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: 69268
Experience:  Over 5 years in practice.
Type Your Traffic Law Question Here...
Jo C. is online now

I am based in the UK, and in dispute with a firm "contracted

Resolved Question:

I am based in the UK, and in dispute with a firm "contracted by a private landowner to provide a parking management scheme, issuing a parking ticket to any vehicle in breach of the parking conditions".
On the day in question, I purchased a parking ticket, displayed the ticket as requested on the windscreen. I received a Parking Charge Notice with the reason for issue "Ticket not clearly displayed".
The valid ticket had fallen off the windscreen, due to a combination of poor adhesive and hot sun, and was not visible to the parking attendant.
This has happened previously, when a ticket had blown off, and after explaining to the same company, I had a refund for the parking "fine". On that occasion they would not release the clamped car until a fine had been paid.
On this occasion I appealed, and they turned down the appeal. 5 weeks later they sent me another "Notice to Driver" with the fine increased and details of how to appeal.
In their first notice they stated that they not chosen to participate in the alternative dispute resolution service with the Ombudsman Services, but suggested I contacted POPLA (Parking on Private Land Appeals).
They are careful to use the word "charge" instead of "fine".
I feel it is totally unreasonable to be charged £60 Sterling when I had a valid ticket.
Any advice on how to deal with this would be appreciated.
Thank you.
Submitted: 16 days ago.
Category: Traffic Law
Expert:  Jo C. replied 16 days ago.

Are you prepared to risk being sued?

Customer: replied 16 days ago.

Yes, sure.

Expert:  Jo C. replied 16 days ago.

If you are happy to risk being sued then just refuse to pay.

The chances that they will issue are very low. They may but it isn’t particularly cost effective for them to do so.

Ultimately POPLA do not decide whether you will pay or not. The small claims court is the only way they can enforce this.

If they do issue then you will have to examine the terms of the signs at the location. Having a ticket is not the same as displaying it. If the terms of the signs demand that the ticket be displayed then there is no positive defence arising. You could still rely on asking them to prove that they have suffered loss though.

Can I clarify anything for you?


Customer: replied 16 days ago.

Thank you for your comprehensive answer. I would like some clarifications.

1) I've read that it is worth asking for them to prove a contract exists between them and the owner of the site. They are likely to refuse this and not take the matter further. Did a contract actually exist between them and me?

2) Is proving loss worth considering before it went to court? It's not clear who has lost on their side. The owner of the site received payment. The reinforcement firm has lost the cost of 2 letters.

3) The fact they accepted my argument on the first 'offence' might be considered a precedent for not taking the matter further?

4) I would have thought that (2) above was the best defence using this Dept. of Transport extract below, especially as there were no unpaid charges. Do you agree?

Charges for breaking a parking contract must be reasonable and a genuine preestimate of loss. This means charges must compensate the landholder only for the loss they are likely to suffer because the parking contract has been broken. For example, to cover the unpaid charges and the administrative costs associated with issuing the ticket to recover the charges. Charges may not be set at higher levels than necessary to recover business losses and the intention should not be to penalise the driver.

It could also be argued that if they are concerned soley that a parking charge has been paid, they already have that information on the machine that issues tickets (which includes the car registration), and that seeking a £60 payment is a charge at a higher level than necessary to 'recover business losses'.

Expert:  Jo C. replied 16 days ago.

1 It is not. There is a good deal of nonsense on the internet. A contract clearly existed not least because you part complied with one by buying a ticket.

2 No. Case of Beavis.

3 Not sure what you mean?

4 Absolutely not for the reasons above.

Customer: replied 16 days ago.

Thank you.

I have talked to the leaseholder of the property in question (it is a small regional airfield).

No contract exists between the leaseholder and this parking firm. It is purely a 'gentleman's agreement (their words, not mine) for the parking firm to manage the ticket distribution and collect 'charges'.

3) What I mean is that previously they cancelled a charge when I had a valid ticket which was not displayed correctly. In other words, they accepted my argument, and therefore a precedent exists for cancelling the charge for similar circumstances.

5) This implies their business exists by creating these extra parking charges, which is surely against the DoT's regulations (see above)?

6) The DoT regulations mention 'landholder'. In this case are the parking firm considered the 'landholder'?

Thank you.

Expert:  Jo C. replied 16 days ago.

A gentlemen's agreement is a contract. He might not understand the law but there is a contract.

Jo C., Barrister
Category: Traffic Law
Satisfied Customers: 69268
Experience: Over 5 years in practice.
Jo C. and other Traffic Law Specialists are ready to help you

What Customers are Saying:

  • Thank you so much for your help. Your answers were really useful and came back so quickly. Great! Maggie
< Previous | Next >
  • Thank you so much for your help. Your answers were really useful and came back so quickly. Great! Maggie
  • A quick response, a succinct and helpful answer in simple English. I believe I can now confront the counter party with confidence -- worth the 30 bucks! Rick
  • Wonderful service, prompt, efficient, and accurate. Couldn't have asked for more. I cannot thank you enough for your help. Mary C.
  • This expert is wonderful. They truly know what they are talking about, and they actually care about you. They really helped put my nerves at ease. Thank you so much!!!! Alex
  • Thank you for all your help. It is nice to know that this service is here for people like myself, who need answers fast and are not sure who to consult. GP
  • I couldn't be more satisfied! This is the site I will always come to when I need a second opinion. Justin
  • Just let me say that this encounter has been entirely professional and most helpful. I liked that I could ask additional questions and get answered in a very short turn around. Esther

Meet The Experts:

  • Jo C.

    Jo C.


    Satisfied Customers:

    Over 5 years in practice.
< Last | Next >
  • Jo C.'s Avatar

    Jo C.


    Satisfied Customers:

    Over 5 years in practice.
  • Max Lowry's Avatar

    Max Lowry


    Satisfied Customers:

    LLB, 10 years post qualification experience
  • Kasare's Avatar



    Satisfied Customers:

    Solicitor, 10 yrs plus experience in civil litigation, employment and family law.
  • Joshua's Avatar



    Satisfied Customers:

    LL.B (Hons), Higher Prof. Dip. Law & Practice
  • Alice H's Avatar

    Alice H


    Satisfied Customers:

    Partner in national law firm
  • /img/opt/shirt.png LondonlawyerJ's Avatar



    Satisfied Customers:

    I am a solicitor with particular expertise in road traffic law.