Asda £70 parking charge notice - beware!

[ips]

I think that robin has summarized the whole thing completely. I fully agree with all his comments and for the life me i cant see what op's problem is.

[crinklystarfish]

Worth bearing in mind the 'big' ones are still evil and sinister though, even though most people seem to kind of get they are a business as opposed to a public service.

Massive ecological and social exploitation which include things like low wages, high food-miles, over-bearing influence on suppliers and unethical sourcing, all in the name of vast wealth generation for a very few, already very wealthy, people of questionable morality.

Bit tired of reading about the whole 'the French understand their customers theme' too. Is it that, or the knowledge that the French population is more inclined to rebel en-masse and would probably burn some sheep if they thought they were being worked over?

Say 'non' to the big four, or suffer their unethical power. 

Your choice.

[hallii]

The new "Freedoms Law 2012" attempts to place the onus on the registered keeper (not the owner) of the vehicle for any private unsolicited invoices sent out by these cowboys.

 

How can any Law make me responsible for a an unsolicited invoice for a contract that I may or may not have entered into, and may or may not have knowledge of.

 

There are other laws relating to the way and manner in which contracts are entered into, and no person can enter into any contract on behalf of any other.

 

The cowboys see this new law as a way of making yet more money to replace that lost by the banning of clamping.

 

I am currently dealing with such an invoice sent to me, I eagerly await my day in court.

 

Quote from Wiki

 

"English law places a high value on ensuring people have truly consented to the deals that bind them in court. Generally a contract forms when one person makes an offer, and another person accepts it by communicating their assent or performing the offers terms. If the terms are certain, and the parties can be presumed from their behaviour to have intended that the terms are binding, generally the agreement is enforceable."

 

To enter into any contract you have to be certain of the terms and accept the offer, a little notice stuck in some obscure place, or "refer to our terms and conditions" just won't stand up in court.

 

And that is where this stupid new law pushed through by a stupid Minister, will be tried and tested, in court.

 

There are some interesting EU laws that have precedence over any UK law, this could go all the way to the European Court.

 

My advice, ignore any paperwork unless it is from the small claims court, and if it LOOKS like it is, ring them up and check, the cowboys will happily send out some very close facsimiles of official court documents.

 

The BPA claim they have an appeals system, how quaint, an appeals systen run by the private club that is paid for by the very members who are issuing these documents, and remember, the BPA also give right of access to the DVLA data base for their members.

 

Just file all the rubbish they send, ignore it and wait for the court papers, I bet they never arrive.

 

H

[ips]

So what were saying judging by some comments on here is that we should all be allowed to park on private property for as long as we like. ?

And no should be allowed to know who we are. ?

[hallii]

ips - 2012-10-15 12:16 PM

 

So what were saying judging by some comments on here is that we should all be allowed to park on private property for as long as we like. ?

And no should be allowed to know who we are. ?

 

On the other hand should the cowboys be asking for £70 for a ten minute overstay and then using dodgy imitation "tickets" to try and frighten us into paying?

 

The point I am making is that the new law is a joke, the self regulation is a joke, and until someone takes a case to court no one really knows where we stand. Maybe that's the way the BPA and the government want it?

 

Has anyone EVER seen a large sign in a prominent position warning of the penalties?

Does any private car park print all the terms and conditions on the ticket?

Has any meter got the facility for a tick box to denote your acceptance of the terms?

And. why should a private organisation, many who have a dubious history in car clamping, have instant access

to any registered keepers details within minutes? Maybe they could get your details, assume you were out of the house and send someone round to do a quick burglary job? After all the unemployed clampers have to earn a quid or two don't they?

 

H

[pepe63xnotuse]

Well,having only really just "skimmed" this thread,it does seem as if,as far as the car park that the OP is referreing to is concerned,the signs were there..they just weren't read by the OP's "mystery driver"..or if they were,they took no notice of 'em!... *-)

 

...I assume the OP does know who this mystery driver was?...was it used by a son/daughter /friend/relative/employee...?

..or are we to believe the car was nicked...and then taken shopping! (lol)

[Robinhood]

AIUI, the only practical difference to the status quo that the change in the law makes is that any registered keeper issued with an "invoice" can no longer avoid the issue of proceedings by (in previously not having a legal duty to name the driver) relying on the fact that the issuer cannot prove that the keeper was the driver (who was ostensibly party to any contract) at the time.

 

Previously, as the likelihood of being successfully sued in a civil court in these circumstances was so low there would normally be no attempt to raise proceedings (such County Court proceedings historically have been very, very low).

 

Since, in the absence of the keeper naming the driver, the new act defines that the keeper can now be sued instead, then there is certainly a greater probability of action being taken (and, subject to the utimate testing of the act in law, a greater probability of success).

 

However, if the keeper names the driver within 28 days of receiving the "invoice", AIUI, there is then no possibility of action being taken against them (unless of course they have named themselves ;-) )

 

There are two levels of appeal (neither of which are, as I understand it, binding on the appellant), and ultimately, if no payment is made, the only way of recovering any money is still to issue County Court proceedings (though, as I've already said, this is now more likely because there is a known, fall-back name against which to proceed).

 

So, if the conditions were unfair, the signing deficient, the penalty unreasonable, etc. (and as I've said previously, none of these look to be the case in the OP), then you will still get your say in Court, and should (the County Courts are quite "canny") be acquitted.

 

Otherwise, (name the driver or) pay up!

 

For what for most sensible people should be a small or avoidable-impact change, clamping has in almost all circumstances been criminalised (such that the police should now be requested to intervene if anyone attempts it). This looks a real positive to me.

 

Certainly the proof of the pudding will be in the working of the new arrangements, the impartiality or not of the appeals process, the attitude of the County Court to the (probably much increased) issue of proceedings, and the balance of evidence they decide is necessary for a successful pursuit.

 

Nonetheless, and despite the current ability to potentially avoid any penalty by obfuscation, IMO anyone who knowingly flouts such clearly-signed arrangements should consider whether they have a moral duty to pay (a reasonable amount) for the privilege if "found out" (or even if not ;-) ).

[jb6981]

Robinhood - 2012-10-14 10:17 PM

 

Can't understand why the OP is getting quite so hot under the collar.

 

The Asda car park in Kings Heath is private land and provided entirely for the benefit of ASDA as a business (and only indirectly their customers to encourage them to shop in the store).

 

It is a smallish car park in a very busy High Street area where, without a limit on parking I have little doubt that people would choose to park for extended periods, not simply whilst visiting ASDA, thereby obviously proving a real constraint on ASDA's takings.

 

Not unnaturally, ASDA have chosen to limit the time allowed, and I have little doubt that the signs denoting this are readily apparent (they certainly were when the Streetview pictures were taken B-)).

 

If you overstay, then expect to pay!

 

Now, I realise the OP says he wasn't the driver, and therefore didn't enter into the contract with ASDA, but the remainder of the process seems largely natural and acceptable to me. As the only readily identifiable contact, it seems reasonable to write to the keeper of the vehicle, whether the driver or not. As this relates to a contract with the driver, nothing in the wording quoted indicates that the proposed charge is on the keeper (unless they are one and the same).

 

Morally, it might be considered that payment is appropriate. As for whether the level of the proposed charge is merited or not, two things come to mind:

 

i) the original amount and potential early-payment reduction proposed is not much out of line with that for a legally enforceable Penalty Charge Notice (say from a Council), where the actual loss to them would be significantly less. They also get your details from the DVLA, and would proceed in a similar manner via the registered keeper.

 

ii) It is facile to pretend that the loss to ASDA would be minimal. It looks like a very busy car park, and overstaying by even 26 minutes could cause a loss of one person's weekly shop - the potential value of which can be estimated from the OP's own quoted shopping figures.

 

.....so, if the overstay had been on a designated on-street parking place, and a Penalty Charge Notice had been issued by the council (in much the same manner, and say £70 reducing to £35 for prompt payment), would it invoke the same response (because in this case the registered keeper is legally responsible, not the driver).

 

I might have some sympathy if the parking had been for an extended shopping session in ASDA (almost 2 hours of hell IMO), but since the OP doesn't seem to know who WAS driving, neither will he know if they were in ASDA, or the Starbucks down the High Street!

 

Whilst there are certainly some connotations around the Data Protection Act I feel slightly uneasy about, frankly, I have little sympathy with people who flout well signposted and reasonably thought-out parking restrictions, even on private land.

 

As for the changes now making the registered keeper liable, then as above, they are only aligning with the legally enforceable Penalty Charge Notice, and as a corollary, clamping on private land is to be outlawed. I think there may still be some way to go, but (given an appeals process, and the duty to make any penalty reasonable) all-in-all it looks like an improvement to me.

 

An interesting post, however I think your logic and reasoning has serious flaws. I will deal with the salient points in the order you raise them:

 

1) “Now, I realise the OP says he wasn't the driver, and therefore didn't enter into the contract with ASDA, but the remainder of the process seems largely natural and acceptable to me. As the only readily identifiable contact, it seems reasonable to write to the keeper of the vehicle, whether the driver or not. As this relates to a contract with the driver, nothing in the wording quoted indicates that the proposed charge is on the keeper (unless they are one and the same)”.

 

Simply wrong; What I quoted at the beginning of the post was a verbatim extract from the initial letter from Town and City Parking;

 

“The first [letter], dated 10/08/2012, stated that "Town and City Parking Limited believe that a parking charge notice is payable to the vehicle registration mark xxyy xxx for the alleged breach of advertised conditions within Asda Store Kings Heath (Birmingham) on 31/07/2012. ... DVLA have confirmed that you are the registered keeper of the vehicle."

 

They went onto to say that " A parking charge notice of £70.00 is now due for payment and must be paid within 28 days of this notice." They then said that if the 'parking charge notice' was paid within 14 days it would be reduced to £40.00.

 

I find it puzzling that you find it acceptable that that they write to the keeper of the vehicle after obtaining his address from DVLA, arguably in breach of the Data Protection Act, and demand payment without the courtesy of asking the registered keeper if he was the driver. They did not ask who the driver was, they simply sent the parking charge notice “payable to the vehicle registration mark” and demanded for £70.00 on the baseless assumption that I was the driver.

 

2) “the original amount and potential early-payment reduction proposed is not much out of line with that for a legally enforceable Penalty Charge Notice (say from a Council), where the actual loss to them would be significantly less. They also get your details from the DVLA, and would proceed in a similar manner via the registered keeper”

 

The amounts demanded by both are similar in that they are extortionate and excessive.

 

Councils are governed by statute, councillors are democratically elected and accountable and there are checks and balances including an appeals process. The money raised in fines, in theory, is spent on public services. The monies raised by private parking contractors goes into their pockets.

 

Even the Government is concerned at the amounts being extorted from motorists;

 

“Councils will have to declare the total paid by drivers to park in both on-street and off-street bays, after new government figures showed local authorities’ total income from parking hitting £1.27 billion last year. [£1,270,000,000.00!!]

 

Ministers believe the new “transparency” drive is vital to ensure local politicians can be properly held to account by motorists - and to help reverse the decline of the country’s high streets, including the closure of businesses” Source Daily Telegraph 14 Oct 2012;

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9606889/New-drive-against-cash-cow-parking-charges.html#disqus_thread

 

As the old saying goes two wrongs don’t make a right.

 

3) “It is facile to pretend that the loss to ASDA would be minimal. It looks like a very busy car park, and overstaying by even 26 minutes could cause a loss of one person's weekly shop - the potential value of which can be estimated from the OP's own quoted shopping figures.”

 

Scenario 1; Mrs B arrives at Asda to do a weekly £150 shop. The car park is full. She drives off, parks elsewhere, has a coffee and goes to other shops. Comes back later, finds a space. Or she thinks I will go home and come back later when it is less manic. Mrs B has merely deferred her purchase, Asda lose nothing. She could of course go to another supermarket but shoppers are creatures of habit and she prefers Asda (some people must do), but if she goes elsewhere Asda lose. But how can they know whether a full car park leads to a deferred purchase or loss of custom?

 

Scenario 2; Mrs C cannot park, she only wants milk and bread, she goes elsewhere, loss to Asda £3.00.

 

Scenario 3; Mr F calls in at Asda on his way home from work, it is a wet Tuesday evening in January, the car park is only a quarter full. In the store he bumps into an old workmate, they nip over the road to the Red Lion for a drink and a gossip. When he returns to his car he has overstayed the time limit by 10 minutes. There is no loss to Asda because the car park is nearly empty yet they still demand a payment of £70.00.

 

What I said was; “ So how would Asda quantify the loss to their business caused by someone overstaying their time limit by 26 minutes plus the admin costs incurred by issuing a ticket?”

 

Looking at the scenarios above it is it would be impossible for Asda to work out how a parking overstay could effect their business; some purchases would be deferred, some lost and in others they ‘gain’ £70.00 even though the car park is nearly empty.

 

4) “Whilst there are certainly some connotations around the Data Protection Act I feel slightly uneasy about, frankly, I have little sympathy with people who flout well signposted and reasonably thought-out parking restrictions, even on private land”.

 

Only slightly uneasy about DVLA giving out keeper details to any Tom, Dick or Harry simply because they are members of the BPA?

 

5) “As for the changes now making the registered keeper liable, then as above, they are only aligning with the legally enforceable Penalty Charge Notice, and as a corollary, clamping on private land is to be outlawed. I think there may still be some way to go, but (given an appeals process, and the duty to make any penalty reasonable) all-in-all it looks like an improvement to me”.

 

It looks like can of worms to me. There are going to be some interesting court cases in the near future trying to define reasonable charges and reasonable admin charges.

 

[section 56 and Schedule 4

of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012] States:

 

"Charges for breaking a parking contract must be reasonable and a genuine pre-estimate 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".

 

If they ever get as far as taking anyone to court, see here:

 

http://www.tribunals.gov.uk/financeandtax/Documents/decisions/vehicle_control_services_v_hmrc.pdf

 

 

[jb6981]

hallii - 2012-10-15 11:51 AM

 

The new "Freedoms Law 2012" attempts to place the onus on the registered keeper (not the owner) of the vehicle for any private unsolicited invoices sent out by these cowboys.

 

How can any Law make me responsible for a an unsolicited invoice for a contract that I may or may not have entered into, and may or may not have knowledge of.

 

There are other laws relating to the way and manner in which contracts are entered into, and no person can enter into any contract on behalf of any other.

 

The cowboys see this new law as a way of making yet more money to replace that lost by the banning of clamping.

 

I am currently dealing with such an invoice sent to me, I eagerly await my day in court.

 

Quote from Wiki

 

"English law places a high value on ensuring people have truly consented to the deals that bind them in court. Generally a contract forms when one person makes an offer, and another person accepts it by communicating their assent or performing the offers terms. If the terms are certain, and the parties can be presumed from their behaviour to have intended that the terms are binding, generally the agreement is enforceable."

 

To enter into any contract you have to be certain of the terms and accept the offer, a little notice stuck in some obscure place, or "refer to our terms and conditions" just won't stand up in court.

 

And that is where this stupid new law pushed through by a stupid Minister, will be tried and tested, in court.

 

There are some interesting EU laws that have precedence over any UK law, this could go all the way to the European Court.

 

My advice, ignore any paperwork unless it is from the small claims court, and if it LOOKS like it is, ring them up and check, the cowboys will happily send out some very close facsimiles of official court documents.

 

The BPA claim they have an appeals system, how quaint, an appeals systen run by the private club that is paid for by the very members who are issuing these documents, and remember, the BPA also give right of access to the DVLA data base for their members.

 

Just file all the rubbish they send, ignore it and wait for the court papers, I bet they never arrive.

 

H

 

An intelligent and erudite post, for once, by someone who understands the issues.

 

Makes a change from idiots saying pay the 'fine' or you will get into trouble.

[pepe63xnotuse]

jb6981 - 2012-10-16 12:07 AM

 

.....Makes a change from idiots saying pay the 'fine' or you will get into trouble.

 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

(lol) ..although still nowhere near as "idiotic" as those who leave their car keys out,so that "mystery drivers" can run up parking tickets,whilst they're out of the country... *-) (lol) (lol)

[crinklystarfish]

I think of such penalties as a levy on arrogance.

I wish there were more. 

I tire of people who swan around with a sense of entitlement and imagine that they should be afforded greater privilege than the proletariat.

I have a satisfied snigger when they come unstuck and are taken to task.

[jb6981]

pepe63 - 2012-10-16 8:10 AM

 

jb6981 - 2012-10-16 12:07 AM

 

.....Makes a change from idiots saying pay the 'fine' or you will get into trouble.

 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

(lol) ..although still nowhere near as "idiotic" as those who leave their car keys out,so that "mystery drivers" can run up parking tickets,whilst they're out of the country... *-) (lol) (lol)

 

Which don't get paid

[pepe63xnotuse]

...this time a supermarket "parking ticket"...maybe next time you'll be met by a ruck of speeding tickets?..or maybe something more serious....?

 

If you're not going to make those who use your vehicle,responsible for their actions,then maybe you shouldn't be letting them use your vehicle..... ;-)

[jb6981]

pepe63 - 2012-10-16 11:04 AM

 

...this time a supermarket "parking ticket"...maybe next time you'll be met by a ruck of speeding tickets?..or maybe something more serious....?

 

If you're not going to make those who use your vehicle,responsible for their actions,then maybe you shouldn't be letting them use your vehicle..... ;-)

 

Why do say your vehicle? And why do you say "If you're not going to make those who use your vehicle,responsible for their actions,then maybe you shouldn't be letting them use your vehicle".

 

If you read the post you will see that I have previously stated that the vehicle that overstayed an arbitrary time limit in an Asda car park by 26 minutes is one of several that are registered in my name.

 

Hertz Rental are the registered keeper of thousands of cars and vans, they do not necessarily own them, they are probably leased. Are you saying that they should be responsible for the actions of everyone who drives their vehicles?

 

Obviously I would not let an alcoholic drive one of my vehicles but really how can I be held responsible for the actions of others?

 

I must also point out that the alleged parking violation occurred on 31 July 2012, I did not know anything about it until 21 September 2012, so after nearly 2 months even if I interrogated the possible drivers how could they remember what they were doing on the date in question. Can you remember what you were doing two months ago?

 

 

[pepe63xnotuse]

..I'd just assumed that,as you are unwilling to give up the name of the driver,then that would point to the driver being fairly close to you(..possibly a family member?)and therefore the vehicle being "yours".. :-S

 

...if it was an "employee" using a works vehicle,then surely you would've just past their name on..?..as I'm sure "Mr Hertz" would do,if one of their vehicles was done for "inappropriate" parking... ;-)

[Robinhood]

jb6981 - 2012-10-15 11:57 PM

 

An interesting post, however I think your logic and reasoning has serious flaws.

 

 

Methinks you protest too much. IMO the increasing amount of inconsistency, irrelevancy and conflict in your posts serves only to detract from your argument, and deflect from the original nature of the debate, in that a vehicle of which you are the registered keeper overstayed the clearly-defined parking limit, and an invoice has been raised for the clearly-defined penalty amount. The rest seems more like bluster and obfuscation.

 

Frankly, I think your anger would be better directed at the individual who originally "overstayed".

 

jb6981 - 2012-10-15 11:57 PM

 

I will deal with the salient points in the order you raise them:

 

1) “Now, I realise the OP says he wasn't the driver, and therefore didn't enter into the contract with

ASDA, but the remainder of the process seems largely natural and acceptable to me. As the only readily identifiable contact, it seems reasonable to write to the keeper of the vehicle, whether the

driver or not. As this relates to a contract with the driver, nothing in the wording quoted indicates that the proposed charge is on the keeper (unless they are one and the same)”.

 

Simply wrong; What I quoted at the beginning of the post was a verbatim extract from the initial letter from Town and City Parking;

 

“The first [letter], dated 10/08/2012, stated that "Town and City Parking Limited believe that a parking charge notice is payable to the vehicle registration mark xxyy xxx for the alleged breach of advertised conditions within Asda Store Kings Heath (Birmingham) on 31/07/2012. ... DVLA have confirmed that you are the registered keeper of the vehicle."

 

They went onto to say that " A parking charge notice of £70.00 is now due for payment and must

be paid within 28 days of this notice." They then said that if the 'parking charge notice' was paid

within 14 days it would be reduced to £40.00.

 

I find it puzzling that you find it acceptable that that they write to the keeper of the vehicle after

obtaining his address from DVLA, arguably in breach of the Data Protection Act, and demand

payment without the courtesy of asking the registered keeper if he was the driver. They did not ask

who the driver was, they simply sent the parking charge notice “payable to the vehicle registration mark” and demanded for £70.00 on the baseless assumption that I was the driver.

 

.....I still see nothing in your augmented wording that indicates that the payment was requested from the keeper...........and I don't know about you, but if I thought I wasn't the driver at the time of the (alleged) "offence", I sure as hell would be having a word with whoever I thought was.

 

If the event was before the change in the law, then, through legal technicalities, there may be a way to evade any penalties - if it was after the change, then the chances of doing so are somewhat less (though relevant issues can still easily be raised in the County Court).

 

As for the DPA, any interpretation of breach or not is largely in the hands of the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO), and you may wish to see documented stance on this:

 

http://www.ico.gov.uk/for_the_public/topic_specific_guides/dvla.aspx

 

jb6981 - 2012-10-15 11:57 PM

 

2) “the original amount and potential early-payment reduction proposed is not much out of line

with that for a legally enforceable Penalty Charge Notice (say from a Council), where the actual loss to them would be significantly less. They also get your details from the DVLA, and would proceed in a similar manner via the registered keeper”

 

The amounts demanded by both are similar in that they are extortionate and excessive.

 

Councils are governed by statute, councillors are democratically elected and accountable and

there are checks and balances including an appeals process.

 

 

.....and despite such checks and balance (and there is also an appeals process for private parking charges), you still consider the charges extortionate and excessive? I'm not sure what argument you are trying to make.

 

It would appear to me that ASDA could use this very argument and say they are simply paralleling charges that are democratically governed, with checks and balances.

 

jb6981 - 2012-10-15 11:57 PM

 

The money raised in fines, in theory, is spent on public services. The monies raised by private parking contractors goes into their pockets.

 

 

Since the "decriminalisation" of parking fines, the income does indeed go to local rather than central government, but it is only any surplus (after enforcement costs) that is spent on public services. In practice, (rather than theory) you will find that any such surplus is virtually non-existent, the majority of fine-income being spent by local councils on enforcement. (which rather gives a benchmark view of the costs theoreof).

 

jb6981 - 2012-10-15 11:57 PM

 

Even the Government is concerned at the amounts being extorted from motorists;

 

“Councils will have to declare the total paid by drivers to park in both on-street and off-street bays, after new government figures showed local authorities’ total income from parking hitting £1.27 billion last year. [£1,270,000,000.00!!]

 

Ministers believe the new “transparency” drive is vital to ensure local politicians can be properly held to account by motorists - and to help reverse the decline of the country’s high streets, including the closure of businesses” Source Daily Telegraph 14 Oct 2012;

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9606889/New-drive-against-cash-cow-parking-charges.html#disqus_thread

 

As the old saying goes two wrongs don’t make a right.

 

 

....again, a confusing introduction at this point, and it's not at all clear what it adds to the core debate. The quoted article is largely about the costs of (legal) parking, only in passing about fines and penalty charges. Maybe, if parking as a whole is an issue for you, you should be pleased that ASDA provide free (albeit limited-period) parking in a town centre. ;-)

 

jb6981 - 2012-10-15 11:57 PM

 

3) “It is facile to pretend that the loss to ASDA would be minimal. It looks like a very busy car park, and overstaying by even 26 minutes could cause a loss of one person's weekly shop - the potential value of which can be estimated from the OP's own quoted shopping figures.”

 

Scenario 1; Mrs B arrives at Asda to do a weekly £150 shop. The car park is full. She drives off, parks elsewhere, has a coffee and goes to other shops. Comes back later, finds a space. Or she thinks I will go home and come back later when it is less manic. Mrs B has merely deferred her purchase, Asda lose nothing. She could of course go to another supermarket but shoppers are creatures of habit and she prefers Asda (some people must do), but if she goes elsewhere Asda lose. But how can they know whether a full car park leads to a deferred purchase or loss of custom?

 

Scenario 2; Mrs C cannot park, she only wants milk and bread, she goes elsewhere, loss to Asda £3.00.

 

Scenario 3; Mr F calls in at Asda on his way home from work, it is a wet Tuesday evening in January, the car park is only a quarter full. In the store he bumps into an old workmate, they nip over the road to the Red Lion for a drink and a gossip. When he returns to his car he has overstayed the time limit by 10 minutes. There is no loss to Asda because the car park is nearly empty yet they still demand a payment of £70.00.

 

What I said was; “ So how would Asda quantify the loss to their business caused by someone

overstaying their time limit by 26 minutes plus the admin costs incurred by issuing a ticket?”

 

Looking at the scenarios above it is it would be impossible for Asda to work out how a parking

overstay could effect their business; some purchases would be deferred, some lost and in others

they ‘gain’ £70.00 even though the car park is nearly empty.

 

 

My original comment was in response to yours, viz:

 

jb6981 - 2012-10-13 11:03 PM

 

"My understanding of the new rules that came into force on 01/10/2012 is that any 'penalty' for breach of contract must be reasonable and not excessive. So how would Asda quantify the loss to their business caused by someone overstaying their time limit by 26 minutes plus the admin costs incurred by issuing a ticket? If it is a pay and display charging £1 an hour and you overstay by half an hour the loss to the business is .50 pence plus admin". That I think would put paid to demands for £70 for a few minutes overstay.

 

 

.......which rather implied that you saw the loss to the business as minimal.

 

I simply stated that the impact could be as much as the value of a weekly shop, which could be illustrated by an extrapolation of your scenarios above to a Scenario 4, say, a Mr RH (who can't be *rsed to wait for parking spaces ;-)) deciding that he'll go to the Sainsbury 300yds down the road for this week's shop, instead.

 

I would also postulate that if the car-park is regularly blocked by "overstayers" then it won't be long before erstwhile "regular" shoppers take their business elsewhere.

 

I cover the "reasonable, not excessive" point later below.

 

jb6981 - 2012-10-13 11:03 PM

 

4) “Whilst there are certainly some connotations around the Data Protection Act I feel slightly uneasy about, frankly, I have little sympathy with people who flout well signposted and reasonably thought-out parking restrictions, even on private land”.

 

Only slightly uneasy about DVLA giving out keeper details to any Tom, Dick or Harry simply because they are members of the BPA?

 

 

Your concerns about this may be related to Hallii's comment, viz:

 

And. why should a private organisation, many who have a dubious history in car clamping, have instant access to any registered keepers details within minutes? Maybe they could get your details, assume you were out of the house and send someone round to do a quick burglary job? After all the unemployed clampers have to earn a quid or two don't they?

 

.........which (if not posted in jest) appears a little paranoid to me. ;-)

 

The ability to do this has been in place for some time, and has had little downside other than to allow authorised firms to "invoice" via a vehicle keeper. I have little doubt that, as in most such matters, some firm's practice may have been less than "friendly", but, in law, there is a right to raise a reasonable charge under the appropriate circumstances (to date it has been against the driver, forthwith it will be against the keeper if the driver is not identified). If the charge is not reasonable, or has not been raised against the appropriate background, there is the right to appeal, and ultimately the right to go to law.

 

I would rather this were the case, with all disclosures, penalties and proceedings transparent under the due process, than the continuance of "rogue" clamping, and real-time intimidation of potentially vulnerable people (much more a case of demanding money with menaces) - a practice now, as part of the change in law, criminalised.

 

jb6981 - 2012-10-13 11:03 PM

 

5) “As for the changes now making the registered keeper liable, then as above, they are only aligning with the legally enforceable Penalty Charge Notice, and as a corollary, clamping on private land is to be outlawed. I think there may still be some way to go, but (given an appeals process, and the duty to make any penalty reasonable) all-in-all it looks like an improvement to me”.

 

It looks like can of worms to me. There are going to be some interesting court cases in the near

future trying to define reasonable charges and reasonable admin charges.

 

[section 56 and Schedule 4

of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012] States:

 

"Charges for breaking a parking contract must be reasonable and a genuine pre-estimate 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".

 

 

......I think you'll find that there is no such wording within the named act. The reasonableness of any charges/damages are more likely to be governed by (English, in this case) Tort Law.

 

Nonetheless, it is a reasonable interpretation of what should happen.

 

So, a Local Council charges £70 for a Penalty Charge Notice (reduced for early payment) and makes little or no surplus on that. They can prove little, if any, potential "business loss" other than the pro-rata parking charge.

 

ASDA (or their agents) charge a similar amount but could plead (on averaged estimate) a significantly greater business loss.

 

With the Local Council as a benchmark, I suspect the ASDA amount would be seen as reasonable in law (with little if any uplift for "loss of business")

 

(OTOH, if ASDA were simply in the Car Park business, charging for the original parking period and then trying to raise a penalty for overstaying, there are legal arguments that could be used to contest such a magnitude).

 

jb6981 - 2012-10-13 11:03 PM

 

If they ever get as far as taking anyone to court, see here:

 

http://www.tribunals.gov.uk/financeandtax/Documents/decisions/vehicle_control_services_v_hmrc.

 

pdf

 

 

.....again, not sure what this introduces to the argument, other than diversion.

 

It appears at rapid perusal to be a tax ruling related to whether VAT is payable on parking (penalty) charges, the underlying issue being whether the charges were raised by a legal party in "the parking contract" or by an agent acting on their behalf.

 

It certainly points out that there is a need to be careful about who is the contracting party (the landowner or an agent, and if the latter the nature of any backing agreement between these two parties).

 

I can find no reference at all as to the legality or not of parking charge notices, (though by inference it would appear to support the legality), nor any generic undermining of the same.

 

I am sure most landowners understand the required contractual arrangements (indeed, by the nature of the signs you have posted pictures of, I would assume that ASDA do).

 

The only factor I can find of possible relevance to the debate is that if VAT is to be payable on the penalty, then the 20% uplift contributes even more to the £70 charge being "reasonable". ;-)

 

 

My own expectation is that (given there will now be a clear, liable target to pursue, since there will either be a named "miscreant", or as a fall-back the registered keeper) the (members of) the BPA will fairly rapidly progress a few cases to court. (Very few have come to court previously, mainly because of the identification issue) As a result of this, there will inevitably be some legal debate over what is and isn't reasonable, and a benchmark will rapidly be set.

 

It may hit the headlines, but it will all be over fairly rapidly, and drivers will then know the score. (And maybe previously full car-parks will then be available to those with "legitimate" reason to use them ;-) )

 

 

[747]

Just ever so slightly off topic but worth a mention.

 

We had one of the dogs to the Vets this afternoon in Chester-Le-Street in County Durham. As the wife is getting over a broken leg, we decided for convenience to use the Morrisons supermarket near the vets (we have never previously shopped here). It is a Pay and Display car park managed by a firm called Parkingeye.

 

Although I am a law abiding citizen, I refused to buy a ticket because you HAVE to punch in your FULL car registration number in order to get a ticket. I do not subscribe to Conspiracy Theories but there is no way I would give that information out. As far as I am concerned it is the thin end of the wedge regarding privacy.

 

Anybody else come across this system?

[sshortcircuit]

747 - 2012-10-17 3:51 PM

 

Just ever so slightly off topic but worth a mention.

 

We had one of the dogs to the Vets this afternoon in Chester-Le-Street in County Durham. As the wife is getting over a broken leg, we decided for convenience to use the Morrisons supermarket near the vets (we have never previously shopped here). It is a Pay and Display car park managed by a firm called Parkingeye.

 

Although I am a law abiding citizen, I refused to buy a ticket because you HAVE to punch in your FULL car registration number in order to get a ticket. I do not subscribe to Conspiracy Theories but there is no way I would give that information out. As far as I am concerned it is the thin end of the wedge regarding privacy.

 

Anybody else come across this system?

 

I would assume that the number is to idetify that you have paid and have not been passed a ticket from somebody else. Are you not concerned that somebody could be taking a note of your number anyway and now aware were you were :-D

[bolero boy]

Then either get the driver to deal with the correspondence (man up) or forget about any more posts on this forum as is not relevant ( shut up).......

[Archiesgrandad]

Only a court can levy a fine, private car parks can only try to make a charge. If you decline to pay they would need to take you to the civil court to get a judgement for any loss or cost that they could prove that you had caused them. They might threaten but if you don't pay that is their only course. AGD

[747]

sshortcircuit - 2012-10-17 4:13 PM

 

747 - 2012-10-17 3:51 PM

 

Just ever so slightly off topic but worth a mention.

 

We had one of the dogs to the Vets this afternoon in Chester-Le-Street in County Durham. As the wife is getting over a broken leg, we decided for convenience to use the Morrisons supermarket near the vets (we have never previously shopped here). It is a Pay and Display car park managed by a firm called Parkingeye.

 

Although I am a law abiding citizen, I refused to buy a ticket because you HAVE to punch in your FULL car registration number in order to get a ticket. I do not subscribe to Conspiracy Theories but there is no way I would give that information out. As far as I am concerned it is the thin end of the wedge regarding privacy.

 

Anybody else come across this system?

 

I would assume that the number is to idetify that you have paid and have not been passed a ticket from somebody else. Are you not concerned that somebody could be taking a note of your number anyway and now aware were you were :-D

 

It is 40p for the first hour, 60p for 2 hours and 80p for 3 hours (this is the maximum stay). It is hardly crime of the Century to pass a ticket on. Also, if you spend more than £5 in-store, you get the parking charge refunded.

 

As for your last remark I believe there could have been something odd going on. There were 2 men in a car that moved from parking bay to parking bay. The passenger had a clipboard and was writing down information of some sort. It was so unusual that I wrote down their reg. number.

 

We seem to go about our daily business unaware that there may be things going on without our knowledge. The only possible use for connecting a car registration to a shopping outlet is that these parking firms can get additional personal information from DVLA very cheaply. They can then sell on lists of names and addresses for the purpose of bombarding people with junk mail etc. It is probably a better bet than trying to chase up parking charges for overstaying.

 

Jeez ..... I am starting to sound like I am paranoid. :-(

[sshortcircuit]

My local shopping centre, whose car park is free up to ?hrs, has an attendant who patrols and notes car numbers. If car overstay then he will then he implement what procedure they have. I am vague about their procedure as I am rarely there for more than 30 minutes.

 

As far as obtaining info from DVLA I understand there is a charge and there has to be good reason, so not particularly efficient way of obtaining a data base and in relation to my own visits a waste of time.

 

Junk mail would need to be promoted by the shops in the centre and in current climate shops are closing in the centre at an alarming rate.

 

I may be a bit naive but providing I park in the right place and do not overstay then they can photo/note as much as they like and junk mail just ends up in the bin

[alf]

bolero boy - 2012-10-17 4:38 PM

 

Then either get the driver to deal with the correspondence (man up) or forget about any more posts on this forum as is not relevant ( shut up).......

 

Well said that man

[colin]

747 - 2012-10-17 3:51 PM

 

Just ever so slightly off topic but worth a mention.

 

We had one of the dogs to the Vets this afternoon in Chester-Le-Street in County Durham. As the wife is getting over a broken leg, we decided for convenience to use the Morrisons supermarket near the vets (we have never previously shopped here). It is a Pay and Display car park managed by a firm called Parkingeye.

 

Although I am a law abiding citizen, I refused to buy a ticket because you HAVE to punch in your FULL car registration number in order to get a ticket. I do not subscribe to Conspiracy Theories but there is no way I would give that information out. As far as I am concerned it is the thin end of the wedge regarding privacy.

 

Anybody else come across this system?

 

The council operate (or did) this system up in dave n's neck of the woods, as for disclosing the info you might not have noticed but you have it permanantly displayed on the front and rear of you van :-D

[747]

colin - 2012-10-17 7:21 PM

 

747 - 2012-10-17 3:51 PM

 

Just ever so slightly off topic but worth a mention.

 

We had one of the dogs to the Vets this afternoon in Chester-Le-Street in County Durham. As the wife is getting over a broken leg, we decided for convenience to use the Morrisons supermarket near the vets (we have never previously shopped here). It is a Pay and Display car park managed by a firm called Parkingeye.

 

Although I am a law abiding citizen, I refused to buy a ticket because you HAVE to punch in your FULL car registration number in order to get a ticket. I do not subscribe to Conspiracy Theories but there is no way I would give that information out. As far as I am concerned it is the thin end of the wedge regarding privacy.

 

Anybody else come across this system?

 

The council operate (or did) this system up in dave n's neck of the woods, as for disclosing the info you might not have noticed but you have it permanantly displayed on the front and rear of you van :-D

 

Having just googled Parking Eye, I would not want to give them anything. They are a typical parking enforcement company who resort to dubious methods to try and squeeze a sum of money out of you. I expect that I will get some sort of 'fine' because I did not pay and display. No doubt their ANPR camera will confirm that there is no ticket issued with my registration number on it. This is despite the fact that we were entitled to free parking as my wife spent more than £5 in Morrisons. This is why I have put the receipt in a safe place. Should I get something from Parking Eye, I will pop down and have a word with Morrisons store manager. He has the power to cancel a charge. While I am on, I will tell him about the potential customers who got as far as the ticket machine, noticed the need for their reg. number to be inputted and then went back to their cars and left. It appears that I am not the only one against this system.

 

Thanks for that smart final remark. I am sure it made you feel better. It looks like you missed the BBC Watchdog programme that highlighted the antics of this company. ;-)