private charge notice

[paulrbarnard]

Yes in hindsight i should have argued with it more but at the time i was bogged down with other things and i kept forgetting i had the fine even. Oh well live and learn. The PCN guys are scum IMO, money making racket and nothing else.

Its along the same line as police camera vans. Privately contracted companies (not the police) out to make a quick buck only. They do not offer anything in terms of keeping speed down and they are often on high speed roads in concealed spots.

Actually I hold the opposite view. These things do not have any impact on people who respect the rules. The rules are generally there to ensure safety of others or fair use of resource. If you get a ticket from a speed camera or a parking ticket or similar it is because YOU failed to respect the regulations put in place to protect others rights and indeed lives.
Close to 2000 people die every year in the UK due to traffic ‘accidents’. 30% of these list speed as the contributing factor.

 

[evildrome]

I think you have a good case. I suggest that one of your family members suddenly "remembers" they were driving.

Then you can fight the case which given the signage issues, I'm pretty sure you'll win.

Otherwise you appear to be stuffed.

 

[evildrome]

Actually I hold the opposite view. These things do not have any impact on people who respect the rules.

I agree with danst96, "The PCN guys are scum IMO".

They are scum. Nothing better than legalised gangsters.

Yes, parking should be enforced but at a rate commensurate with the "loss".

Its a legal maxim. You can only claim damages for actual loss. Not "imaginary" losses.

You may not levy punitive charges. Punishment is the prerogative of the state.

A £90 charge for overstaying in a "free" car park by 1 hour is, in my book, punitive and in no way at all commensurate with loss.

Somebody somewhere took a nice big fat bung to re-write the law to suit the PCN industry.

 

[Rorschach]

30% of these list speed as the contributing factor.

Where did you find that figure?

A quick google says 3-4%

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar... of,drivers, Government figures have revealed.

 

[bluenose]

Being avoidable doesn't seem to stop the accidents. Very few accidents aren't avoidable.

Sorry Phil but I can't agree with that by any stretch of the imagination. Generally speaking they are not 'accidents' anyway, they are 'collisions' and more to do with poor driving for an absolute multitude of reasons.

 

[Glitch]

Might I add, I was in the no park zone for a total of 10 minutes (as long as it takes to eat a McDonalds burger). Cost me £220.

I can beat that. I had a kebab that cost me £650
That was in the days when clamping and towing was allowed. Legalised extortion.
Standing in the kebab shop and saw my car going past behind a tow truck.
Took the parking company and the 'landowner' to small claims court. Won by default, neither turned up. They'd have lost anyway.
Didn't get my money back though.

 

[Phil Pascoe]

Sorry Phil but I can't agree with that by any stretch of the imagination. Generally speaking they are not 'accidents' anyway, they are 'collisions' and more to do with poor driving for an absolute multitude of reasons.

Precisely. They are avoidable.

 

[Phil Pascoe]

Where did you find that figure?

A quick google says 3-4%

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar... of,drivers, Government figures have revealed.

A "contributing factor" and "caused by" are rather different.

 

[Rorschach]

A "contributing factor" and "caused by" are rather different.

I wondered if that was the confusion. I mean I guess speed contributes to nearly 100% of accidents since it's pretty difficult for two cars to collide if neither is moving!

 

[paulrbarnard]

Where did you find that figure?

A quick google says 3-4%

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar... of,drivers, Government figures have revealed.

U.K. government official data...

 

[Rorschach]

U.K. government official data...

Do you have a link? Wording is very important as Phil has pointed out as well.

 

[Glitch]

I think you have a good case. I suggest that one of your family members suddenly "remembers" they were driving.

Then you can fight the case which given the signage issues, I'm pretty sure you'll win.

Otherwise you appear to be stuffed.

I would not divulge the identity of the driver. OP knows he is not legally obliged to say who it was.
Consumer Advice Scotland says:

There’s no law in Scotland that states the registered keeper of the car is automatically liable for a parking ticket. You are also under no obligation to disclose the details of the driver at the time.

The parking company have rejected the initial appeal (they always do)

OP can ignore (becomes a game of brinkmanship, could get taken to court but sounds like genuine error)
Or take it through the Independent Appeals Process.
Sounds like a good chance of winning. Still don't need to disclose who the driver is.

Put it on the Fighback Forum and you should get some advice on how to play it. They'll help word the appeal if you go that route.

 

[Distinterior]

Well,....I never knew the laws In Scotland were so different from the laws here in England.....I stand corrected.☺
I wonder why ....?

 

[Glitch]

Do you have a link? Wording is very important as Phil has pointed out as well.

6% in 2019

Govt stats

Contributory factors for reported road accidents

 

[Droogs]

@Distinterior Scots law has a difference premise of operation and more possible outcomes than English law. The Act of Union was only passed as Scots law was guaranteed its independence (the last article to be agreed upon) from English courts. The biggest difference is in regard to land ownership and public access, there is no such thing as an act of trespass in Scotland and therefore restriction of access must be done under different legal means. So reasonable loss through an act of trespass such as overstaying your welcome in a carpark does not apply here

 

[paulrbarnard]

I agree with danst96, "The PCN guys are scum IMO".

They are scum. Nothing better than legalised gangsters.

Yes, parking should be enforced but at a rate commensurate with the "loss".

Its a legal maxim. You can only claim damages for actual loss. Not "imaginary" losses.

You may not levy punitive charges. Punishment is the prerogative of the state.

A £90 charge for overstaying in a "free" car park by 1 hour is, in my book, punitive and in no way at all commensurate with loss.

Somebody somewhere took a nice big fat bung to re-write the law to suit the PCN industry.

Doesn't change the fact that someone didn't follow the rules in order to receive the notice. If it was genuinely unfair, breakdown, signage or other circumstances then an appeal is warranted but from personal observation (of family members) it's usually down to their own fault.

The bit I agree with is that the amount is often excessive and that generally comes from 'administration' fees slapped on. Thats what should be regulated to a greater extent. The same for the £10 service charge for processing your £2 import duty...

 

[paulrbarnard]

6% in 2019

Govt stats

Contributory factors for reported road accidents

RAS50008 shows fatal accidents as 15% for exceeding speed limit, 7% travelling too fast for the conditions or 22% combined. The 30% I quoted was from earlier figures from Hansard and thankfully they have dropped in the last 10 years.

The 6% you quote is for all accidents and only for exceeding the speed limit, not where speed is a contributory factor.

 

[Distinterior]

*

@Distinterior Scots law has a difference premise of operation and more possible outcomes than English law. The Act of Union was only passed as Scots law was guaranteed its independence (the last article to be agreed upon) from English courts. The biggest difference is in regard to land ownership and public access, there is no such thing as an act of trespass in Scotland and therefore restriction of access must be done under different legal means. So reasonable loss through an act of trespass such as overstaying your welcome in a carpark does not apply here

Sorry, I should have said I didnt know the "motoring" laws were so different in Scotland...I was fully aware there were different laws in other legal matters.

So,....That being the case then,....you can basically park where you like in Scotland and if/ when you get a parking ticket, you just say you dont know who was driving and you, as the keeper of the vehicle are under no obligation to tell anyone who was driving at the time and the powers that be cannot hold you responsible in any financial way...??!!......I wished I'd known that mid September last year whilst in Edinburgh for the day....It would have saved me a long walk and a climb up that hill to the Castle & Museum from where we had the car booked in for the day....

.A fantastic day out by the way and the weather was glorious.

 

[Droogs]

No the registered keeper is legally required to either name, provide a list of possible candidates or take responsibility, hence my earlier comment about Plod then looking at charging someone with a taking offence as, if you are denying responsiblity and can not name an authorised driver for the time of the action then it is taken as a given that the vehicle was there without consent and the driver if identified has commited a crime. Also it does mean that you cannnot be clamped on privately owned land= extortion, but the police and local authority still have the right to do so.

 

[Distinterior]

So,...What about what Glitch stated in his post earlier...?