Yes, Yes, UKPC again!

[shortwoman]

My father parked in a retail park and left to attend the bank when he returned he went to the shop on the retail park to purchase and item. When he returned to his car he found a parking ticket which stated that

‘Parking Attendant No: 01609 had reasonable cause to believe that the following contravention of the parking regulations had occurred:

Vehicle owner/driver left site

The ticket stated £90 payable or £50 if paid within 14 days.

 

I wrote back to them and asked them for evidence of my father being the driver and also requested the PNC Contravention Code which covers 'Vehicle owner/driver left the site'. They wrote back stating that if my father could prove that he used the facilities by providing a receipt then they may be able to waive the fine. Otherwise he would have to pay £90. This was despite a notice (which I checked) stating £90 or £45 within 14 days.

If wrote back repeating an answer to my questions however they have now written back stating that my father must pay £90 within 14 days otherwise they would send a collection agent to his home to collect the money.

I would like to know if I can report their bully boy tactics to Trading Standards and write back quoting Section 40 of the Administration of Justice Act.

I would appreciate if someone could let me know.

Many thanks

[dx100uk]

why or why are you even entertaining these clowns.....

 

its not a fine

 

its an INVOICE and it time to ignore them

 

read some threads in this forum

 

dx

[shortwoman]

It is not really me entertaining them but as it is my father who is elderly and he will not ignore them like I would have.

[DBC]

I like the bit about a "collection agent". Is he going to knock on the door rattling one of those charity tins asking for some money?

[dx100uk]

the way they are attempting to sort the matter out financially, is tantermount to a fine or penalty. It is private property and thus is a civil matter and in law a civillian cannot impose a fine or penalty, even if the wording doesn't use such words the essence is the same. ie, if you stay more than 3 hours you will pay a 'fee'.

 

All the store can legally do is ask you to leave. If you don't they can sue you for 'tort'. In other words because you haven't left you are now trespassing and they can sue you for damage caused. That could be physical damage if you are doing so, or loss of earnings. Lets say they charge £3 per hour for parking, you park and don't pay for an hour, they have possibly lost £3 if someone else wanted that space and couldn't park and pay as a result.

 

The law they rely on is based around farming land rights effectively. You drive your tractor across my field and destroy a row of lettuse. I could sue you for the value of those lettuce at market, say 20 groats or three of your shiny coins. Or perhaps you park your combine harvester on my land for a day or two and I cannot plant anything there and then see you have damaged my fence., I could sue you for loss of use of the land and the damage. Obvioulsy the loss would be a proprtion of the entire field.

 

In the case of Morrisons and the like, they do not actually lose anything at all. Well, saying that if they could actually prove that a customer could not park at all as a result and that same customer went over the road to Sainsburys and spent £100 they might try to argue that they lost £100. However, that same customer could have just parked elsewhere and still shopped at Morrisons. You didn't block the door!

That is why these 'letters' asking for money are just that. A letter.

 

They try to use very similar wording, style and imply that you must pay. But a court will only enforce a payment if there was a debt. The fact they put up a sign is nothing unless they can show that you did indeed see the sign and agree to the terms. Even then, they cannot impose a 'fine' or 'penalty' only attempt to sue for their actual loss which in reality cannot really be proved. Who can say if the man in Sainsburys poked his tongue out a woman who then decided to go across to Morrisons, which she would not normally do.

 

I could look at one of those signs all day and not understand it because I am dyslexic. The fact I looked does not mean I understood the contents and certainly do not agree just by pointing my head in the direction fo the sign.

 

That is why it is bog roll.

 

nicked from Wheelergeezer

 

show him this post

or print it out

 

 

dx

[ldkquestion]

It is not really me entertaining them but as it is my father who is elderly and he will not ignore them like I would have.

 

I had a similar issue with my family. Please persist with the ignoring tactic. Do everything you can to prove and assure your family that this is a [problem] and the court is not going to fine them the full amount of their pension and that bayliffs are not going to rampage through their home.

 

I realise it's difficult to stand your ground but it needs to be done!