Crosswords2 mins ago
Parking Fines
13 Answers
I've just received a parking fine through the post for overstaying at a supermarket by 26 minutes, which has 1 and a half hours of free parking.
I have gathered that this is a civil matter as it was on private land.
So do I have to pay it and what will happen If I don't?
Thank you
I have gathered that this is a civil matter as it was on private land.
So do I have to pay it and what will happen If I don't?
Thank you
Answers
1 to 13 of 13
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by daddylonglegs. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Pedantic point:
It's not a 'fine'; it's a 'parking charge'. (Private bodies can't fine people).
There are plenty of people around here who will tell you that you can ignore it and nothing will happen. That may well be the case sometimes but certainly not always; the parking company has the right to pursue the debt through the courts, which can add considerably to the costs for the motorist:
http://
There may also be others who will tell you that it's only the driver who can be charged for excess parking, not the registered keeper of the vehicle, so simply refusing to disclose the identity of the driver will suffice to avoid payment. That was indeed the case up until the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 was passed. However that Act banned wheel-clamping but recognised that those responsible for parking controls need some form of enforcement measures, so (in the absence of the name of the driver) the registered keeper of a vehicle can now be pursued through the courts for parking charges.
So you can take a gamble and simply ignore the parking charge (risking the possibility of expensive court action) or simply pay up. It's your choice.
It's not a 'fine'; it's a 'parking charge'. (Private bodies can't fine people).
There are plenty of people around here who will tell you that you can ignore it and nothing will happen. That may well be the case sometimes but certainly not always; the parking company has the right to pursue the debt through the courts, which can add considerably to the costs for the motorist:
http://
There may also be others who will tell you that it's only the driver who can be charged for excess parking, not the registered keeper of the vehicle, so simply refusing to disclose the identity of the driver will suffice to avoid payment. That was indeed the case up until the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 was passed. However that Act banned wheel-clamping but recognised that those responsible for parking controls need some form of enforcement measures, so (in the absence of the name of the driver) the registered keeper of a vehicle can now be pursued through the courts for parking charges.
So you can take a gamble and simply ignore the parking charge (risking the possibility of expensive court action) or simply pay up. It's your choice.
All correct above from Buenchico. I have heard of several cases where people have simply ignored these and they do go away after several increasingly acidic letters. However I have also heard of at last one case where it has been persued and the final cost was almost £1000. The initial "charge" is usually small so if I was you I'd accept I broke their rules and got caught and pay up, at least then you won't have months of worrying about whether it's going to rack up.
-- answer removed --
>>>but I predict I'll be corrected on this if incorrect
Yes, you will!
A supermarket car park is no different to, say, an NCP car park. The owner/operator has the right to make a charge for parking. As long as such charges are clearly displayed then any driver entering that car park is deemed to have entered into a contract to pay those charges. (You don't have to sign anything to enter into a legally-binding contract. Actions, as in this case, can suffice).
Yes, you will!
A supermarket car park is no different to, say, an NCP car park. The owner/operator has the right to make a charge for parking. As long as such charges are clearly displayed then any driver entering that car park is deemed to have entered into a contract to pay those charges. (You don't have to sign anything to enter into a legally-binding contract. Actions, as in this case, can suffice).
It's a civil matter, just as local authority fines for street parking offences are a civil matter. If you don't pay, they'll use a debt collection agency. Eventually, they'll take you to court and get a distress warrant (which will probably mean the bailiffs take your car).
If you can convince the supermarket manager that you were actually in his shop for one hour 56 minutes, he'll get the charge cancelled.
If you can convince the supermarket manager that you were actually in his shop for one hour 56 minutes, he'll get the charge cancelled.
That statement is totally wrong. First very very few private parking companies 'do court'.
Watch this from the BBC
A bailiff can only visit your home if you have defaulted on payment of a court order.
Also, the value of a car would greatly outweigh the price of a parking ticket (unenforceable invoice).
Here is some interesting reading
http://
Watch this from the BBC
A bailiff can only visit your home if you have defaulted on payment of a court order.
Also, the value of a car would greatly outweigh the price of a parking ticket (unenforceable invoice).
Here is some interesting reading
http://
I don't think the supermarket will be interested in any appeal or be in a position to waive the charge. It's between you and the parking company. As others have said, it's better to just ignore it. Writing with a sob story/excuse may make things worse as you'll be acknowledging you were the driver, knew the contract terms and received the letter
Here is a get out excuse which I used last time I was stung.
Dear Sir/Madam
At the relevant time, the driver of the car was one of my children. As driver is under the age of 18 and still a minor, I am not obliged to provide you with their name.
I must point out to you that any contract with a person under 18 is voidable. I must also point out that a parent is not responsible for any contract entered into by a child. For your reference, stated cases on this matter include Blackburn v Mackey, Law v Wilkins and Mortimer v Wright.
Your invoice is therefore void and I consider this matter closed.
Yours faithfully
This worked for me and I didn't hear from them again
Dear Sir/Madam
At the relevant time, the driver of the car was one of my children. As driver is under the age of 18 and still a minor, I am not obliged to provide you with their name.
I must point out to you that any contract with a person under 18 is voidable. I must also point out that a parent is not responsible for any contract entered into by a child. For your reference, stated cases on this matter include Blackburn v Mackey, Law v Wilkins and Mortimer v Wright.
Your invoice is therefore void and I consider this matter closed.
Yours faithfully
This worked for me and I didn't hear from them again
1 to 13 of 13
