Challenging PPC

[180]

Hi,

 

Thanks to some excellent advice on this site my partner has so far challenged a fine issued by Civil Enfircement Ltd.

 

The background to the fine is that their vehicle was being driven by a third party and parked in a KFC car park, overstaying the "allowed" time limit.

 

CEL and their debt collection agencies sent numerous threatening letters, increasing the initial charge from £70 to £250, without acknowledging receipt of carefully structured letters (written using advice outlined on this forum).

 

We decided it would be a good idea to send copies of the letters and a final letter refuting the claims made by recorded delivery to which we have received this response:

 

We are in receipt of your letter dated ...... We have considered the matters raised, but regret to advise that we are unable to cancel this Parking Charge Notice. In response to the specific issues raised in your letter we would respond as follows:-

 

Our clients provide parking for the short term use of customers. They have experienced severe problems with unauthorised parking in their car park, resulting in vehicles being parked for long periods of time and occupying valuable space. There are many clear signs displayed on the site, advising drivers of the regulations in force.

 

As the registered keeper we continue to hold you responsible for payment of the parking charge.

 

The letter then goes on to quote a precedent:

 

This follows the ruling in Combined Parking Solution v Steven James Thomas (1998). The Judge in the case held that on the balance of probabilities, the registered keeper was the diver and even if this was not the case - he took a dim view of the registered keeper's attitude for not providing the driver's details to enable the matter to be resolved at the earliest opportunity.

 

The registered keeper was directed to pay the outstanding parking charges and costs

 

Civil Enforcement have kindly (!) agreed to offer the reduced rate if payed within the next 7 days.

 

I'm fairly certain that by ignoring these fools they will eventually go away but my partner, being the registered keeper is worried that this will escalate to court proceedings with an increased charge.

 

Any advice will be greatly appreciated

 

180

[lamma]

complete and utter rubbish from the PPC. they have been listening to Perky - a foolish thing to do in my view. send them a short 'see you in court" their "As the registered keeper we continue to hold you responsible for payment of the parking charge. " means it won't go to court as if it did they would be hammered. see http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/parking-traffic-offences/164651-problems-ppcs-face.html?highlight=problems+ppc+face

[Steve__M]

Whether the judge takes a "dim view" of your partner failing to identify the driver is neither here nor there (sounds like a lie to me anyway to hide the fact that if the registered keeper is not the driver they are stuffed). You are not compelled to say who the driver was, and there is very strong case law that says so.

 

PS. There is not a single case reported here involving a free carpark.