You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
Had one of these through our letterbox. Basically car park full at McDonald’s in Straiton Edinburgh. I parked behind the back of the Nike shop sat in the car as the wife nipped in for some food. There is a picture of our car on the notice which shows my 12 year old sons face.
If I look up the company online it says permanently closed.
Should I pay this, ignore it or write and tell them I’m not paying. Can’t say I noticed and do not park signs but I could be wrong.
Any advice appreciated
Just because you don't remember any no parking signs doesnt mean they weren't there.
You should go back and check
That way you can be sure and if you get a second PCN as a result you'll know the first one wasn't a fluke
Just because you don’t remember any no parking signs doesnt mean they weren’t there.
You should go back and check
This happened to me once and I was adamant there was no signage until I went back and there was a lot of signage.
Were you parked or just loitering.
Does the notice invite you to provide details of the driver? If you don't tell them, how will they know who to take to court? In scotland the registered keeper is not automatically liable.
who is it from? If it is anyone but the council don't engage or even pay.
edit - the loading bay with pets at home?
As above check signage, should be there, there is a minimum required level. Which company is closed permanently, Nike shop? probably not them anyway, probably the landlord so no get out there.
Which Parking Company? Bottom line is if you parked on suitably signed private land you entered into a legally binding contract, if you didnt read the contract (signs) then that's your issue.
How outside of the grace period were you? Always worth an appeal, keep it polite, it might be granted, depends on which parking company and the rules set by the land owner, some companies reject pretty much all appeals, some grant a significant number. Assume your were in the service yard behind Nike, no camera or visible signage in 2019 on Google maps. It'll be the site owner who has the contract not Nike, Highview parking looking at the signage across the road BPA members so you might have a chance of appeal, if they were PIC members less chance.
If it is anyone but the council don’t engage or even pay.
Not great advice, you might get lucky and they don't pursue it, you might one of the random they take to court. In Scotland as above though they can't compel you to identify the driver (at the moment).
Not great advice, you might get lucky and they don’t pursue it, you might one of the random they take to court. In Scotland as above though they can’t compel you to identify the driver (at the moment
It is true though. I've had a few from highland (tesco) and they don't do anything.
If you want to appeal it
Re PCN number:
I dispute your 'parking charge', as the keeper of the vehicle. I deny any liability or contractual agreement and I will be making a complaint about your predatory conduct to your client landowner.
There will be no admissions as to who was driving and no assumptions can be drawn. Since your PCN is a vague template, I require an explanation of the allegation and your evidence. You must include a close up actual photograph of the sign you contend was at the location on the material date as well as your images of the vehicle.
If the allegation concerns a PDT machine, the data supplied in response to this appeal must include the record of payments made - showing partial VRNs - and an explanation of the reason for the PCN, because your Notice does not explain it.
If the allegation involves an alleged overstay of minutes, your evidence must include the actual grace period agreed by the landowner.
It is true though. I’ve had a few from these companies and they can’t do anything.
It is not true. Yet again poor advice.
https://www.eveningtelegraph.co.uk/fp/ninewells-nurses-ordered-pay-4000-parking-fines/
Ignore it and worst case is they take you to your local court under Simple Procedure. No expenses recoverable by them for a claim under £300.
I hate indiscrimiate parking but short term parking in vacant premises? I'd ignore.
Pepipoo advice seems to be ignore if under £300.
http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=139823n
A quick 5 minute internet check shows that the loading bay at the back of Nike and Pets at Home has some signage around the parking spaces (White and Red signs), they will more than likely be ANPR and only for those who have parking passes for that area.
Your only hope would be to speak to the retail park and just state it was an error on your part going in there, and see if they might phone the company and cancel it off, the wife's work has similar and the retail park management company tend to have a routine to rescind parking charges where necessary, my wife had a couple rescinded for her work when they 'forgot' her plate on the system.
I wouldn't ignore it, they were up to bailiff level by the time ours were finally cancelled, absolute nightmare as they kept cancelling it down, but the computer continued the process!
They can only get you if you admit fault (ie. identify the driver). No driver, no invioce. Best advice is to not engage at all.
then at present although there is no concept of Registered Keeper’s liability in Scotland, a Court may presume, in the absence of you identifying the driver, that you were the driver.
https://www.advicescotland.com/parking-charge-notice-private-firms/
Actually backs up boriselbrus about Scotland, England and Wales they can definitely do something about it.
@Agree I think Google maps is showing 2015 images and I don't think those signs are enforcible, plus couldn't see a camera in the 2019 images, doesnt mean it hasn't been installed since then, probably in response to McDonald's customers parking there!
@poah sending a cut and paste load of rubbish like that will get you into the pursue it all the way pile. Some of the smaller companies may still be chancers but most of the bigger ones have inhouse lawyers and contract to some very big companies like the supermarkets who take compliance very seriously. That bit about predatory conduct is wrong and rude, if the parking company is following the rules they are carrying out their lawful business contracted by the land owner. The only vague template is your not very clever cut and paste internet appeal.
They can only get you if you admit fault (ie. identify the driver). No driver, no invioce. Best advice is to not engage at all.
Everything in this statement is wrong, even in Scotland if you look at the above link.
No expenses recoverable by them for a claim under £300.
They'll still take some to court, it's not all about the money, it's making sure people realise they could end up in court, CCJs etc. They want you to pay the discounted amount quickly, that covers the enforcement costs, if you appeal it and lose, it costs more in admin etc. So the costs go up and the PCN.
Ignore the letters, don't respond, they are designed to get you to respond, and they get progressively more threatening of impending court action so easier not to open them, they stop after about 8 months.
This was the advice given me by a Scottish traffic policeman, and that's basically what happened, they are private companies, do not ignore council parking tickets though.
I should add that if you respond to the first letter by admitting something, your car or whatever, you start a process.
This was the advice given me by a Scottish traffic policeman
Who has no more understanding of the legalities of it than people on here. He's also encouraging you to default on a legal contract. Not proper advice.
I thought the old myth about ignoring the letters was debunked some time ago following Parking Eye v Beavis (sp?)
Pepipoo is a great resource. I am fighting one of these companies but have them on the ropes on 3 counts. I keep asking them to move it straight to court...
Sc-xc yes that case provided the legal framework that the government should have put in place but didn't. It also set appropriate charge levels and took away the defence of but it was free parking, the PCN level was set at a level that covered the reasonable cost of enforcement and acted as a deterrent.
Go on then, what 3 counts do you have them on the ropes on. You'll just be one of many that are progressing through their system, I doubt the speed or lack of it has anything to do with whether they think you have a good case (if they did they would have probably dropped it, its good money after bad pursuing dubious PCNs, or you could be unlucky and be pursued by kne of the less reputable companies, in which case good luck, however good your arguments are it's water off a ducks back).
It was a voting day, poll station signs everywhere (including plastered all over the signs telling you about the 15 minute grace period)
Landowner has written to me to say that all the staff are trained to let visitors know about the 15 minutes, he turned his reception over to the poll staff who didn't mention it.
Foi to council confirms the poll staff weren't trained.
Landowner has written to parking company to instruct them to cancel ticket - he has this right. They haven't.
Council were jot made aware of parking restrictions and have sent the company a letter to say that it breached some arrangement thdy made.
I used the pepipoo template, the forums suggested that the obscured signage alone makes the charge non enforceable.
Since this the cameras have all been removed and the restrictions are no longer in place.
There's more (they didn't send me a popla ref in time, normal escalation through several front, 'collection agencies', ignoring correspondence - I sent everything recorded.
Etc
You illegally parked at a retail park after taking your kid to an overcrowded McDonalds. And then posted about it on STW?
I applaud your bravery sir!
As above, when the precedent was set it caused a lot of backtracking for the generic 'do not respond' rule, it's a hard one to work out these days though, it's not an actual fine, they can't fine you, it's their claim for compensation against you breaching their perceived rules for that car park.
It's just a little harder to understand as it wasn't the main car park, it was the loading bay / staff car park, which might be harder to argue against, i would expect clear signage entering that area to state no parking except for permit holders, it is just getting in touch with the retail park management office and trying to talk them into liaising with the parking company to waive the 'fine'
@poah yes that’s the one behind pets at home and Nike. I would go and check the signage but it’s around an hours drive.After a bit of searching online it looks like the parking company has been taken over but still use they’re old name. Should of said on first list that first demand was £60
If paid within 14 days. It’s now up to £100 😳
I thought the old myth about ignoring the letters was debunked some time ago following Parking Eye v Beavis (sp?)
Not in Scotland though
I had one about three years ago and am firmly in the ignore camp. They write to me every six months or so nowadays with the same template letter they sent last time and I ignore that one too. They'll get bored eventually.
.
As an aside, I parked the van, left it and the wife drove it away some time later. I'm the registered keeper but who was the driver?
I'm in the late stages of ignoring one, from west lothian, been going on for literally years now. Just got yet another letter from the recovery people with another random amount (sometimes it goes up to try and scare you, sometimes it goes down to try and dupe you into thinking "oh well that's less than last time, I'll pay it while it's cheap) and telling me that once again they're recommending their client take me to court. Ignored it the last 2 times they did that...
(and totally clean conscience; I parked at one argos then walked to another one because they didn't have what I wanted)
Not saying that this will necessarily work for you of course.
They’ll still take some to court, it’s not all about the money, it’s making sure people realise they could end up in court, CCJs etc.
If you go to court and lose you pay the ticket. You are no worse off apart from losing the discount down to £60. If they want to use their lawyer at £X per day to recover £100 that is up to them.
If you lose in court and pay that is the end. No CCJ. No effect on your credit rating. So if they take 10% to court that is good odds.I suspect it is less than 10%
I suspect they will concentrate their lawyers on repeat tickets. Is anyone aware of anyone in Scotland who has been taken to court for a single ticket?
They can take the registered keeper to court if you don't provide the drivers details within a specific time scale. but only for breach of contract and only for the parking ticket total even if they send you letters upping the amount over time.
i had one recently addressed to my own ltd company and then received several threatening letters with increased charges. i ignored all of it and eventually they stopped sending them.
take a look at this...
https://www.parkingcowboys.co.uk
The Scottish "precedents" were cases of people too stupid to just shut up and hung themselves. As of now, the registered keeper has no legal requirement to disclose driver details and since it is the driver who enters the contract there is nobody to answer.
The "lawyers" are just another department in the same building consisting mainly of people with no more legal training than my dog. Hence threats of county court and other nonsense.
@yourguitarhero Not the case, we stayed in the vehicle and my wife went in. Mask on, hands sanitised 2m distance rule observed.
They can take the registered keeper to court if you don’t provide the drivers details within a specific time scale.
Not in Scotland
The “lawyers” are just another department in the same building consisting mainly of people with no more legal training than my dog
Another ignorant internet statement and also wrong.
https://www.google.com/maps/ @55.886324,-3.1616481,3a,15y,229.99h,86.73t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sFBEUW-JSnikU0_ZjE7sp_w!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
this sign and the others in car park?
guessing they must be a bit pissed at Maccy D customers parking in their spaces https://www.google.com/maps/ @55.8862801,-3.1611451,3a,57.6y,282.65h,102.17t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1supDBeVMxWK5utFr0Vu_6TQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
A lot of advice here applies to England and Wales only. For Scotland and NI you ignore totally despite the threatening letters that come your way for months on end. You only end up in court if multiple tickets are involved.
As above, the law will change soon so you're lucky. For now its vital that the driver is not identified, so don't take the bait.
Who has no more understanding of the legalities of it than people on here. He’s also encouraging you to default on a legal contract. Not proper advice.
This are private companies that 'request' you to 'agree' with their sign that says 'by parking here you agree to comply etc', there is no legal backing for this as per council parking.
I thought the old myth about ignoring the letters was debunked some time ago following Parking Eye v Beavis (sp?)
Pepipoo is a great resource. I am fighting one of these companies but have them on the ropes on 3 counts. I keep asking them to move it straight to court…
I'd say if you engage you take the risk of ending up in court, every time you respond they are collecting information to make a case.
Whether you pay or avoid the charge one thing I did was to not go back to our local town (Bury) after the wife got stung by one of these petty companies.
And you wonder why Amazon does so well.
If you were sat in the car the whole time then you didn't park, you were waiting.
IANAL.
there is no legal backing
Wrong, Beavis vs ParkingEye established that there is under contract law.
the wife got stung by one of these petty companies.
So your wife parked on private land and didn't comply with the land owners rules for doing so, why does that make the company contracted to legally enforce those rules petty? Most land owners enforce for one of 2 reasons, their legitimate customers or staff can't park because other people abuse the parking or the land owner has invested money in a pay to park car park and needs to recover that investment by ensuring people pay to park, car parks aren't cheap to build or maintain. If people complied with the land owners wishes there would be no PCNs and no parking enforcement companies. Surely what we have now is way better than the uncontrolled mess we had when clamping and removal of vehicles was legal, when motorists were literally held to ransom to get their vehicle back or risked being stranded. Or would you prefer there was no control mechanism for land owners, complete free for all, try shopping at the Eastlands Asda in Manchester everytime City play, or Sainsbury's Aldi in Burnley when the Clarets play at home, how about the shopping car park next to a train station that is full of commuters parked all day, health centre car park full of shoppers meaning someone who relies on their car for mobility can't park when visiting the doctors. The hotel in a tourist hot spot where the guests can't park because the car park is rammed with tourists? Without the legal and controlled system we have now we'd be back to the bad old days of land owners blocking people in, letting tyres down, closing gates on people. A £60 PCN to control parking isn't that draconian, its enough to make most people think twice about breaking the rules and it covers the cost of the enforcement, the PCN value is nothing to do with the loss to the land owner but reflects the cost of each case, installation of signage and cameras isn't cheap, and the behind the scenes systems and issuing of the PCNs cost money. As I said earlier if people obeyed the rules there wouldn't be parking enforcement companies. There are times people make genuine mistakes or something happens to prevent them complying, breakdown, illness etc. There are proper appeals processes backed up with independent appeals bodies (POPLA for example) right through to the court system to deal with these cases. The win rate at independent appeals and the courts is quote high for the more reputable companies, mainly because they grant a large proportion of appeals earlier in the process, chasing dubious PCNs is not cost effective and more importantly pisses off the landowner who has to deal with their hacked off legitimate customers. The companies that refuse to cancel PCNs (and there are some that won't, it's in their contractswith the land owners, so not always up to the land owner as pointed out above incorrectly) often find they lose the enforcement contract or worst case lose access to the DVLA database and then it's game over. The system isn't perfect but like most things you can blame the government for that, leaving land owners to try and find legal and proportionate ways of protecting their investments from abuse rather setting something out clearly in legislation.
Wrong, Beavis vs ParkingEye established that there is under contract law.
Not in Scotland they didn't.
Also, Jesus H Corbett, press Enter occasionally, my eyes are bleeding.
so not always up to the land owner as pointed out above incorrectly
If that was on response to me, the landowner in this case does have the right to cancel. I know him, and he has written to tell me as such.
I didn't say in all cases, so not sure how it's incorrect?
Beavis vs ParkingEye established that there is under contract law.
Not in Scotland they didn’t.
Debatable - because of the level it went to in the courts system (Supreme Court) which sits above the country courts it would have authority over the Scottish courts if an appeal went that far. It could also be considered highly relevant in a Scottish case if tested and argued. But it doesn't get tested because usually the reg keeper bit is a loophole to get parking freeriders off.
https://www.supremecourt.uk/about/uk-judicial-system.html
I got one in our local Lidl's car park when we popped into the doctor's surgery. I as registered keeper wrote to Lidl explaining the driver had intended to get our shopping following a vaccination for a 1 year old but decided against it with a screaming child. I asked Lidl to cancel it.
I got back an automated letter saying it had been cancelled.
In your case it looks like you stopped in a loading bay. I'm not sure how that affects your argument. I've never had any PCNs while parking or dropping and waiting at Straiton
How many of you experts arguing for PCNs are Scottish and have experience of it through the Scottish system?
I'm fully aware the loophole is going to be closed but right now (which we are talking about) it hasn't.
And being better than private clamping is such a low, low, bar to clear. These companies are predatory, end of. I hate the folk that park illegally as much as anyone but it's an absolute nonsense how the companies get away with their antics.
it's absolute nonsense how the companies get away with antics
Care to elaborate on that? Do you object that they pursue people if they stick two fingers up and say I ain't paying, be pretty toothless enforcement if that happened. So what do you object to, the fact they use legal means to pursue the breach of contract to fulfil their contract with the land owner to provide a deterrent to people parking where they shouldn't.
What's your suggestion then, every land owner has to rely on the trespass laws and sue every driver for loss of immunity, a free for all accessing the DVLA database?
these companies are predatory
There are various codes of conduct and quite stringent standards they have to follow around evidence, signage and process. Not all the companies live up to their full obligations but in those cases appeal and it will get granted, if not by the company by the independent appeals process. Complain to the DVLA, they do take it quite seriously and will revoke access to their database. Ultimately the land owner makes the decision to contract to a parking company and have a lot of say in how that parking enforcement is done when they sign the contract, after that they are bound by the terms of the contract. If you don't like the way the land owner conducts their business boycott the business.
The Lidl example above is good practice and shows not all land owners are heartless beasts, strictly speaking that PCN was enforcible but Lidl saw sense and decided pursuing it wasn't in anyone's interests. You don't hear about the hundreds of thousands of appeals that get granted straight away, just people moaning they got caught and some how think the rules shouldn't apply to them
Sorry about the lack of gaps Cougar, it was 1 in the morning and i couldn't sleep, hopefully you'll be able to take a breath this time.
I'm not arguing for or against anyone, just pointing out an inaccuracy in the "Beavis vs Parking Eye doesn't apply in Scotland" statement.
But if you want my take, as the (former, new job now) site manager for a small business on a white collar industrial unit on the edge of a small town, where I had to pay to rent parking spaces from the landlord, but frequently could not use them because of freeloading parkers, I'm all for the existence of a deterrent.
I know you're only doing the school run / will only be 15 minutes / nipping into the post office but there's pay and display car parks in town that my staff now have to use when your 15 mins dropping the kids off miraculously becomes an hour when the other mummies all decide to go for a coffee or whatever. And then the dogs abuse when we double parked and couldn't come out exactly when you got back.
Theft, is what is is. Read the signs, follow the rules or pay the charge.
Did you have your hazards on? No-one can fine you in those circumstances.
My advice for these if you want to get rid of them is not to engage with the parking enforcement company, but with the owner of the car park or the businesses that use it. This will only work if you are bringing a benefit to the businesses though, e.g. spending £x while you were there or you are a regular customer of the business and can threaten not to use them.
We did this for my wife at Straiton. She overstayed by 15 mins or so in the TK Maxx car park but could demonstrate by receipts that she had been shopping at quite a few shops there. The owner of the retail park cancelled it. I'm sure we did it for another car park too.
@Northwind I'd have contacted Argos in your case. They would have probably cancelled it for you as you were genuinely bringing them benefit.
@toomba you could perhaps contact the retail park owner, explain what went on (but don't say who the driver was) and say that the invoice is now completely disproportionate to the inconvenience caused to the (closed?) business, the driver is now aware of the parking restrictions but that the driver is not likely to visit the retail park or McDonald's again and will go elsewhere.
Sorry about the lack of gaps Cougar, it was 1 in the morning and i couldn’t sleep, hopefully you’ll be able to take a breath this time.
Fair enough, I recognise that feeling all too well.
@stumpyjon I object to the fact that every time I've been invoiced I've been legally parked and went a few minutes over whilst using the shopping facilities. I object to the fact that in many cases the parking companies assume greater power than the land owner. It would be a simple matter to install an ANPR connected registration system at a shop till to prove you are shopping there and avoid all this hassle but that wouldn't generate money for the shitehawks profiting off of it. I shouldn't have to chase every man and his dog to get a fine overturned for using a free parking facility and there are a good deal of people out there who would just pay up, especially after the appeal (to the company) is initially rejected (before being typically upheld by POPLA). It's predatory pure and simple.
I sympathise with those who are inconvenienced by antisocial parking but this isn't IMO the way to go about resolving it. Even the daft lassie in Dundee was parking in front of her own parents garage, she was inconveniencing nobody and parked in front of the owners property with permission but somehow common sense was thrown out the window and she was used as an example (and rinsed for the privilege).
I object to the fact that every time I’ve been invoiced I’ve been legally parked and went a few minutes over
I know what you are trying to say - but that sound a little bit like "I wasn't really speeding as I was within the 10%+2"
Even the daft lassie in Dundee was parking in front of her own parents garage, she was inconveniencing nobody and parked in front of the owners property with permission but somehow common sense was thrown out the window and she was used as an example (and rinsed for the privilege).
I'm not sure which case you are referring to - but the only Scottish cases I've ever seen reported are where people persistently park against the published rules. I can't decide if she was a daft wee lassie for ignoring the repeated charge notices or common sense was thrown out the window and she was used as an example not to keep ignoring the notices - it can't really be both.
Did you have your hazards on? No-one can fine you in those circumstances.
Many modern cars don't have hazard lights - there can surely be no other reason that people broken down on the hard shoulder don't use them!
I’m not arguing for or against anyone, just pointing out an inaccuracy in the “Beavis vs Parking Eye doesn’t apply in Scotland” statement.
But actually, it isn't precedent in Scottish law. The fact the supreme court has some remit over Scotland doesn't mean it would reach the same conclusion in Scots Law and English law for every otherwise identical civil case. It may be relevant, but it doesn't tie the judge's hands. However, as I recall the essence of the Beavis case was whether the penalty charges were reasonable in the circumstances - if a case gets as far as the level of charge in Scotland it would almost certainly be highlighted as an example of how other courts have dealt with the issue before, it would not be unheard of for cases from elsewhere in the commonwealth to get cited too. But if a Scottish Judge felt that there was a distinct difference in how the law operates between jurisdictions he'd be totally free to reject such a comparison.
FWIW I too think if you knowingly break the rules - pay up. If you don't know you broke the rules - either they are not clear or you need to pay more attention when driving so pay up! I'm surprised the government hasn't seen an opportunity to cash in and at the same time help out the beleaguered motorist! Offer a scheme where DVLA (or on off-shoot) do the work; government set penalties - perhaps as little as £15 for first 30 minutes of misuse; automatic keeper liability (forget hunting for the driver - the keeper can get the money from them if they've let someone drive and they can't follow the rules); owner submits the evidence, dvla do the collection/enforcing, dvla keep a (high) proportion of the proceeds, dvla manages an appeals scheme - successful appeals cost the landowner money encouraging only legit submissions. Gov get income; landowners have protection; drivers have better safeguards against overzealous profiteering.
I know what you are trying to say – but that sound a little bit like “I wasn’t really speeding as I was within the 10%+2”
Yeah I know, thanks for taking the charitable view 😀
I’m not sure which case you are referring to – but the only Scottish cases I’ve ever seen reported are where people persistently park against the published rules. I can’t decide if she was a daft wee lassie for ignoring the repeated charge notices or common sense was thrown out the window and she was used as an example not to keep ignoring the notices – it can’t really be both.
Both of those actually, she ignored them as she thought it was all legit then got royally humped for it.
Squirrelking so you admit to breaking the rules then, also bearing in mind you get a grace period, the free parking is always longer than on the signs, so your few minutes really isn't. The Parking Cos don't exceed the powers of the land owner, they enforce the rules the land owner wishes to enforce so that statement is rubbish. As for appeals being rejected by the operator and upheld by POPLA got any source for that other than blind prejudice? I know it's fundamentally not true. Cancellation rates on first appeal are quite high in the first instance and win rates at POPLA are at 90% for the better companies. You are exactly the sort of person that makes enforcement necessary and helps keep the parking companies in business, the 97% of the population who park properly, within the rules set by the land owner never have a problem.
Thanks for all who took the time to read my post and comment, lot of useful information. Just to add we don’t make a habit of parking in this way. First ticket in 30+ years of driving. After a long journey kids playing up needing fed. Yes we should have read the signs but hey we made the decision , the driver stayed in the car so I guess I’m gona be stubborn and not pay. I will however try a letter to the retail park co and try to explain.
Will update the outcome 👍
Jesus wept, how can you speak for the boot polish?
I've been caught out when shopping, if it helps that was at a local shopping centre with a ludicrously short parking allowance, a trip to a nearby retail park where I had the cheek to walk to the adjoining shop rather than drive 20m to their arbitrary monobloc and another where I was held up by the fact I had to run and drop my guts thanks to the low warning you get with a hernia.
So yes, I'm the problem with society. I don't park on double yellows, disabled spaces, pavements, charging bays, residents bays, cycle lanes or such but because I park in car parks for a handful of minutes over my arbitrary allowed time I am the 3% who ruined everything.
Aye, okay. Awa and shite in yer hands and clap.
Satisfy my inner curiosity, what are your thoughts on kids excluded from school for uniform infractions?
toomba
Free Member
Thanks for all who took the time to read my post and comment, lot of useful information. Just to add we don’t make a habit of parking in this way. First ticket in 30+ years of driving. After a long journey kids playing up needing fed. Yes we should have read the signs but hey we made the decision , the driver stayed in the car so I guess I’m gona be stubborn and not pay. I will however try a letter to the retail park co and try to explain.
Will update the outcome 👍
Good stuff, i'd try and phone them more than a letter, always good to speak to someone and maybe just put a bit more to the story, i.e. were shopping, stopped off for toilet break and McD's for the kids and never noticed the signage, seen many of these happen and usually the person on the other end of the phone is happy to cancel down more often than not if you're polite and apologetic, just give them the reference number of the Parking Charge Notice and so on.
https://www.straitonretailpark.co.uk/contact/
Squirrelking: How many of you experts arguing for PCNs are Scottish and have experience of it through the Scottish system?
I'm Scottish, had 2, both McDonalds, ignored them without issue, if I showed the very slick tricks they use in the letters here everyone would see it for what it is, they threatened me with fictional impending court cases and in one last desperate attempt they were going to drop said fictional impending court cases if I paid, then back to threats, goes on for ages.
If they were going to take you to court the letter would be signed for, there is no evidence of anyone receiving any of them so no one is going to court.
Badabing! Exactly. It's basically a scam designed to extort from people not clued up enough to dispute the allegations. Or know that there are no county courts in Scotland.
Badabing! Exactly. It’s basically a scam designed to extort from people not clued up enough to dispute the allegations. Or know that there are no county courts in Scotland.
Basically yes, if you are requested to go to, or threatened with going to court the letter doesn't arrive with junk mail.
I'm not sure that's true, you know. I've had a legitimate court summons arrive at my address (not for me) and it was regular post.
Needs to be recorded delivery in Scotland. Or by Sheriff Officer if recorded delivery unsuccessful .
https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/taking-action/simple-procedure/simple-procedure---making-a-claim
, if I showed the very slick tricks they use in the letters here everyone would see it for what it is, they threatened me with fictional impending court cases and in one last desperate attempt they were going to drop said fictional impending court cases if I paid, then back to threats, goes on for ages.
If they were going to take you to court the letter would be signed for, there is no evidence of anyone receiving any of them so no one is going to court.
OK in England but I did ignore, got threatened with court, ignored and round and round we went. Then did go to court and I lost on a technicality. Not one letter from the car park operator nor the court was signed for.
I am currently in another battle and again it is now at court waiting a hearing date. Again, not one letter from the operator nor the court has been sent by any form of signed for post.
I have ignored many others in the past as well and they have not gone to court but they do sometimes proceed to court so do not be under the impression they never do. And do not think for one moment the letters will be signed for 🙂
Bit confused by English law here, if not signed for how do they prove you received it or knew anything about it?
I'm not suggesting anyone tries to get out of anything or does anything wrong, but nor am I a fan of pandering to being threatened by a private contract parking company when all you did was park a car in the car park provided.
Cougar
I’m not sure that’s true, you know. I’ve had a legitimate court summons arrive at my address (not for me) and it was regular post.
If you had binned it would they be being prosecuted fairly? if so a private company has just made it's own rules.
Bit confused by English law here, if not signed for how do they prove you received it or knew anything about it?
If my memory serves me right from distant contract law studies...there is an implied term in English law that (proof of?) posting is prima facie evidence of receipt.
Just to add to this, I have had a court summons (years ago re Road tax) and a jury notification. Neither were recorded.
Is that fair and just?
I don't think so, if you order something off ebay and it doesn't turn up you would have more rights than your legal system extends, I'm not disputing it but I think it sucks.
It's English law and, as we all know, ignorance of the law is no defence - in law.
That doesn't make it right.
If you had binned it would they be being prosecuted fairly? if so a private company has just made it’s own rules.
Search me.
I don't want to go into too much detail because it's regarding someone else so it's not my place. The summons was for a non-payment of... something, I can't even remember now, it might've been the final repayment of a credit agreement. The recipient had moved out a good while ago and I'd been broadly ignoring their not unsubstantial mail, but something prompted me to open this one. Maybe I saw the red through the envelope window or something. The letter was from the courts and it was "here's your court date unless you pay up first." I paid it off for them, I didn't have a forwarding address and I figured it was better than the potential consequences of them missing a court summons. So, what would have happened in the event of a 'non-delivery' I do not know.
If my memory serves me right from distant contract law studies…there is an implied term in English law that (proof of?) posting is prima facie evidence of receipt.
Is it? That flies in the face of everything I thought I knew about stuff like online ordering.
I paid it off for them, I didn’t have a forwarding address and I figured it was better than the potential consequences of them missing a court summons.
Not all heroes wear capes!
Bit confused by English law here, if not signed for how do they prove you received it or knew anything about it?
It was established in Beavis v Parking Eye at the Supreme Court that sending letters by normal post was an accepted and acceptable way of dealing with such matters. I did of course raise this point when my last PCN went to court and I was told I could go bollocks on that point 🙂 .
As it happens I send everything back to the court and to the claimant via special next day as I would rather be safe in the knowledge I had nailed on proof however it seems I could merely claim I had sent it and this would be fine.
I am not risking it though for the sake of a few quid in postage.
I am not risking it though for the sake of a few quid in postage.
But they allow private companies to and you remain liable? that sounds like a license to make up your own extortion racket to me.
I paid it off for them, I didn’t have a forwarding address and I figured it was better than the potential consequences of them missing a court summons.
That is the winner of my kind act of the month...actually it was the only contender this month..
@argee. Thank you for the link. I will be giving them a ring 👍