Berkley Precinct Parking Fine

[Blue Day 10]

I've had 2 such 'parking notices' in the past year.

 

I received one for parking at Centretainment, must have been a year ago now. After receiving a few letters over a couple of months I've received nothing for 6 months at least.

 

The other was for parking on a business park in Wakefield. I parked there for 5 minutes whilst taking a phone call. My most recent letter was a couple of weeks ago, giving me until the 16th October to pay OR ELSE!!!!!

 

On each occasion I've NEVER replied. I keep the letters just in case. They are invoices, not fines and the only way they can enforce them is to take you to court. If they do that, by law you have to be informed of the court date so you can attend.

 

One note - I've heard instances of people being taken to court (not necessarily for parking notices) and they didn't know, either the court letter was never received or they moved house. Next thing a judgement is made and they end up with a CCJ on their credit file.

 

So just beware

 

Latest on my own situation, heard / received nothing despite the 16th October deadline.

[carboy42 10]

They will be a Micky mouse operation buying data for penny's in the pound on the original debt/invoice and trying there look with threatening letters

 

Tell them to do one

[Eccy Beach 11]

The Mrs got a 'ticket' from these clowns a year back. Took some photos demonstrating lack of signage around the area she was parked in and sent them a letter - didn't hear from them again.

[markfor 10]

Supreme Court rules Private Parking Enforcement is LEGAL

In a resounding victory for Landowners and Private Car Park Operators, the Supreme Court, the highest court in the land, today handed down its decision in the matter of Essex chip shop owner and self proclaimed Parking Tzar verses Parkingeye Ltd over the matter of an £85.00 Parking Charge Notice.

 

On 15 April 2013, Mr Beavis had visited the Riverside Retail Park which was managed by ParkingEye, who displayed numerous notices throughout the car park, saying that a failure to comply with a two hour time limit would “result in a Parking Charge of £85”. Mr Beavis parked in the car park, but overstayed the two hour limit by almost an hour. ParkingEye demanded payment of the £85 charge. Mr Beavis argued that the £85 charge was unenforceable at common law as a penalty, and/or that it was unfair and unenforceable by virtue of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999.

 

The Court of Appeal upheld the first instance decision rejecting those arguments and now this decision has been re-enforced by the Supreme Court, which has determined that the purpose of the Charge is to deter motorists from breaching the Terms and Conditions and the charge was no higher than was necessary to achieve that objective.

[Jeffrey Shaw 90]

All true; but the 'Parking Notice' is not a 'Penalty Notice'.

So:

a. it's not a matter of criminal law, only Civil Law; and

b. the car-driver does not really need to do anything unless/until served with County Court Notice of Proceedings.

[Blue Day 10]

All true; but the 'Parking Notice' is not a 'Penalty Notice'.

So:

a. it's not a matter of criminal law, only Civil Law; and

b. the car-driver does not really need to do anything unless/until served with County Court Notice of Proceedings.

 

Absolutely spot on.