UK Traffic Law
Ask an UK Traffic Law Question, Get an Answer ASAP!
Thanks for your question. Please kindly RATE my answer when you are satisfied
Could you confirm when you received the ticket please?
Did you buy a ticket or just forgot to do so?
Would you like to continue?
This is a site where they used to clamp people.There are no tickets to buy. I understand you have left now but when I type something I get and email and when I view it nothing appears.I will keep this open in the hope you see this and come back
I hope you are not having any difficulties. I am still here - I just stepped out of this chat.
OK thanks. Private tickets used to be unenforceable if the registered keeper refused to identify the driver but that changed last year when the Protection of Freedoms Act outlawed clamping and provided enhanced measures for parking companies to enforce private tickets. The PoFA provides that if a registered keeper refuses to identify the driver within 28 days then the registered keeper is liable for the demand.
However the Act has not authorised private parking firms to issue fines. These demands are still nothing better than invoices demanding payment for breach of contract - the contract is formed by the use of signs warning to display tickets/permits or risk a ticket at the advertised rate.
Being a contract the ordinary rules of contract apply whereby they must prove that they displayed adequate signage to enable a driver parking there to know of the requirements; evidence of loss on their part as a result of the breach of contract and evidence that they have attempted to mitigate their loss.
so I become liable? is this true in all cases
The first thing to consider is whether they displayed adequate signs to enable a reasonable driver to know of the requirements to park there. If not then they will find it difficult to establish a contract and hence a claim to charge you. Eve if they can show adequate signage however they would struggle to show any real loss. Even if you had parked there without a ticket their loss would only be very small - they will attempt to claim admin costs and so on but they would still struggle to demonstrate a loss of any significance compared to the amount they will attempt to claim. The common doubling of the fee if not paid within a certain period is almost certainly unenforceable in contract law.
Accordingly you may either pay the amount demanded or simply ignore the various threatening letters that will ensue should you fail to do so. All they can do is issue proceedings in the County Court to sue you for the amount demanded plus costs which would be in the order of £35. Historically they almost never did so because they would find it very difficult to win. Now they have a better position in that they can sue the registered keeper under the above act but they must still prove loss and so on as above which is not easy. There is no evidence of large scale claims in the county courts though the Act is still relatively young.
If it were me I would still choose to ignore private parking tickets on the calculation that they are unlikely to sue and if they do the court fees are relatively limited and the above arguments of loss and so on can be employed to argue down the level of demand. You must of course make your own choice.
I think I understand. The signs are all there but they cannot possibly evidence any loss as the ticket relates to a contractor working onsite and parking in our bay he had displayed a note to this effect.
That is basically correct.
I presume that the bay belongs to you or you have a right to park there subject to displaying a permit? If so do you have a permit?
Yes we do but from time to time people working on site will park there with a note and we will park elsewhere. It depends on who the clamper is one will knock the door and check the other will just issue a ticket
Thanks. On that basis I cannot see that they can show they have suffered any loss at all apart from some minor administrative costs. It is the driver who has liability unless they fail to identify themselves in which case it is now automatically the registeed keeper of the vehicle concerned however all of the above points apply. In this case my view would be you would have some excellent arguments to defend and it remans to be seen whether such companies will still choose to risk legal action. As above if it were me I would ignore it but the position is no longer so clear cut so you must make your own choice bearing in mind the above points.
Does the above answer all your questions or is there anything I can clarify or help with any further?
no that's fine thanks.
If you have no further questions for now I should be very grateful if you would kindly take a moment to rate my service to you today. Your feedback is important to me. If there is anything else I can help with please reply back to me.
DISCLAIMER: Answers from Experts on JustAnswer are not substitutes for the advice of an attorney. JustAnswer is a public forum and questions and responses are not private or confidential or protected by the attorney-client privilege. The Expert above is not your attorney, and the response above is not legal advice. You should not read this response to propose specific action or address specific circumstances, but only to give you a sense of general principles of law that might affect the situation you describe. Application of these general principles to particular circumstances must be done by a lawyer who has spoken with you in confidence, learned all relevant information, and explored various options. Before acting on these general principles, you should hire a lawyer licensed to practice law in the jurisdiction to which your question pertains.
The responses above are from individual Experts, not JustAnswer. The site and services are provided “as is”. To view the verified credential of an Expert, click on the “Verified” symbol in the Expert’s profile. This site is not for emergency questions which should be directed immediately by telephone or in-person to qualified professionals. Please carefully read the Terms of Service (last updated February 8, 2012).