Supermarket Parking Fine

Honest John Back Room » Legal matters
View Threaded
Fri 25 Mar 2011 08:05
Supermarket Parking Fine - WishfulTraveller

I recently parked in a supermarket car park and overstayed their 2 hour limit. My car was photographed (ANPR) going in and out, and on 15 March 2011 I received a letter dated 28 February 2011 from Parking Eye, headed Final Notice, saying that the reduced charge of £40 had expired on 23 February and if £70 had not been received by 10 March the charge would rise to £90.

Earlier letters appear to have gone astray (fairly common with my particular address, as post is frequently delivered to the adjoining property which has a virtually identical address and has a transient population within it who neither pass on post nor open the door to allow me to pick out my post).

I have read other threads saying I should not reply to such private parking fine letters - can I check if that is still the case for this one, or if I should reply to this one to get it sorted out?

Many thanks.

Edited by WishfulTraveller on 25/03/2011 at 08:06

Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Fri 25 Mar 2011 14:41
Supermarket Parking Fine - Dwight Van Driver

If the ticket is headed PARKING CHARGE NOTICE then this is one where the contract is between the Company and the DRIVER. In order to take action they need to ID the DRIVER and THE OWNER is not obliged at law to inform them who it was.

http://www.tinyurl.com/2hr37d

http://www.tintyurl.com/lewaow

http://www.tinyurl.com/yw8nnu - regards letters but the advice is NOT to repond to anything from them that come through the post. which can be heavy.

There is Bill before The Big House that will change things and give Companies the authority to chase owners for the parking fee but not yet law and some time off.

Of Note there is also a Private Members Bill also before the House requiring all administrators of private parking areas to register with LA.

If this saves you a couple of bob them remember to make a donation to Help the Heroes........

dvd

Edited by Dwight Van Driver on 25/03/2011 at 14:42

Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Sun 3 Apr 2011 18:45
Supermarket Parking Fine - johnflint

I as the keeper have now been sent a letter by civil enforcement ltd advising me that due to case law, Norwich pharmacal order, they can seek a court order for the driver details and I would be liable for costs, I have already sent them £10 for the 29 minutes of excess parking which they sent back,. Their letter states they require me to provide the driver name and address within 7 days

Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Sun 3 Apr 2011 19:43
Supermarket Parking Fine - Cymrogwyllt

Ignore sounds good to me. "Oh dear I did not get the letter" if they do carry out what seems to me to be a bluff.

forums.pepipoo.com/ may have better advice that mine.

Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Sun 3 Apr 2011 20:29
Supermarket Parking Fine - jamie745

If its been issued to you by a private company then you have no legal obligation to answer it. If its the council then you do.

So if its a company then just ignore it, they'd have to take you to court if they really wanted to pursue it and 99% of the time they havent got the time or effort for that. Dont worry about it

Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Mon 4 Apr 2011 06:31
Supermarket Parking Fine - LucyBC

There is no "Section 172" for civil matters but in the unlikely event that it ever reached court the keeper would need to show that on the balance of probabilities (this being a civil case) he/she was not the driver.

If the vehicle was registered to them and they were the only insured then the court would be likely to hold that they were the driver - unless they could show otherwise.

I have seen a number of cases where private parking companies are threatening (in letters at least) to apply to the courts for a "Norwich Pharmacal Order" which - if granted - would provide a court order to compel the keeper to reveal who was driving.

A Norwich Pharmacal Order would normally require the applicant to show that revealing the information was in the public interest.

Furthermore the substantial costs of a Norwich Pharmacal Order must be paid by the applicant (ie the parking company) and while they are recoverable if granted the application for costs is subject to a further hearing.

So any mention of a Norwich Pharmacal Order in a parking case is likely to be another empty threat from the parking company's representatives.

Reply | Report as offensive | Link