Private Parking Fine (sorry invoice!)....

[Annabel7]

More of a WWYD but time if of the essence and I know there are a lot or people here are more knowledgeable about this than me. I'll try and keep it brief...

So - about 15 mths ago, I went for a wkend away with a friend to a busy town. On the Sunday, we tried to find somewhere to park and found a supermarket car park that allows 2 hrs free. I wasn't sure if charges applied as the supermarket was closed so I after finding the sign tucked away at the back of the car park, I read it and it didn't stipulate when the charges applied. On arrival and when we left, the car park was perhaps 1/4 full, if that.

We both then assumed that as the supermarket was closed, it was probably fine. We went for lunch and came back about 2 1/2 hrs later. I received a fine of £80 (I think) around Nov/Dec 2014. Advice at the time was to ignore all correspondence and so I did and binned all the subsequent threatening letters. The letters eventually stopped coming.

Fast forward to 2 days ago and we've had a final demand for £110 to be paid by 1st Feb or they will take us to court. This is subsequent to the Parking Eye vs Beavis case in which the court found in favour of Parking Eye. So it seems the claim that fines that are disproportionate to losses no longer stands. My argument is that it was not clear as to when the parking restriction applied and that we made a reasonable assumption.

Should I just take it on the chin and cough up? I should add that my car is in my husband's name but he wasnt there so all correspondence and subsequent legal action would be for him at this point. So AIBU to continue to ignore, ride it out and take the consequences or should I just pay and close this chapter? Any advice/experience gratefully received... Thanks!

Yes, true that they can pursue the keeper in England now. In reponse to another poster, there was no loss of business to the shop. It was closed. One of the problems with an appeal is I don't even know who the parking company is - I threw out all the correspondence over a year ago...

I'd just sit it out then.

I've sat out fines from Parking Eye and they never pursued. I almost lost my nerve when the red letters started to arrive but took good advice from MSE and kept ignoring til they went away. They did.

As a side note, I think it's disgusting that these private parking firms exist.
I also believe in free parking and that paid parking is anti-consumer and hurts businesses. The shops on these huge lots pay enough in rates and this should be enough to allow free parking.

Free weekend parking used to be widely available and was great for consumers and businesses alike.

Shopkeepers need all the help they can to get consumers off-line and back in the shops. Parking fines will only make more consumers shop online and will be the death knell of the high street.

With the proviso that you don't ignore anything actually from the county court! The whole 'threat' of CCJs is something of a bogus one, it is an unpaid county court judgement that is problematic.

I would ignore as well.

I've sat out fines from Parking Eye and they never pursued

Anything given out before October 2012 and they were on shaky ground anyway - you could just refuse to name the driver. Anything since that date they can go after the registered keeper, as mentioned above.

In theory, now that the disproportionate charge issue has been sorted out, they could go back six years (or at least until October 2012) to chase up old 'fines'.

I know Grandad - seems they're digging up all the old fines. Just not sure how serious they are about pursuing them. Part of me thinks just pay it and be done with it - the other part wants to call their bluff. Hmmm

At the very least, wait for your 2nd red letter. Bastards

I can't see any reason why they wouldn't be serious about pursuing them, except possibly the costs involved in going to court for such small amounts. It could easily just be a scatter-gun approach though I suppose, send out demands for everything that's technically still owed and wait for XX% of people to either pay because they're scared or head to an internet forum to be told that now the rules have changed they'll probably have to pay.

It would seem that they lose money on every court they take to court, they employ solicitors but aren't awarded legal costs when they win. I wonder if I were running such an enterprise I'd take a comparatively small, but well publicised number of cases to court to scare people into compliance and use the publicity to encourage others to pay up at an earlier stage.

I would imagine they'd soon bankrupt themselves or totally jam up the court system if they took every single case to court.

they employ solicitors

probably on a retainer basis. So PE can issue as many letters as they like.

I was all for ignoring these as per internet advice, I hate the idea of them robbing people blind. But then we actually got one about 6 months ago and I started reading again, and people were saying they did get it cancelled but they had to do lots of back and forth letters. I just couldn't be bothered risking it and so I paid to make it go away.

I'm kind of leaning the same way BillBryson. Not sure it's worth the bother and it's quite stressful receiving threatening letters. Particularly as I thought this had gone away a year ago.

But Lurking but that must be based on the notion that comparatively few of their claims go all the way to court otherwise the retainer fee would be extortionate.

An interesting point -somewhat overlooked in the Beavis case - is that Parking Eye were originally awarded the original £85. As anyone has been on the receiving end of them know, they will try jacking up the fee to include all sorts of spurious costs such as a 'fee' for employing debt collectors, writing solicitors letters etc, late payment etc.

They are now chasing my friend for £200. I can't see what you have to lose by chancing your arm by ignoring anything but court paperwork.

Compos - From what I understand if I lost I'd have to pay the fee plus interest, legal costs and court fees. Not sure what that would amount to.

But Lurking but that must be based on the notion that comparatively few of their claims go all the way to court otherwise the retainer fee would be extortionate.

Shrug

Not being a legal eagle, I can't say. However I did know the legal department of a major high street name in the 1990s.

His name was Jim . He wasn't even a solicitor, but a retired copper who had spent more time in court than most ...

In the Beavis case it was £85 to PE and £50 court costs. Less than the bullshit charges they've already added.I assume you won't be paying a solicitor!

If you don't fancy a day in court, there are cases on peppipoo (sic?) where people have denied liability but offered an amount - as low as £15 - to PE in full and final settlement.

If you're parking on land owned by someone else, you're not entitled to make any assumptions that they're happy for you to stay there for any longer than they say. If there's nothing to say when restrictions apply, you have to assume they apply 24 hours a day.

Can't you wait until the court summons actually arrives, then pay it?
Even if you get a ccj because of it, is it not true that it doesn't go on your credit report if you pay it in 30 days?

That would be very unwise, as court costs would be added on top.

I also believe in free parking and that paid parking is anti-consumer and hurts businesses. The shops on these huge lots pay enough in rates and this should be enough to allow free parking.

Huh? How does that work when it's parking provision owned by the shop? Are they supposed to pay hefty rates and pay more for providing parking for any freeloader who fancies leaving his car there all day?

I doubt that you'd get away with arguing that charges shouldn't apply just because the shop is shut. They could argue, for instance, that they need to be able to enforce the rules so that there is space available for deliveries and so that they can carry out maintenance in the car park.

I think it would also be incredibly unwise just to ignore it and gamble on ParkingEye not pursuing this. Word is that they are currently pursuing everything with great enthusiasm.

I think I'd just pay it to stop worrying about it. If you can afford it, does it matter?