How JustAnswer Works:
  • Ask an Expert
    Experts are full of valuable knowledge and are ready to help with any question. Credentials confirmed by a Fortune 500 verification firm.
  • Get a Professional Answer
    Via email, text message, or notification as you wait on our site.
    Ask follow up questions if you need to.
  • 100% Satisfaction Guarantee
    Rate the answer you receive.
Ask Jo C. Your Own Question
Jo C.
Jo C., Barrister
Category: Traffic Law
Satisfied Customers: 70191
Experience:  Over 5 years in practice.
12826847
Type Your Traffic Law Question Here...
Jo C. is online now

We had a parking fine from parkingeye and have refused to pay,

Customer Question

we had a parking fine from parkingeye and have refused to pay, we used the popla appeal process who have ruled in there favour do we just pay the fine now?
Submitted: 2 years ago.
Category: Traffic Law
Expert:  Jo C. replied 2 years ago.
Thank you for your question. My name is ***** ***** I will try to help with this.
This is a private land fine. They are not parking fines whatever they may look like. I realise that many of them mimic those issued by the council or the police but they do not have the same authority.
A private land firm is not an emanation of the state. It does not have the right to punish you for the manner of your parking any more than your neighbours do.
This is essentially an invoice arising from a civil dispute arising from an alleged agreement whereby you agree to park for a fee. They say that you accepted a contract by parking there and breached it by staying too long or otherwise parking at variance with the contract. That is what is in dispute.
Private land fines used to be very easy to escape by refusing the details of the driver. They only have a contract with the driver. Unfortunately the Protection of Freedoms Act came into force in October 2012 and it makes the registered keeper liable for the penalty if he does not disclose the details of the driver within 28 days.
All that means is that the claim runs against the registered keeper. It just makes it easier to find the person against whom there should be enforcement.
The chances are high that they will not sue. Even though the law has recently changed in their favour and they were quite aggressive in the beginning, they do not sue in the majority of cases.
If they do sue then they would only have a claim for the sum of the original fine plus about £35 in costs. They will send you debt collection letters in which they will threaten to sue you for their debt collection costs. Do not be intimidated by that.
Even if they do go to court, they would still have to prove that the signs are adequate and clear. Quite often they are not.
They will send you some very nasty letters though. You will get debt collection letters making threats of legal action. They will probably get Graham Whyte solicitors to write to you as well. None of these are anything to worry about. It will not impact upon your credit history and it will not add to the costs.
Unless you actually get a court summons, none of these correspondences have any legal basis. If you do get a court summons then you can always part admit the claim and offer a small amount for their loss.
Hope this helps. Please let me know if you need more information.
Customer: replied 2 years ago.

We have received a letter before county court claim, warning us of extra costs. But we will go to court as we feel this is not just as we were only in the car park for 11 minutes, and the car was always occupied by me the driver. We did explain it was not parked and we only dropped people at the pud. We then overstayed our welcome by not using the so called log in inside the pud. If we go to court how can we win the case or will they use the wording we have used in defending ourselves which obviously has not worked in the eyes of the law. see below:

Having reviewed the evidence, I am satisfied that the terms and conditions of parking were clear on a number of signs at the site and would have been visible to the Appellant. The signs made it clear that the site is for the use of Chamberlayne Arms patrons and there is a requirement to register the vehicle registration number at the terminal in the pub. The Appellant remained at the site for longer than a reasonable grace period and did not use the site for its intended purpose and were therefore unauthorised to remain at the site. I find that the Appellant breached the terms of the site by remaining there when they were not authorised. If the Appellant was unsure of the terms of parking, they ought to have called the Operator to seek advice. The onus is on the Appellant to ensure compliance with the terms of parking and on this occasion they did not do so.

Expert:  Jo C. replied 2 years ago.
What would you like to know about this please?
Expert:  Jo C. replied 2 years ago.
I'm not really sure what I can add to what I've said?
Or whether you have a fresh question?
Customer: replied 2 years ago.

Part of your answer was: Unless you actually get a court summons, none of these correspondences have any legal basis. If you do get a court summons then you can always part admit the claim and offer a small amount for their loss.

We have offered to pay £1.50 as this is the rate for 1 hours parking in the area, what sum are we talking about if we part admit? Does it make any difference that we were in the car and did not park? Does common sense not come into these equations? We know we are a bit naive but £60 for 11 minutes when your unaware of fault seems very harsh, would this be an issue?

Expert:  Jo C. replied 2 years ago.
That is always a moot point. It isn't just the cost of parking. They do have a claim for their admin charges which realistically would be about £15.
Also, if the signs at the location do say this sum is due in default then there is an argument it is due under the contract and so loss matters not.
Usually with these things you rely on them not suing because it is not cost effective.
Jo C. and 2 other Traffic Law Specialists are ready to help you
Customer: replied 2 years ago.

We bought a vehicle on lease hire, the vehicle was bought by a sole trader. In the time we have had the vehicle it has only been on the road for 5 days out of 75 days, it broke down on the drive home. We reported it to the seller who has not wanted to pay for any mechanical fixes, we then passed the issue onto the finance company. They have been working towards a solution but the fix is expansive, they want me to sign a disclaimer saying I will take full charge of all breakdowns and repairs after the fix. I have not signed it as we think we should have some form a warranty after the fix. How do we stand if we want to cancel the lease hire? Do we have to sign the disclaimer? How do we stand with warranty?

Expert:  Jo C. replied 2 years ago.
You would need to ask another question about that as it doesn't relate to the fine above Im afraid.

Related Traffic Law Questions