blonde poker forum

My building has an underground car park, and I got a pretty suspect looking fine the other day. I have a monthly permit and it was a few hours over, annoying, but fair enough. However I'm not sure how legit this is, or more accurately, how much they can do to me.

(http://i1210.photobucket.com/albums/cc416/cambridgealex/1B5D7284-C557-40E3-9508-6B26DD3014A3_zpsjjnkdd4f.jpg) (http://s1210.photobucket.com/user/cambridgealex/media/1B5D7284-C557-40E3-9508-6B26DD3014A3_zpsjjnkdd4f.jpg.html)

(http://i1210.photobucket.com/albums/cc416/cambridgealex/6DAF45EF-2712-4214-8DCB-02BEBB23D1B4_zpscw95m62k.jpg) (http://s1210.photobucket.com/user/cambridgealex/media/6DAF45EF-2712-4214-8DCB-02BEBB23D1B4_zpscw95m62k.jpg.html)

Read up on "London Parking Solutions" and apparently their threat of getting your details from the DVLA is an empty one. The DVLA only give out details to licensed / regulated companies and this isn't one of them.

Notice no use of the word "penalty", apparently this is key also.

Any experiences or knowledge in this area blonde?

Our friend Martin Lewis had a few posts on his forum from a couple of years back but nothing conclusive.

As the law stands, private parking tickets (not from the council) are not enforceable.

The law is that they can sue you for the debt, but punative charges are not recoverable in court. That means that they can sue you for the damage you've done (by denying a paying customer the opportunity to park, or a little bit of wear and tear on the tarmac) but they can't sue you for the fine they've decided to charge you. In practise this means you can just ignore it. They will send a series of increasingly grumpy letters, and will threaten to transfer your debt to a "debt collection agency" (the desk next to the one with the "parking company" on it).

All these companies do is specialise in writing official and mean sounding paperwork, rather than any actual parking service.

I got one from the Co-op in West Bridgeford, ignored it and it was all fine (or rather no fine). It might be a bit different if you've been fined by your own building though- I'd imagine they might take away your permit if you don't pay.

By the way, in theory the DVLA only gives out registered keeper details to regulated companies only, but in practise the regulation is so non-existent they may as well admit they give it out to anyone who asks.

absolutely ignore it. don't even respond to it.

shred it/burn it/whatever.

and watch as literally nothing happens as a result.

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=4816822

Ignore it is no longer the recommended action IIRC. The above thread is the FAQ from the 'parking ticket'* forum on MSE.


*yes really. A very strange bunch.

London Parking Solutions are not an AOS member so I think most of the advice in that post doesn't apply?

"Appealing a private PCN (England & Wales ONLY)

Windscreen ticket? = STOP!!

Consider waiting 3 weeks and in that time, you MUST check the firm is and AOS member with the BPA or IPC (GOOGLE IT). DO NOT APPEAL AT ALL, IF THEY ARE NOT!

The latest advice is to avoid the debt collector rubbish and in the case of AOS MEMBERS ONLY, appeal after around 21 days if you get a windscreen ticket but as the KEEPER, not driver, using the template below"

Now tell me I was wrong to call Martin Lewis the most depressing man in the media.

Look at what he spawns!

You were wrong to call Martin Lewis the most depressing man in the media.

+1 an inspiration to those of us trying to save a few quid.  ;D

Agreed. This man is worse, and I'm sure there are others

(http://www.qlocal.co.uk/forums/pics7/ots/jj142.jpg)

a combination of smug, miserable and horrendous

(http://ichef.bbci.co.uk/images/ic/1200x675/p01lyml6.jpg)

That's like the the old children's mastermind game.

"3 right, but in the wrong place"

I'll go horrendous, smug, miserable.

Or possibly smug, smug, smug.

This man is the most depressing man in the media.  I literally have to turn the channel over any time he appears.  I really don't get why I dislike him so much though.

Whilst making himself £150m in the process.  He ain't doing it for us boys.

Have done nothing about this and recd this in the post (to my old address weirdly, not the updated address the DVLA have). Plan of action now?

(http://i1210.photobucket.com/albums/cc416/cambridgealex/FullSizeRender-3_zpsofqrcko7.jpg) (http://s1210.photobucket.com/user/cambridgealex/media/FullSizeRender-3_zpsofqrcko7.jpg.html)

I haven't received a parking charge notice from this particular company but I have received probably 6+ as recently as 2 months ago and I have never paid. Worth having a browse on here though http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/index.php

I would ignore personally.

Stay in Vegas a bit longer, and link them to your diary.
Good chance they will write it off.

Yup, it'll be a case of "can I pay?" rather than "should I?" if this continues.

I parked on a Pay & Display yesterday and didn't have the correct change for the ticket machine. I went to a shop opposite and bought a pack of gum. When I returned I had a £50 penalty.

I don't know how he managed to write it out so quickly and then disappear.

The penalty notice says "Vehicle observed from 12:37 to 12:41."

Red, Is it a Penalty Charge Notice or a Parking Charge Notice. Only ignore the latter!

It's a Penalty Charge Notice  :(

Have a read of this: http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/reclaim/parking-ticket-appeals

Good luck.

Alex, you owe me £118. Pay it now please.  If not, I'll send you an official-looking letter, then you'll have to pay.

If they aren't an official parking organisation, how did they they get Alex's address just from his number plate?

They're a company that is a member of a parking organisation - that doesn't mean that all their letters have to be accurate or legally sound.

In a case like this, it's always worth talking to someone who is up to speed and qualified in this area though - rather than relying on a bunch of degenerate poker players for advice :)

Might reply saying that no-one by that name lives at this address (true) and I don't have a forwarding address.

Don't contact them at all. Let them waste time trying to chase you.

Send them a drawing of a spider as full and final payment.

Reply simply as such:

'I refer you to the reply given in Arkell v Pressdram'

Some golden stuff on google about that, including someone who demanded a retraction from Private Eye.


29th April 1971

 Dear Sir,

 We act for Mr Arkell who is Retail Credit Manager of Granada TV Rental Ltd. His attention has been drawn to an article appearing in the issue of Private Eye dated 9th April 1971 on page 4. The statements made about Mr Arkell are entirely untrue and clearly highly defamatory. We are therefore instructed to require from you immediately your proposals for dealing with the matter.

 Mr Arkell's first concern is that there should be a full retraction at the earliest possible date in Private Eye and he will also want his costs paid. His attitude to damages will be governed by the nature of your reply.

 Yours,

 (Signed)

 Goodman Derrick & Co.




To which Private Eye responded as follows.....


Dear Sirs,

We acknowledge your letter of 29th April referring to Mr. J. Arkell.

 We note that Mr Arkell's attitude to damages will be governed by the nature of our reply and would therefore be grateful if you would inform us what his attitude to damages would be, were he to learn that the nature of our reply is as follows: fuck off.

 Yours,

 Private Eye

This has worked for me a couple of times, so personally wouldn't change a winning streak  :)

This is not going well guys.

They keep sending letters, now from debt collectors and solictors. A £60 fine is now up to £202! What's worse is that the address is out of date, and it's being forwarded to my Mum so she is opening the letters each time and fuming with me! ;madasahatstand; ;frustrated;

You really think this isn't legit? I really can't be arsed dealing with this stress, for the sake of £60 I should've just paid initially.

This how to deal with them



https://www.facebook.com/thatisjokess/videos/vb.368274030034709/414420868753358/?type=2&theater&notif_t=comment_mention



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Gkiw7zpULo

Would only apply in the event of them being awarded judgement, which they won't, so continue to ignore them and tell your mum to do the same.

They can't send anyone to the house without a court judgment and they won't do that because they don't win these cases and they know it. I know that's what your mum will be worried about, bailiffs at the door - I know mine would be! But if won't happen.

Notice how much they stressed that these extra charges were imaginary, sorry illustrative!

It's all very easy to say this from behind the keyboard isn't it?! Would you tell your Mum the same thing?

Are you saying that you can park anywhere and never have to pay the fine if you ignore? Because they are in the right, I did park without a permit (even if it was a monthly permit at 1am, and expired at midnight!).

So Mulhuzz and others that say ignore it kinboshi etc, do you just rofl about the country parking where you want, with a mailbox full of letters from debt collectors? :D

:D:D

“Choose your battles wisely. After all, life isn't measured by how many times you stood up to fight. It's not winning battles that makes you happy, but it's how many times you turned away and chose to look into a better direction. Life is too short to spend it on warring. Fight only the most important ones, let the rest go.”

C. JoyBell .

I would say this to my mum. And you're both right and wrong that they are in the right:

1. They are right that you were parked without a permit.
2. They are wrong that they cannot charge you 'punitively' for that, which is what they are doing.

Point two is a pretty well settled area of law. They could sue you for the damage you'd caused - but they won't, because it's not enough for the court to award their costs. In fact if you only overstayed by 1hr then it's likely that they couldn't show any damage at all!

Finally, no, you can't bandy around the country parking where you like because you might find yourself receiving a Penalty Charge Notice (not a Parking Charge Notice) from police, councils etc who you would actually have to pay.

Additionally, you did ask if you have to pay in OP.

My personal opinion is that if you pay then you are contributing to an inefficient and frankly immoral system of assuring the appropriate allocation of parking spaces.

However, you might feel differently.

But clearly you should be aware of how they operate when you first ask - the crisis of conscious about whether to pay now is a reflection of the fact that you didn't know that, or didn't think about it, maybe.

They will send these letters because it costs 50p to send and they don't have to have a big conversation rate to make them profitable, hoping in fact to benefit from such crises of conscious.

If you decide to pay now it's 1.0000000000000000000000000001 they will accept your offer of £60.

But I wouldn't pay, because you don't legally have to. If you fee ethically somehow deficient in not paying, then don't worry that the price has gone up, because it hasn't. :)

Ive got two on going at the minute, the second one is unfortunate as I probably would have paid it had it not been for the 1st letter.

the first letter came from a parking firm when I drove through their car park to reach another car park. It took me 4 phone calls and 2 letters to get them to stop bothering me, I would have ignored this one had I not been in my mums car and the letters being sent to her and in her name I felt I had to get it sorted.

The second one I stopped for approximately 35 seconds in a lay by at Liverpool airport at about 3:30 in the morning and have been told I need to pay.

Unfortunately they keep sending the letter to our company with the company name spelt completely wrong. So I am just ignoring it.

The advice is correct

However if it is botheringgg you and your mum this much just pay it

I'm not a betting man, does that mean they likely will accept or they won't? :D :D

Something something live players something :p

What would happen if you sent a score in the post? Would they settle?

ah you mean they're at it ;)

A quick google of Gladstones reveals them to be old hands in the parking charge rip off.

I'm firmly in the 'let 'em sue ' camp.

Prolly not if you hadn't discussed it beforehand but it wouldn't surprise me to see them settle for £20.

What's more likely is they'd start negotiating 'interest free payments' or smt.

Knew I'd find a way to get through to you . Because I do my bogus parking charge avoiding online (as I don't have a car :D) I'm not up on the lingo :p

Not a badge of honour or anything but I've been through this 5 times and currently on the 6th. I do believe you should pay for parking but I also believe you shouldn't be over penalised if you get something wrong like over staying by a few mins etc.

If you want peace of mind just pay up.

Laugh at them and tell em you will see them in Court.
Let the Courts laugh at them when they show that letter that has invoiced for a 'warrant'. Abso fucking joke they believe they can issue one

+1

Why is it a joke? Why can't a company buy a car park, charge people to use it, then fine them for not paying?

Wassamatter wit you? If it's upsetting your mum, pay it.

I'm redirecting them to me so it won't upset her anymore :)

In that case, stuff em.

That part of running a car park and charging for it obv isn't a joke.
I am referring to the bullying/pressure tactics they are utilising into trying to scare you into paying.
Some shady Solicitor cannot issue a warrant against you, that is for the Courts. Same for bailiffs, parking companies/solicitors/debt collectors etc cannot come round and claim for anything without a judgement from Court.

The fact they are trying to claim costs for a warrant in that letter to you is what I referred to as a fucking joke.

Buying the car park is ok
Charging to use it is ok
Charging a little extra as a penalty for you overstaying or just not paying the standard cost is ok
What isn't ok, what they definitely can't do is fine you
Nor can they charge more than they have lost through your 'infringement'

Fundamentally Alex they can't charge more as a penalty than their loss. This is what is known as a 'punitive charge'; designed only to punish you. They are sometimes acceptable, but not in consumer contracts (which is what this is, you want to consume their car park)

One reason you might think of for legislating against punitive damages in consumer contracts is because it incentives one party to 'force' a breach by the counterpart.

For example, say I said you could park at my spot for £1 for the day, but the car had to be gone before 7pm or I'd fine you £1000. If this was allowed I'd be incentivised to make it hard or impossible for you to get the car out by 7pm, perhaps by letting the tires down at 6:55pm or locking a large gate, etc.

It is a long held principle of contract law that remedy for breach can only amount to the actual (and actually mitigated where possible) damages incurred.

The fact that these companies try to imitate councils and legitimate authorities who *can* impose 'punitive' damages so that they can scare people into paying is a disgrace. It should genuinely be legislated against and all of these private companies should be forced to append a note to each ticket pointing out what the law says they have to pay, or at least explaining how they have reasonably come to asses £60 in damages.

In addition to what Mul has said I'm pretty sure that just because there may be signs stating the terms of parking that does not mean you agree to them by parking your car there. Something to do with contract law.

Thanks, that's really helpful Marc. It's good to finally read things in Lehman's terms.

yah good posts itt Mulhuzz.

If you don't know what you're talking about, you've done a cracking job fooling me!

I just read someone on a local London forum asking for advice on a private parking ticket. It seems a pivotal court case decision is pending.

This was a reply from someone:

there is an appeal outcome pending at the Supreme Court relating to whether penalties like yours can be enforced. Barry Beavis is the appellant against a decision that went in favour of the parking company Parking Eye. Parking Eye were trying to enforce an £85 penalty for an overstay of less than 1 hour, and the whole parking industry is awaiting the outcome of the appeal.

I've found a video Barry's campaign team have made his ticket and appeals:

 https://youtu.be/weY59fUaYRU

Yes, and sadly this case did not go in our favour.

In fact, it's been cited in my latest letter from them. I'll post the exchange for interest, but in effect they've seen me, and raised me...

So this was my "ace in the pack" letter:

Dear sirs

PCN Number xxx

Please note, this is an open letter and I reserve the right to produce it to the court at the appropriate time, should the need arise.

Firstly, I do not accept liability for the above parking charge and I have no intention of paying the money demanded by your client. Specifically, I do not accept that the charge demanded is in any way shape or form a genuine pre-estimate of loss. Also, as it took 5 months for me to even receive the notice, and taking into account the harassment of the current owners of 62A Hinton Way, where your client has been sending bogus letters to (the costs of which I will be pursuing on their behalf), I believe render any charges even more absurd.

Further, I do not believe that your client has legal standing to pursue an action against me in its own name, since any loss (which is denied) would be the landholder's in any event. I am sure that you will have advised your client as to the recent cases in which parking companies have had similar claims dismissed owing to having no locus to bring a claim. For the above reasons, any court proceedings in connection with this matter will be vigorously defended.

Second, should it be your client's intention to start court proceedings, you must first provide a Letter Before Claim which complies with the requirements of Annex A Para 2 of the Practice Direction on Pre-action Conduct. Your letter clearly does not meet those requirements.

In particularly your attention is drawn to the Practice Direction requirement to utilise an appropriate form of ADR before starting court proceedings. In the circumstances I invite your client to refer this dispute to the Parking On Private Land appeals service ("POPLA"), which is the appropriate form of ADR set up by the parking industry for this precise situation. 

Please note: Notwithstanding the fact that any decision of POPLA is legally binding on the parking company, and not the motorist, in the spirit of exploring an amicable resolution of this dispute, I am willing to give an undertaking to be bound by the decision of POPLA, thus ensuring that this case will not proceed to court. 

A referral to POPLA will avoid your client incurring the fees and expenses set out in your letter, and perhaps more importantly will reduce the burden on the court (which, as you will be aware, is the reason for this Direction). Please do not seek to rely on any deadlines imposed by your client as POPLA has confirmed that it does not impose any time limit on an appeal to POPLA, and all that is required is for your client to issue a POPLA code.

I would also remind you that a failure and/or refusal by your client to agree to my offer of both parties abiding by a POPLA decision would be clear evidence of your client's failure to mitigate its alleged loss.

Should your client reject my offer to refer this dispute to ADR and instead chooses to instruct you to issue court proceedings, I shall invite the court to stay the case and make an order referring the case to POPLA. Further I shall strenuously resist any application for costs that your client may wish to make, owing to its failure to mitigate, and shall instead make an application for my own wasted costs according to the provisions of Schedule 4 of the Practice Direction and CPR 27.14.

In the meantime, and in the absence of a compliant Letter Before Claim, you should place a note on your file to the effect that this charge is disputed and your firm is required to cease and desist all further contact with me. For the avoidance of doubt, the same applies to the debt collection agency.

Finally, please also note that should your firm issue court proceedings on behalf of your client, without first complying with all steps set out in the Practice Direction on pre-action conduct, I shall make an immediate complaint to the Solicitors Regulation Authority for breach of the Principles contained in the SRA Handbook version 8, published on 1st October 2013.

I trust that I have made myself clear, and I suggest that you take your client's further instructions.

Yours faithfully

Alex Goulder

But it appears they've pulled out a joker:

Dear Mr Goulder

Thank you for your email, the contents of which are noted.

We would confirm that on 1 May 2015, a vehicle with a registration mark ("VRM") of xx was issued with a Parking Charge Notice ("PCN") numbered xx, by our Client; London Parking Solutions, as the vehicle was observed as being parked on private land in a permit holders only parking space, without clearly displaying a valid parking permit. Upon the issue of this PCN, a physical copy was affixed to the vehicle, and the driver was given a period of 14 days in which to make payment of the reduced amount of £60.00, or 28 days in which to appeal against the PCN.

Whilst a PCN was affixed to the vehicle, this was ignored and so on 1 June 2015, an application was made to the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency ("DVLA") under Regulation 27(1)(e) of the Road Vehicles (Registration and Licensing) Regulations 2002, in order to obtain the name and address of the registered keeper of the material vehicle. We would confirm that on 2 June 2015, the DVLA confirmed that the registered keeper was Mr Alexander Michael Goulder, of 62A Hinton Way, xx, and subsequently on 16 July 2015, a formal Notice to Keeper was sent to the registered keeper (you).

Whilst we note your comments, in respect of your not residing at the above address (and therefore not receiving the letter(s) in a timely fashion), as a 3rd party agency, we rely on the information that is provided to us by the DVLA to be accurate. In the event that there is an issue with the data which is held in respect of this vehicle, we would advise you to resolve this directly with the DVLA.

In terms of the points raised in your email below, whilst it is clear that you are now outside of the time frames in which to submit a formal appeal, for the purposes of completeness, we shall address each point that you have raised;

1) The amount claimed is not a Genuine Pre-Estimate of the Operators Loss

Loss is not relevant in this instance, as the claim is not for a breach of contract. The contractual terms make it clear that any driver parking in this area without clearly displaying a valid parking permit agrees to pay the charge. It is, in effect, the price that the motorist has agreed for parking in a manner which is not permitted. Once the driver has entered into an agreement with the Operator to pay the charge, the Operator does not have to subsequently show that the charge represents the amount that they have lost.

Even if the claim is for a breach of contract, the recent case of Beavis -v- Parking Eye; EWCA Civ 402 [2015] made it clear that such charges are legal if they are commercially justifiable, providing that the charge claimed is neither 'extravagant or unconscionable'. As the amount claimed here is similar to that allowed by the Court of Appeal, then the charge can be deemed as both reasonable and recoverable on the part of the Operator in our view.

2) No standing to issue or recover charges

The Operator has a signed agreement with the landowner, to operate and enforce parking control measures on their behalf. This agreement makes provision for the Operator (The Creditor) to issue legal proceedings against motorists who fail to resolve outstanding matters. At this stage you are not entitled to have sight of such agreement, as this is a commercially sensitive document. Furthermore, there is a clear privity of contract, insomuch as this agreement bears no relevance to the agreement between you and the Operator. Should this matter progress to litigation, we shall of course provide a redacted copy of the same as part of the Operators evidence bundle.

3) Letter Before Claim/Letter Before Action

Should we receive instruction from our Client to commence with litigation, we shall of course comply with pre-action protocol.

4) POPLA

In order for an Operator to provide a motorist with a unique Popla verification code, the motorist must have firstly made full use of an Operators internal appeals procedure. As this is not the case in this instance, we regret that we are unable to furnish you with a Popla code. It is also important to note, that the Operator; London Parking Solutions, are a member of the Independent Parking Committee and therefore any such referral to an Independent Appeals ​Body, would be to the IAS as opposed to Popla.

We trust that the above clarifies our position in respect of this matter and would urge you to contact us within 14 days to resolve this matter. In the absence of such a resolution, we shall be seeking a Client instruction to refer this matter to our solicitors with a view to issuing a County Court Claim.

5) Alternative Dispute Resolution

We would confirm that as a member of the Independent Parking Committee, our Client has the option to refer this matter to their accredited ADR system. Having reviewed this matter however, and based on the lack of an initial appeal, please accept this email as confirmation that we shall not be engaging with ADR in this instance.

Kindest Regards,
UCS Admin

Get everyone in the thread who said ignore it to cough up a % imo....

Have you looked/posted on Pepipoo? 

Christ, they've had your life.

My Gran got one of these for Parking in an Aldi car park when she went to the salon once.

I researched into it and asked on facebook and was met with "Don't pay, all they will do is send you more letters."

I instantly told my Gran to pay the £60 notes, as the hassle and worry it would have caused the poor mare over the weeks wouldn't have been worth it.

She told me her grandson is scum.

You're right, it's turned into a game of poker. The whole letter is designed to look like they are trying to decide how much value they can go for. The bolded para is the equivalent of assembling a big bet and fake pumping it looking for a read.

My first inclination would still be to let them get on with it if they think their case is so strong.

What's the worst that can happen? You have exit points at so many places along their process that you might as well play along for a while and wait to see if any of their 'shoulds' become 'ares'.

Good thread filled with information.

She can barely remember who her Grandson is, never mind his personality.

She'd be right though.

Arghh

If you don't intend on paying this then you should just ignore the letters, I definitely would not be responding to anything.

As David says there will be exit points along the way if needed, but just see what happens.

There will definitely be a clear change if they move from threatening letters to serious action.

Mulhuzz, they seem to have countered your point with this paragraph:


Loss is not relevant in this instance, as the claim is not for a breach of contract. The contractual terms make it clear that any driver parking in this area without clearly displaying a valid parking permit agrees to pay the charge. It is, in effect, the price that the motorist has agreed for parking in a manner which is not permitted. Once the driver has entered into an agreement with the Operator to pay the charge, the Operator does not have to subsequently show that the charge represents the amount that they have lost.

Even if the claim is for a breach of contract, the recent case of Beavis -v- Parking Eye; EWCA Civ 402 [2015] made it clear that such charges are legal if they are commercially justifiable, providing that the charge claimed is neither 'extravagant or unconscionable'. As the amount claimed here is similar to that allowed by the Court of Appeal, then the charge can be deemed as both reasonable and recoverable on the part of the Operator in our view.


It seems I don't have a leg to stand on. Even if the claim is for a breach of contract, that case was ruled in the companies favour and the amount they originally claimed (£60) is similar to that allowed by the Court of Appeal. And they're saying the claim isn't even for a breach of contract.

I just still don't get why I'm in the right here and they're in the wrong. Have you googled this company and it says somewhere that they're bogus? I have, and they aren't as far as I can see. Some conflicting posts though.

And my question again to all those saying ignore - Stu, David etc, is, do you go round parking where you like and have a mailbox full of these letters? If not, how do you differentiate between the legit companies and the bogus ones?

Hi Alex,

I got a ticket from Parking Eye about two years ago. I googled them and the consensus was not to pay and eventually they would give up chasing me.

I received one letter from them and then nothing further.

Maybe you were unlucky or maybe they are perusing more now.

I pay the clearly advertised rate for parking, as I am sure you had intended to (assuming you were planning on buying a fresh monthly permit?)

Having fallen foul of the Haworth Highwayman and given no choice about paying because claiming was still legal, I would be even less likely to pay now if I were charged for some minor technicality.

http://www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/news/9707211.Haworth_joy_as_clamping_ban_law_gets_Royal_Assent/

I did used to partake in Parking Roulette where you park where you like, but if its your week to pay the fine you pay the fine!

I'm not saying ignore, I am saying if you intend not to pay ignore.

I just pay parking fines straight away unless I can find a very good reason not to.

My point was that if you do not intend to pay the bill then conversing with them is just a complete waste of time.
While you keep responding they will keep replying.

If you have decided that you are not paying then just sit tight, ignore them and see what happens.

We got one of these tickets. For us the clear point was we were aware of the potential charges in advance, signs were clear and while it was annoying AF it was hard to think of a reasonable justification to not pay it.

I looked at a lot of forum discussions about it too and it seems like so many people have come up with ways of trying to avoid it they have closed a large number of the loopholes and will now continue to go after people as they know if they don't then other people won't pay.

Beavis -v- Parking Eye; EWCA Civ 402 [2015]

They are quoted this years failed appeal... it seems he has now gone to The Supreme Court and awaiting a judgement.

@BarryBeavis  on twitter

Supreme court is giving its verdict at 9.45am 4th November.

The below link contains video of the hearing....if you have a spare hour or two  :)

https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/uksc-2015-0116.html

I've ignored one recently. Couple of letters but nothing for a while

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/money/cars/article-3303189/Parking-ticket-disappointment-UK-motorists-Supreme-Court-rejects-chip-shop-owner-s-85-appeal.html

Not good news for you

I'm no expert but I think this was his mistake, and because of it we may all suffer from now on.

"Mr Beavis, who owns the Happy Haddock in Billericay, launched legal action against the private car park's operators insisting the fine was disproportionate and excessive."

I don't know the fine details but if he started the legal action he was a fool.

and a fiver for a bit of fish isnt excessive? :)

The guy has got a point, what is the definition of excessive?

£100? £250? £1000?

They will push the fines as high as they can.

There should be max fines of a multiple of the time you overstayed by.

10 times seems fair to me

By law the maximum penalty in public-run car parks is £70 outside London, £130 inside so the court's position is likely to be that £85 for private-run facilities is not excessive.