Asda Car Park Fine (Brighton Marina)... Any Tips?

[Westdene Seagull]

I have ignored these in the past, appealing, complaining or whatever is entering into a contract with them, as soon as you do that you are on the way to accepting liability, it is an idle threat of court action, (they use the term 'MAY result in county court judgements blah de blah....). stick any correspondence in the Vera Lynn, I've ignored several over the years inc one from The Asda car park in question.

Parking Eye, Excel, UKCPS and a number of others take regular court action now.

 

[Dr. Notthenineo'clocknews]

Parking Eye, Excel, UKCPS and a number of others take regular court action now.

Fair dinkum, I can only speak from my own experience

 

[BensGrandad]

Parking Eye, Excel, UKCPS and a number of others take regular court action now.

Have any ever won on private land.

 

[Westdene Seagull]

Have any ever won on private land.

Yes, some by default ( i.e. the person didn't defend ), some because the person put forward an utterly poor defence and a few because the judge had a funny turn. Someone last month got hit with a £450 charge from the court which shows why using POPLA is sensible.

 

[GingerBeerMan]

Sometimes they do, sometimes they don't. Just ask the thousands of people who Parking Eye have sent court papers to.

Interesting, after reading this post I done some research. This seems to be one of the first documented cases of PE taking someone to court over and unpaid fine:

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=60343

It's a long thread, but the final outcome (if you don't want to read) is:

Hi Guys,

I have not long got back from court, hopefully you will all be glad to know that I pretty much won the case.

The judge ruled that the £240 was a penalty, and that the actual amount I owe is £15 (2 x £5 fees and 2 x £2.50 to get details from DVLA). That is their only loss from me not paying on the days in question. Unfortunately as he found I had breached the contract, and never offered the amount I owed at the beginning, I am liable for the costs of £95, so my total payout is £110. I think we can call that a victory!!!

Thanks everybody for your help on here (once people believed I was real) I would not have been able to keep going with this without the support of everybody on here and Pepipoo.

The best news: they sent me a statement of costs and they have spent almost £5000 on solicitors fees. They were hoping to claim this if they won, so they have made a loss of about £4900 at least!!

My advice would still be to ignore these invoices as they are unenforceable, but if, like me, there is a genuine amount you feel you do owe, it may be worth offering this at the start and making note of it. If I had done that then all the costs would have been waived but we live and learn.

If anyone wants any more details etc then don't hesitate to ask. Today has been extremely stressful, but I now feel I have a massive weight off my shoulders and I am so glad I fought this all the way!

I am aware Alexis has started a new thread discussing the result of the case, but I thought for completeness I should add it to the bottom of this so people can see the result.

Smithy

 

[BensGrandad]

Yes, some by default ( i.e. the person didn't defend ), some because the person put forward an utterly poor defence and a few because the judge had a funny turn. Someone last month got hit with a £450 charge from the court which shows why using POPLA is sensible.

Was that £450 after losing POPLA.?

 

[Westdene Seagull]

Interesting, after reading this post I done some research. This seems to be one of the first documented cases of PE taking someone to court over and unpaid fine:

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=60343

It's a long thread, but the final outcome (if you don't want to read) is:

Parking Eye currently win around 60% of their court cases - that's 600 a month.

 

[Westdene Seagull]

Was that £450 after losing POPLA.?

Nope, the person didn't even bother with POPLA.

 

[BensGrandad]

Fool, had he done so and lost he would have been given the reason so better placed to put up a defence covering the point he lost his POPLA appeal on.

 

[METALMICKY]

This used to be the best course of action but since POFA 2012 they don't have to know who the driver was. The result is companies like Parking Eye issuing over a thousand court papers a month. If it's a company like Smart Parking ( who have never done court ) then you could probably still safely ignore but they have six years to decide whether to take you to court.

That changes nothing. As fruitnveg states the moment you engage is when they sniff you might pay. Just hold your nerve and ignore. The only thing you ever should not ignore is a bona fide court claim issued from Northampton which they will rarely bother with and even they do you simply submit a standard defence which are all over the internet.

 

[METALMICKY]

Parking Eye, Excel, UKCPS and a number of others take regular court action now.

Yes but you are missing the point. Those court actions invariably fail because the basis of their claim is invalid on so many accounts. The only action to succeed is where they do bother to get a proper claim issued and if you ignore that they can apply for judgment by default.

 

[Chinman3000]

Originally Posted by Chinman3000

"Has anyone ever claimed that a £70 council ticket is too expensive and won then? Great example of how a guy claimed and won on the POPLA site."

Errrrr ....... POPLA is for private tickets only not council ones. And you'll never beat a council ticket by claiming it's "too expensive", you need to show a process or legal flaw in the issuing of the ticket.

Errrrr ....... POPLA is for private tickets only not council ones. And you'll never beat a council ticket by claiming it's "too expensive", you need to show a process or legal flaw in the issuing of the ticket.[/QUOTE ​Parking On Private Land Appeals hence POPLA

Errrr...Notice that question mark I used? That indicates the end of a sentence. I was making two different points here

 

[Westdene Seagull]

Errrr...Notice that question mark I used? That indicates the end of a sentence. I was making two different points here

Well it was a very poorly constructed post. As for there being an example of someone winning on POPLA - care to post the link ?

 

[LadySeagull]

Well it was a very poorly constructed post. As for there being an example of someone winning on POPLA - care to post the link ?

I think it's that boring case the Lead Adjudicator made a test decision on as far as trying to teach the scum firms what a 'genuine pre-estimate of loss' is. Months later they still haven't a clue have they, it's quite amusing to read all the recent POPLA decisions again and again on MSE, all won by the forum poster newbies who've read & understood the guidance.

There are only a handful of private parking firms which would need a different POPLA appeal from the norm, and then there are some in the IPC where the appeal is different too but on the forum we have started to suss the winning formula for that new appeals service, as well, haven't we?!

People thinking this must be too good to be true and it's easier to ignore, should read recent POPLA decisions in 2014 (read back from the latest post) and a pattern is very evident. Bear in mind this is a summary thread for ALL POPLA decisions, not just reporting wins!:

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=4488337&page=46

Smart Parking will cancel an Asda ticket the minute they see the template first appeal here - 90% certain this OP won't even need POPLA and if they do it's 100% guaranteed to beat Smart Parking if the registered keeper appeals because Smart aren't very smart and don't even use the legal wording in their 'tickets' that would let them have keeper liability - doh!

To save the OP searching for it, this is the template I wrote on MSE a while back; a version of this sees off many PPCs without POPLA. 100% guarantee that this ticket won't have to be paid:

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?p=65994090#post65994090

Dear xxxxxxxx

re PCN number xxxxxxx
I have received your parking invoice impersonating a 'parking ticket' and will be complaining in the strongest terms to your client. No doubt you convinced them that your operation is some sort of 'parking space maximisation scheme' when it is nothing of the sort and is simply there to maximise your own profits.

I decline your invitation to pay or name the driver, neither of which are required of me as the keeper of the vehicle. This is my appeal and all liability to your company is denied on the following basis:
A The amount is neither a genuine tariff/fee for parking, nor is it based upon any genuine pre-estimate of loss.
B You are not the landowner and do not have locus standi.
C Your signage was not sufficiently prominent nor clearly worded and consideration did not flow from both parties, so there was no contract.
D Your Notice to Driver/Keeper does not comply with Schedule 4 of the POFA 2012 so you cannot establish liability for me, as keeper.

If you choose not to cancel this invoice you must issue a rejection letter in reply to my appeal, explaining:
1 The legal basis of your charge (i.e. breach, trespass or contractual fee). As keeper, I cannot be expected to guess the basis of your allegation.
2 Proof of your locus standi to offer contracts to drivers at this site.
3 Your explanation of the consideration that you believe flowed from the driver, and from yourselves.
4 A copy of the signage site map and close-up pictures of the signs in situ at the time, taken at a comparable time of day in similar light conditions.
5 The means to make an appeal to POPLA.

A certificate of posting will be obtained for all my written responses and I intend to claim my costs when I prevail.

yours,

{registered keeper's name - never tick any box to say who was driving! The driver should be kept unidentified, as is your right, unless as keeper you've missed the appeal deadline. For postal PCNs it can be an option because the driver can still appeal...but that's not needed here}

My source on how to deal with my fine was the Martin Lewis Money Saving Expert site and the dedicated parking forum. The two popular approaches are the convoluted defence letter cribbed from numerous sources on the web or dimply ignore. Personally I went for the ignore and I never heard from them again. Fortunately, I used to work in debt recovery so knew my way round civil court procedures and CCJ's etc. These companies just usually send pseudo looking legal forms that are designed to scare you. The only letter you should never ignore is a civil claim form usually sent from Northampton County Court bulk centre. The reality is that they issue enough of these notices to scare enough people that they very rarely actually issue a claim. And even then such a claim is easily defended

And please, don't ignore a fake PCN like thesebecause if some of these firms copy ParkingEye's approach, people who have ignored a fake PCN will be first in the queue to be sued and these are not 'easy' to defend except against the really stupid firms. The most litigious monster of a firm, ParkingEye, sue ignorers NOT just those who put their head above the parapet by writing to them. In February they filed nearly 4000 court claims, in March nearly 3000, all targeted against ignorers (we don't lose POPLA cases v PE so these are people who didn't search & find the MSE template appeals). And most people settle or give up and hide even though they'll definitely lose a hearing if they don't show up. And in court PE send a law firm and often win. It's a no-brainer to beat ParkingEye at POPLA.

 

[Chinman3000]

Well it was a very poorly constructed post. As for there being an example of someone winning on POPLA - care to post the link ?

I feel it was understandable in its context however I also appreciate how easily it could have been misread. Anyway here is the link to the POPLA case

http://www.popla.org.uk/keycase.htm

The 'Appealent' successfully claimed the amount was dispropotionate to the actual loss and won his appeal.

 

[LadySeagull]

Yep as I said, it is the fairly old case where the Lead Adjudicator showed the scum firms, who kept losing any well-written POPLA appeal, what a Genuine Pre-estimate of Loss was. And they promptly forgot and carried on losing, as they have the concentration span of a flea, most of them being thick ex-clamper thugs.

 

[Bold Seagull]

I know, should have read the signs etc

i have got a £40 fine for parking at the Asda car park (right by the cinema walk through tunnel) for 3hrs 55mins

took the kids to see a film + pizza hut on the very wet bank holiday monday

any tips how to wriggle out of paying ?


or just suck it up

So, 75 posts later, what are you going to do - pay the £40, go at them with everything you've got, or ignore them?

 

[Dave the OAP]

I know we are talking a slightly different scale here, but it appears to me that by avoiding paying a fine for parking where you should not have and a sign is available saying " please don't park here as we have a car park that is for the use of our patrons, and if you park here and the car park is subsequently full you are taking up a space that should be used by our customers" , then what is the difference between what the bar room lawyers on here are advocating and what Starbucks and amazon get away with that people are so indignant about?

Shirley they are using exactly the same logic of avoiding paying a levy/ tax/ fine/ whatever to what is being proposed here.

It smacks a bit like someone getting off a crime that everyone knows he/ she is guilty of, but because an officer of the law sneezed on his notebook therefore making it unreadable, his evidence is in admissible or someone getting caught doing 100 mph and them getting off as the device had the wrong type of paint on it...a bit far fetched but you know what I am getting at.

 

[Notters]

I know we are talking a slightly different scale here, but it appears to me that by avoiding paying a fine for parking where you should not have and a sign is available saying " please don't park here as we have a car park that is for the use of our patrons, and if you park here and the car park is subsequently full you are taking up a space that should be used by our customers" , then what is the difference between what the bar room lawyers on here are advocating and what Starbucks and amazon get away with that people are so indignant about?

Shirley they are using exactly the same logic of avoiding paying a levy/ tax/ fine/ whatever to what is being proposed here.

It smacks a bit like someone getting off a crime that everyone knows he/ she is guilty of, but because an officer of the law sneezed on his notebook therefore making it unreadable, his evidence is in admissible or someone getting caught doing 100 mph and them getting off as the device had the wrong type of paint on it...a bit far fetched but you know what I am getting at.

But it's not like that at all. The people who get these "fines" usually do so without any intention of breaking any "rules". There are very rarely any clear signs. I got a parking "fine" when I visited my friend in Hove and parked in a bay marked "V" assuming this meant it was a visitor space. Apparently it doesn't actually mean anything and is just there to trick people.

 

[Dave the OAP]

But it's not like that at all. The people who get these "fines" usually do so without any intention of breaking any "rules". There are very rarely any clear signs. I got a parking "fine" when I visited my friend in Hove and parked in a bay marked "V" assuming this meant it was a visitor space. Apparently it doesn't actually mean anything and is just there to trick people.

But the opening poster suggested just that. He parked in asda knowing that it was a car park for people using asda.

People on here are suggesting to use the law to avoid paying what may or not be a valid fine/ levy etc.

Starbucks and amazon et al break no law, they just use it as it is to avoid/ evade paying any where " morally" they should.

One could argue that the OP should morally pay the fine, as he parked where he shouldn't have?