No, this is only a valid offence for tickets issued by private parking companies as they would have to raise a civil action against the driver of the vehicle under contract law. Unfortunately tickets issued by local authority appointed companies are backed by the Road Traffic Act and are, therefore, the responsibility of the registered keeper of the vehicle...

It's an unusual one. I've never heard of councils only offering 10 days to pay the reduced fee. The standard seems to be 14...

Unfortunately the stores generally don't have any control over the actions of the parking companies...

Well, I'm delighted for you. Now, perhaps you'd like to explain why you think we should be so nice to the people in [problem] parking companies who extort money from those who can least afford it...?

I checked my credit account with Equifax one day to find a default from these guys for a debt I knew nothing about. I contacted them and they couldn't give me any details of the name of the company or when I allegedly took on the debt. I insisted that they removed the default, as they had not issued a default notice and had no grounds to state that I was actually in default of an agreement, which they did (it was actually removed by the next day!). I also asked them to send me out a copy of the agreement, which they promised to do within the standard period. Needless to say, it never arrived. These companies often buy a portfolio of outstanding debt from finance houses and try their luck at claiming it back in the hope that a percentage of people will just pay up. Unless you receive anything from them to prove that you took out the agreement and that it is not time barred under the Limitations Act of 1980, there is nothing they can do to enforce it. Sit tight and see what they come back with. It may be worth checking with the credit reference agencies to make sure that no adverse data has been applied...

If it turns out that debt was a liability of the business and you did not act as guarantor then there is nothing they can do to enforce it. If, however, it turns out that you are liable for the debt then I'm afraid the date you have to consider is that date that you or your business partner last made a payment to the account. The Limitations Act 1980 only applies when no contact has been made between the creditor and debtor within the given time limit. The time limit begins when you last admitted owing the money or made a payment. Edited - Just read your reply re. guaranteeing the loan, so it looks like you will be liable and you would still have to wait a full six years for it to become time barred. Sorry...

...or smoking in a car, especially one with children in it. Is smoking whilst driving really any safer than talking on the phone? What happens if you drop your cigarette and then have to divert attention from the road to find it before it sets fire to the carpet?

You may even get a better deal by going through someone else. I'm sure there are loads of lenders out there who will happily help you out. As Mistie says, get someone else to do it for you...

Alienex, from the information you have supplied, it sounds like this is an 'invoice' issued by a private company. The aim of this type of ticket, and any follow up action, is to intimidate you into paying. As it falls under contract law and is not goverened by the Road Traffic Act, there is very little they can do to enforce it. Have a read through the rest of the site and you will find a wealth of information advising you on how to deal with this. Just don't, whatever you do, give these scumbags any money!!

Well, good luck with it! You're a brave man to go through all of that hassle. I'm looking forward to hearing how it goes...

Just found this thread and you have my sympathies. I'm really sorry that you guys were intimidated enough to send these guys a cheque. I know you have a plan in place, but I would still suggest cancelling the cheque to avoid the hassle of going to court to get the money back.

That's a very risky stance to take. These companies DO take people to court as most 'offenders' do not turn up to defend themselves. The big advantage of communicating by letter is that you don't have to think on the spot, unlike a court appearance. There are many members on here who will help draft letters and decipher replies designed to confuse people with little knowledge of the law. It's much easier to let the company up front that you will not be pushed around and do not accept their bullying tactics.

Good question to raise a debate...

...however, full records are kept by all camera enforcement teams showing when the NIP is issued. When presented in court any magistrate will take this as evidence that the RTA has been complied with. It is clear from the RTA that the significant factor is the date that the NIP is issued. As long as it is issued such that, subject to normal postage, it will arrive within the 14 day limit, it complies with the terms of the act, even if it does not arrive within the 14 day period. As you mentioned previously, delivery is presumed. Try going to court and arguing this one. As long as the police can show from their records that the NIP was issued in accordance with the RTA you won't have a leg to stand on... The quoted cases are particularly relevant as they clearly demonstrate how this will be dealt with in a court of law. The fact that they took place prior to the introduction of First Class post within the RTA makes no difference as the method of delivery does not change the significance of the date of issue.

A witness to back up your movements would also be useful...

Sounds like a pretty strong case for appeal to me. Is there any CCTV in the area to back up their claims...? If not, then there is nothing to prove that you didn't leave at 11.30 and return at 15.00...

The trouble with this is that if you ignore all correspondence from them you could end up with a judgment against you by default if it goes to court and you don't respond. Best to nip this in the bud as soon as you can by shwing them that you know what you're talking about and can't be pushed around...

Eh, is that not what I said!? As for delivery of the NIP, the true facts are that the RTA states that a NIP must be sent so that it arrives within 14 days, subject to normal postage. So, whether you can convince the magistrate that it was delivered outside the fourteen day period is irrelevant. As long as the police can demonstrate that it was sent according to the law as set down in the RTA, the NIP will stand. For example, if a NIP is sent by recorded delivery 11 days after the offence, but delayed due to a postal strike and therefore does not arrive until 18 days after the offence, it is still deemed valid, as the police have complied with the RTA. For some background on this, it was decided in Groome v Driscoll (1969) 113 SJ 905, that a Notice of Intended Prosecution posted the day after the offence which failed to arrive within 14 days was deemed to have been served. Conversely in Nicholson v Tapp [1972] 1 WLR 1044, it was held that a Notice of Intended Prosecution sent by recorded delivery on the fourteenth day after the offence was deemed NOT to have been served.

Remember, the purpose of this forum is to help people get justice against the ****** ticketing companies, who prey on people and con them into paying unfair penalties, not companies who provide car parking facilities, either as part of their business or as their actual business. Paying for parking, as others have mentioned, is like paying for any other service and is perfectly acceptable. Running a car park is like running any other business and it is only reasonable to expect that it makes a profit. There is a moral aspect to this too...

Ah, clearly the answer of a student who was forced to work in call centre to clear some of that debt and obviously hated every minute of it! Lose the chip, it's not attractive... I've used my knowledge of the law to wind up the superviser of a bullying company, which extorts money out of many low-income people who simply don't know any better and believe the lies these people tell. Either the person I spoke to did not know how to do her job, in which case I supsect she would not have progressed up the ranks, or she is happy to lie to customers calling for advice about dubiously issued 'parking tickets' in order to defraud them of money. If you think that's fair, then perhaps I could pass on their number to you and you could call them to see if they have a job opening? Coolbloke, you're a dude. These people have got away with what they are doing for far too long. I'm glad to see that there are many like-minded people on here who are willing to stand up for their rights to ensure that we all get a fair deal.

I'm pretty sure Truvelo cameras use infra-red, so there is no flash. That's why they can be positioned facing the driver without the danger of blinding... Just thought I'd bump this so that people are aware of the law around speed cameras and the delivery of a Notice of Intention to Prosecute (NIP). Basically, the Road Traffic Act 1991 states that, Where a verbal NIP is not delivered (i.e. in the case of speed cameras), in order to ensure that a driver is able to recall details of the offence for which the NIP is issued, the NIP must be sent so that, subject to normal postage, it arrives within fourteen days of the offence, excluding the day the actual offence took place. Unfortunately, if the car is not registered in your name, in the case of a company car for example, the fourteen day rule does not apply and the police are effectively given an unlimited amount of time to track you down. Crazy, huh? Anyway, getting back to it, the phrase 'Subject to normal postage' is particulalry relevant. I managed to have a speeding prosecution stopped because they police had sent the NIP out on the 13th day following the offence, but had sent it by 2nd class post, so it arrived on the 15th day following the offence. I wrote a letter to the camera enforcement team pointing out the Road Traffic Act and stating that the NIP had not been issued in accordance. I received a letter back from them within a few days confirming that the matter would be dropped So, in short, if you've been flashed by a speed camera, your car is registered privately and the registered keeper has not recevied the NIP after 14 days, you can consider yourself safe...

...and we hope your migraine is better

...or ECNs, again a criminal matter. These fines, if left unpaid, could result in the local courts imposing fines, or even the threat of imprisonment. PCNs, on the other hand, are considered a civil debt and so, rather than criminal prosecution, can be enforced by means of a court order and referral to a bailiff if necessary. However, unlike the 'invoices' handed out by private parking companies, PCNs are backed up by legislation set down in the Road Traffic Act 1991.

Absolutely. They have no case unless they can prove who the driver is. They will argue against this, but put your case in writing and simply state that you would like them to supply you with details of the driver so that you can pass on the invoice to them. Hope you're feeling better...

Actually, you're both right... What Falcon185 said is actually correct, in that council appointed parking attendants must issue a ticket by either handing it to the driver or placing it on the vehicle's windscreen. However, actual traffic wardens or police do not have to do so. They can still submit the ticket for processing even if the driver leaves the scene before the ticket is actually issued. Private companies, on the other hand, as Zamzara says, cannot issue official PCNs. What they are issuing are invoices designed to resemble official PCNs in the hope of scaring drivers into paying them. Whether they hand it to the driver or send it in the post is irrelevant as they really are just a lot of nonsense!