Are these "fines" enforceable ?

[Deleted member 226268]

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/58...-queuing-THREE-HOURS-jammed-Coventry-car-park

Is it a fine or an invoice ?

Why do supermarkets rent out their car parks to these scammers?

.

 

[Newchodge]

They are invoices and can be enforced through the small claims court.

 

[Gecko001]

These types of demands for money are in effect claims for liquidated damages - not a fine or penalty.

 

[Paul Norman]

There has been a court case in the last year relating to this kind of charge.

It supported the car parking company. You will get lots of people telling you not to pay, but if the company pursue this, you will have to pay.

Your second question is easier still. It is a great revenue generator for the private companies, and they pay the supermarket good money for the square footage from which to do it if the location is premium enough.

 

[smallclaimsassistance]

Why couldn't you get out of the car park (IE: this has apparently happened before, which would suggest access issues)? If it was through the fault of the car park owners, tell them that they can stick their fee, and if they pursue it through the courts, you will countersue for damages for false imprisonment.

If it was due to some cause not of their making, I'm afraid you're probably stuffed.

Dean

 

[NRLtd]

Have a look on the Money Saving Expert forums http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/forumdisplay.php?f=163

Theoretically these charges (not fines!) are enforceable, and sometimes are enforced through the courts by the relevant parking company. However, there are ways to appeal and the charge often gets overturned - the parking firms rely on fear/the official appearance of the paperwork to "persuade" people to pay. Some firms are very litigious, others less so.

The law changed a few years ago (2012 I believe), the change made it easier to get these charges enforced. If you spend just a little time on the forum above, you'll see what a sham/con/scam it can be!

 

[lesliedocherty]

There has been a court case in the last year relating to this kind of charge.

It supported the car parking company. You will get lots of people telling you not to pay, but if the company pursue this, you will have to pay.

Your second question is easier still. It is a great revenue generator for the private companies, and they pay the supermarket good money for the square footage from which to do it if the location is premium enough.

2 cases up here recently, both found in favour of company, one person had parked every day for about a year, over £10k agaoinst him, another was for a few grand as well

 

[NRLtd]

It's also worth mentioning that the "liquidated damages" stance in these situations no longer applies. It seems many people were able to successfully appeal on the grounds that there was actually no loss or damages caused to the parking companies. However, the terms of parking are not construed so that you "agree" to pay a parking charge (fee) if you overstay your welcome.

 

[UKSBD]

£24.5k - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-tayside-central-39478203

 

[webgeek]

Once you're outside of the painted lines and are in your running vehicle, you are no longer parked, based on a similar conversation with someone previously. It'd probably cost you more to defend it than pay it however.

Is better to raise the biggest stink you can on here, on social media, on their profile pages, at their checkouts, etc - making it clear that these types of gestapo tactics will lead to buying from the competition. It's how COOP in at least some of their locations were forced to remove the bullies.

 

[NRLtd]

£24.5k - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-tayside-central-39478203

The daft thing is, if she'd not buried her head in the sand and taken her stalwart approach, she may have saved herself sometime and money!

Once you're outside of the painted lines and are in your running vehicle, you are no longer parked, based on a similar conversation with someone previously. It'd probably cost you more to defend it than pay it however.

Is better to raise the biggest stink you can on here, on social media, on their profile pages, at their checkouts, etc - making it clear that these types of gestapo tactics will lead to buying from the competition. It's how COOP in at least some of their locations were forced to remove the bullies.

The first defence is an appeal to the parking company, who nearly always decline. You would then be able to appeal to one of the two independent (although that's questionable!) appeals services. If the appeal was not upheld, it would then be up to the parking company to pursue via the small claims court- some do, some don't have the guts. There are cases on the Money Saving Expert forums of people successfully defending their claim themselves, without s solicitor etc.

 

[Paul Norman]

By far the cheapest option, in terms of time, angst, and probably cash, is just to pay. Quickly, and take the discount for quick payment.

 

[NRLtd]

By far the cheapest option, in terms of time, angst, and probably cash, is just to pay. Quickly, and take the discount for quick payment.

That's what the parking companies are relying on! In a significant number of cases, they can be thwarted for nothing - except an additional cost to the parking company!

 

[fisicx]

Or, do as I did and appeal. Their evidence was based solely on the evidence of an 'enforcement officer' and was dropped. The second time I appealed I heard nothing back so didn't pay.

 

[Newchodge]

The parking company almost certainly did not know about the traffic jam. the automated number plate recognition generates automatic invoices. Contacting the company and explaining, es[ecially as they could check eith the police, would almost certainle have the ticket cancelled. As it was over 2 years ago, I doubt we'll ever find out what happened.

 

[sirearl]

I thought they were a car park management company which would make delays in leaving there responsibility.

 

[Ione]

What about trying to dispute such payment by standing the way that it was not possible to get out of a parking place due to circumstances which could not be foreseen, were not under control?

 

[Michael Gerard]

I wrote an article about this last year and have just uploaded the same onto my blog page if anyone is interested in reading it: http://www.ukbusinessforums.co.uk/xfa-blog-entry/private-parking-charge.3798/

Essentially, parking ‘fines’ from private companies are in fact invoices. When someone drives into a privately owned car park, they do so on licence and enter into a civil contract. There will usually be visible signs on display which are the terms and conditions of the contract, and if the driver should breach any of the T&C’s, then there is usually a pre-determined liquidated sum specified as the damage that the keeper of the vehicle is liable for.

Prior to the Protection of Freedoms Act coming into force in 2012, private parking 'fines' could only be enforced against the driver and hence it had to prove who the driver was because the contract was between the landowner / agent and the driver. However, since the Act has come into force, it is now the keeper of the vehicle that is liable for private parking charges.

There has been a couple of high-profile cases challenging these private parking fines, and one went to the Supreme Court in 2015, where the driver challenged the charge on the basis that it was a penalty (penalties are not enforceable), and thus unenforceable. The driver was however unsuccessful, with the Court stating that although the penalty rule is engaged, the charge (which was £85.00) was not a penalty.

In addition to the penalty challenge, other defences to such fines include whether the signs were clear and visible and whether the ground markings were clear.

In the article that the OP has referred to, the defence would be that there was an act of prevention insofar that she was prevented from leaving the car park by her own accord.

 

[Nord20]

It is worth appealing - to the company first, who will absolutely not uphold your appeal, then to the ombudsman. I did that when I got a fine when my car broke down and I was waiting for the AA. The company refused my appeal, but it was subsequently upheld.

They even get nasty with the appeals process - they issue the fine saying it's, say, £100, but if you pay within a certain time, they reduce it to £50, but if you appeal to the ombudsman and lose, you're liable for the full £100.

 

[Ione]

Would any one point me out why penalties are not enforceable in the UK? In my country penalties are enforceable, but the court authorities may reduce the amount of penalties due to some reasons.

 

[UKSBD]

Would any one point me out why penalties are not enforceable in the UK?

They are enforceable provided they stick to the rules.

You can't just buy a bit of land, mark it out as a car park, charge a set fee an hour, but then give a penalty out to anyone who parks for more than an hour, unless it is clearly stated that this will happen.

Signs have to be clearly worded so as a contract is created.

 

[Michael Gerard]

Would any one point me out why penalties are not enforceable in the UK? In my country penalties are enforceable, but the court authorities may reduce the amount of penalties due to some reasons.

The 'modern' day test as to whether or not a liquidated sum is deemed to be a penalty goes back to the case of Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co. Ltd v New Garage & Motor Co. Ltd [1915], although that test has since been replaced and reference is made to the recent parking 'fine' case of Parking Eye v Beavis [2015].

The Dunlop test was whether or not a liquidated sum could have been said to be a genuine pre-estimate of the innocent party's losses, but the Parking Eye test is now "whether the sum or remedy stipulated as a consequence of a breach of contract is exorbitant or unconscionable when regard is had to the innocent party's interest in the performance of the contract."

In answer to your question therefore, English courts will not allow payment of a sum for a breach of contract if it is said to be in terrorem - compelling someone to act in terror. If this was allowed, you would have payers inserting huge penalties in their contracts for a near-impossible performance in order to make a profit.

 

[Deleted member 226268]

Seems a bit odd to me that the legal system and the courts
are apparently quite happy to condone and support what appears to be a complete country-wide
blatant rip-off scam aimed at motorists.

You would think that the Government would try to suppress any competition.

With the sole intention of supermarkets, shopping centres, cash-strapped councils and hospitals,
to benefit by extracting money from visitors and customers, just for parking outside their shops.

Even the hospital nurses and other employees are not safe >>>

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/790597/Nurse-patients-parking-fines-hospital-car-park

There is a whole new fines culture emerging, aimed directly at the unwary, unwashed.

Even get fined for parking in front of your own driveway >
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/788671/parking-fines-pensioner-own-driveway-council


Yes, Sir, of course you can park there ......Gotcha.
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/659305/video-traffic-warden-moves-no-parking-cone-fining-motorist


Schools are now finding more ways to raising more cash >>

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/82...s-parents-fined-child-late-term-time-absences

There will be fines for wearing wrong colour clothes next.

Who the hell gave schools the authority to fine anyone, for anything ?

Blair ? Gove ?


Oh, and don't use the trains...

Look Mate...You can't buy a ticket, because of our own astounding incompetence, but now you will be fined for not having a ticket.
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/820027/travel-updates-latest-rail-ticket-machines-broken-delays



There will be rewards issued next, for informing the council on your neighbour's bad habits ......Oh, wait....

It's bin coming for some time...

Stoke-on-Trent City Council has even asked the public to snoop on neighbours and report anyone failing to stick to the rules over winter.
The Staffordshire-based authority has also vowed to use “covert operations” including CCTV to catch residents putting their rubbish out too early.

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/737388/Shocked-residents-told-fined-taking-rubbish-out-early-stoke

Happy Christmas....


What a load of rubbish....where there's muck..there's brass, well, easy cash for the councils, anyway.....
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/179576/Bin-police-may-fine-you-1-000-for-not-recycling



Look Jerk... Don't go putting your litter in the bins that we have spent £ thousands of tax-payer's money to provide you with bins for you to put your litter in...

We can't bother our Idle Little Ass to empty them, because people keep putting litter in them, and filling them up again,
so we fine you instead.

Go throw your litter in the street instead, then we fine you again.

Nice Little 'earner, Terry, that one...

http://www.bristolpost.co.uk/news/bristol-news/you-could-fined-up-50000-128870



And don't cross that bus lane .....we put it right across the supermarket entrance deliberately .... specifically to fine suckers like you.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/driver-fined-crossing-bus-lane-10658564



Oh, and don't move out of the way of that Emergency Ambulance dat's right up yo ass, dude, let the patient die.
or it will cost you a lot of money, which is more important.
Just hope that the patient is a Politician, having a coronary after that over indulgent two hour free lunch.

http://www.express.co.uk/life-style/cars/803825/driving-fine-moving-out-way-ambulance-UK


Relaxing on summer holiday ?
Don't let that seagull steal your bag of chips out of your hand = Or Else.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...-could-face-80-fines-caught-feeding-seagulls/

Andonevenfinkaboudit ...taking your young child to feed the F. ducks at the park.
http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/coventry-news/animal-lover-fined-100-feeding-12581583


In fact, it is best for your pocket if you don't have a car at all,
or kids,
or need to go to work,
or even .... Go outside.


Completely forgotten about submitting your paper tax return three months ago ? ......... Christ !


The UK is slowly creeping into a nasty, sinister, perverse fines culture, for everything, and anything,
becoming an East German Stazi state.

UK has more CCTV cameras that any other country in the world, Big Brother Gov will be watching out for your next mistake...
it needs the money.
Politician's tax free pay rises coming up.

.

 

[Ione]

Thank you UKSBD and Michael Gerard for your explanations! It is quite exactly the same we have in Kazakhstan.

Seems a bit odd to me that the legal system and the courts are apparently quite happy to condone and support what appears to be a complete country-wide blatant rip-off scam

I guess it is how gov system is involved in money making for the budget, because it is easier to rip-off a vulnerable.

 

[webgeek]

Interestingly, bus lanes don't operate the same way. You don't need a sign to be notified of the hours of operation, the fines for driving there, etc. Anywhere else for road safety, you need a sign to specify - but bus lanes don't have to follow this guidance, as they are much more effective at stealing money from residents by not publishing any signage.

What's really cool is when they have an old bus lane sign saying 7am to 7pm, then remove the signs. You think they've been vandalised, overgrown with trees, like most signs in the area, but later find they've changed to 24 hours a day enforcement - without a sign to advise you.

I think the UK government on the whole is awesome, but the local bus lane fines, their lack of signage, their lack of oversight by legal counsel, their lack of appeals to an independent adjudicator all make them 100x worse than private parking fines.

 

[The Resolver]

The claim is based on the concept that the driver entered into a contract with the parking company by agreeing to seek permission to park in return for agreeing that a fee would be paid if the stay exceeded the set time. In this particular case it would be easy to convince a court that the consent to pay the fine was given on the implied condition that ,once the driver decided to exit the car park, that it would be physically possible to do so within a reasonably short period of time. A court would therefore decide that the so long as the driver was in the car in a line seeking to exit when the time elapsed, then the contract would not require her to make a payment.

Any driver caught in this way should not pay and should respond to say they will defend it in the small claims court should they wish to proceed explaining the reasons why they could not exit. Since the court does not generally order the successful party to pay the legal costs of the losing party, it wil cost the company far more to sue than to just drop it.

More generally the contract that they claim is created is based on them proving that the driver saw their conditions on one of the notice boards (not always the case) AND AGREED to pay the amount in return for staying over the limit. However the driver could adopt the position that, even if he saw the notice, that he decided not to agree to the terms (the whole point of contract law is that no contract is formed unless both parties agree) but to park anyway in the knowledge he is doing so as a trespasser.In other words he takes the risk that the car may be towed away. That is most unlikely as carrying huge legal risk for the parking company.

I have received one of these notices some time ago, explained the above and not heard.

 

[The Byre]

The claim is based on the concept that the driver entered into a contract with the parking company by agreeing to seek permission to park in return for agreeing that a fee would be paid if the stay exceeded the set time. In this particular case it would be easy to convince a court that the consent to pay the fine was given on the implied condition that ,once the driver decided to exit the car park, that it would be physically possible to do so within a reasonably short period of time.

Which is his way of answering the original question with "No!"

I have received one of these notices some time ago, explained the above and not heard.

I have received one of these notices some time ago, threw it in the bin and not heard

 

[Alan]

More generally the contract that they claim is created is based on them proving that the driver saw their conditions on one of the notice boards (not always the case) AND AGREED to pay the amount in return for staying over the limit.

Now there is a business idea - pre printed card saying 'I do not agree to your parking terms and conditions'. Just take a photo of that in your windscreen when you leave your car in a private car park. Job done.

 

[NRLtd]

Now there is a business idea - pre printed card saying 'I do not agree to your parking terms and conditions'. Just take a photo of that in your windscreen when you leave your car in a private car park. Job done.

I'm assuming mean that in jest! But for a contract in be enforceable, it has to be something that both parties entered into under their own volition. In what you describe, the car park is offered with terms and the driver willingly/knowingly parks there. If the driver then produces their own additional terms, the car park operator is not being given the opportunity to consider and genuinely accept the terms.

It's worth remembering what we are talking about here are NOT fines or penalties, they are civil in nature - although the parking companies like you thinking of them as fines/penalties as this makes them seem more serious/"scary". Fine or penalties (such as those issued by traffic wardens) already have the force of legislation behind them.

 

[Alan]

Ok - what about a pre printed card

"I accept your parking terms and conditions with the exception of the additional charges mentioned, if you do not wish to accept my modified terms and conditions, please email me immediately at [email protected] and I will make reasonable efforts to remove my vehicle"

 

[Alan]

btw, out of vague interest, if a traffic officer instructs you to park in a private car park where there are clear signs that you can't what would the situation be?

I didn't get a fine / penalty / charge as I went in to the motorway service station and confirmed with the manager what had happened as I didn't 'trust' the traffic office had the right to direct us there. Essentially they were doing vehicle checks in the HGV area and wanted to clear access to bring vehicle in off the motorway, so direct some of us to park in the Coach park, which had clear signs - Coaches only or £80 'penalty'.

 

[NRLtd]

Ok - what about a pre printed card

"I accept your parking terms and conditions with the exception of the additional charges mentioned, if you do not wish to accept my modified terms and conditions, please email me immediately at [email protected] and I will make reasonable efforts to remove my vehicle"

But before they have had time to consider and reject/accept these additional terms, you have already entered into their existing terms which you could breach before they are aware of your new terms and/or have informed you of their acceptance or rejection. You also have the issue of (on the balance of the situation) of implied acceptance or rejection of your terms – where they clear, who was the contract with, are they on similar rights, were they adequately notified?

 

[NRLtd]

btw, out of vague interest, if a traffic officer instructs you to park in a private car park where there are clear signs that you can't what would the situation be?

If it's land outside of their jurisdiction, I don’t think they have the ability to force you to park there, so it’s your call…? Regardless, the parking companies contract (like or loath it) is with the driver.

 

[paulears]

The ones I've got a bill from, and paid up for are making it VERY clear that parking in particular places has restrictions, which while annoying, are impossible to miss. One I had included the photo of my van next to the sign, which was large and clearly placed where the camera had a perfect view of it, my vehicle and my face. I paid up - feeling that any question from the court I couldn't answer in my favour.

On the other hand - if I had some land, and the opportunity to make money - it's not at all a bad business model.

 

[NRLtd]

The ones I've got a bill from, and paid up for are making it VERY clear that parking in particular places has restrictions, which while annoying, are impossible to miss. One I had included the photo of my van next to the sign, which was large and clearly placed where the camera had a perfect view of it, my vehicle and my face. I paid up - feeling that any question from the court I couldn't answer in my favour.

On the other hand - if I had some land, and the opportunity to make money - it's not at all a bad business model.

In terms of defence, even in court, there have been cases where the parking company have lost due to technicalities, it's isn't always as water tight as it appears - but of course, you need to pick your battles!

The land ownership issue is an interesting point, appeals (ombudsman or court) have sometimes been successful due to proper permission not be granted by the land owner - e.g. a property management company engages a parking company, but the parking company doesn't have permission from the actual land owner, who they are really acting for. It comes down to the parking company thinking they have authority when they don't.

 

[Deleted member 226268]

The council money cows..

https://www.confused.com/on-the-road/driving-law/how-to-fight-your-parking-fine

Would it be legal to set up a company = Joe Bloggs Gotcha Ltd.

Walk around the streets putting stickers on cars outside shops,
wait for the owner to return .... £ 50 fine ( sorry ... cash only guv)

https://theipc.info/aos-members

.