParkingEye until they took him to court. Note that the only matter still in dispute is the amount he has to pay ParkingEye. The fact that he has to pay them something has already been clearly established.
Ignoring the parking company often has the required effect. They often fail to follow through as they get enough revenue from those who pay up. But it can result in the company taking you to court to recover their charges.
Yes, I read the report and understand contract law and that it is now common law.
But, as I asked before, did he ignore the invoice, or did he take legal steps to challenge the invoice? From what I understand, it isn't worthwhile in a commercial sense for these companies to begin legal proceedings themselves.
Also, thank you prh47bridge
As I understand it (I am not a lawyer, nor do I play one on television) previously we were in a bit of a Mexican stand-off between the parking companies, and their targets. Neither wanted to be the first to go to court, in case it set a precedent against their interests.
This meant that usually, despite all the bluster and stiff letters, parking companies would back down, rather than go to court, and risk losing.
Reading the judgement it seems PE initiated the case. Quite why they chose this particular case, I can't say.
To be fair, reading the full judgement (that's 5 minutes I will never get back) it seems there are quite a few very subtle nuances which the CoA pondered, so it's not unreasonable to look to the Supreme Court to give a final definitive ruling. However, since (as we have already established) there is no argument over the principle of invoicing, the only line of defence, is the famous George Bernard Shaw defence - just arguing over the price .
Join the discussion
Please login first.