How can we respond to dispute a parking ticket issued by Shoal Enforcement in October?
BJW originally wrote: Just received a letter from Shoal Enforcement dated 11 Oct stating I have to pay the fine, bearing in mind that my car was parked for just three minutes on the slip road to rear of shops off Water Lane. My wife and I are 77 and I do not want to worry her with further threats. Can you please help? I also attach mobile pictures of the notice, which is fixed seven to eight feet up on sidewall, plus the Civil Parking Charge Notice that was stuck to my car window.
Asked on 12 January 2012 by BJW, via email
Answered by
Honest John
First we checked with the DVLA, who replied to BJW as follows:
"Thank you for copying us into your email to Shoal Enforcement Limited. Firstly, as you copied your message to our FOI email address I need to inform you that your correspondence doesn’t fall within the Freedom of Information Act, and therefore this being treated as being outside of that. We can confirm that Shoal Enforcement Limited are not permitted to request information from our vehicle record as they are not members of the British Parking Association (BPA).
"One of the safeguards the DVLA has in place to protect personal data is that vehicle keeper information is disclosed only to companies that are members of an Accredited Trade Association (ATA) and adhere to its code of practice. The BPA is the approved ATA for the parking industry. While the DVLA cannot regulate directly the manner in which a parking management company is operated, we have alerted the local Trading Standards Office (City of Westminster) to this company’s misrepresentation. However, you may wish to take your own action with regard to the ticket issued to you. ML, DVLA."
On the advice of NM, BJW then robustly responded to Shoal Parking Enforcement:
"Further to our earlier correspondence, for ease of reference I have attached a copy of the private parking ticket and a photograph of the signage at the location of the alleged incident. I have now obtained independent advice and would wish to draw your attention to the following points. First and foremost the £75 parking charge is not legally enforceable. Although the whole basis of the charge is disputed, my main concern is its disproportionate level.
"a. Punitive: The charge you are seeking to impose is punitive and therefore void (i.e.unenforceable). The £75 charge is arbitrary and disproportionate to any alleged breach of contract. This would also apply to mention of any costs incurred through debt recovery (unless it followed a court order).
"b. Unfair: The £75 charge is an unfair term (and therefore not binding) under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999. In particular, Schedule 2 of those Regulations gives an indicative (and non-exhaustive) list of terms which may be regarded as unfair and includes at Schedule 2(1)(e) "Terms which have the object or effect of requiring any consumer who fails to fulfil his obligation to pay a disproportionately high sum in compensation." Furthermore, Regulation 5(1) states that: "A contractual term which has not been individually negotiated shall be regarded as unfair if, contrary to the requirement of good faith, it causes a significant imbalance in the parties' rights and obligations arising under the contract, to the detriment of the consumer" and 5(2) states: "A term shall always be regarded as not having been individually negotiated where it has been drafted in advance and the consumer has therefore not been able to influence the substance of the term."
"c. Unreasonable: The £75 charge is an unreasonable indemnity clause under section 4(1) of the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977, which provides that: "A person cannot by reference to any contract term be made to indemnify another person (whether a party to the contract or not) in respect of liability that may be incurred by the other for negligence or breach of contract, except insofar as the contract term satisfies the requirement of reasonableness.”
"In summary, we shall not be paying the charge demanded. I just want to make this absolutely clear so there can be no later argument that there was a 'misunderstanding' on your part; the alleged debt is denied. To avoid doubt (and without suggesting that you would), please do not do any of the following: a. Send any further correspondence or documentation to myself or attempt to communicate further in any way whatsoever. b. Send me any document purporting to be from the County Court unless it is a valid Claim Form duly issued. c. Write to me threatening to send round bailiffs without first going through the process of issuing a Claim Form and obtaining judgment. d. Send me any standard letters either from your company or debt collectors.
"Finally, I note that on your signage at the location, you state that you may apply to the DVLA to obtain the registered keepers data. I have therefore copied the DVLA Data Sharing Team into this email as I believe that to be a misrepresentation because it falsely implies that the DVLA has endorsed your activities."
"Thank you for copying us into your email to Shoal Enforcement Limited. Firstly, as you copied your message to our FOI email address I need to inform you that your correspondence doesn’t fall within the Freedom of Information Act, and therefore this being treated as being outside of that. We can confirm that Shoal Enforcement Limited are not permitted to request information from our vehicle record as they are not members of the British Parking Association (BPA).
"One of the safeguards the DVLA has in place to protect personal data is that vehicle keeper information is disclosed only to companies that are members of an Accredited Trade Association (ATA) and adhere to its code of practice. The BPA is the approved ATA for the parking industry. While the DVLA cannot regulate directly the manner in which a parking management company is operated, we have alerted the local Trading Standards Office (City of Westminster) to this company’s misrepresentation. However, you may wish to take your own action with regard to the ticket issued to you. ML, DVLA."
On the advice of NM, BJW then robustly responded to Shoal Parking Enforcement:
"Further to our earlier correspondence, for ease of reference I have attached a copy of the private parking ticket and a photograph of the signage at the location of the alleged incident. I have now obtained independent advice and would wish to draw your attention to the following points. First and foremost the £75 parking charge is not legally enforceable. Although the whole basis of the charge is disputed, my main concern is its disproportionate level.
"a. Punitive: The charge you are seeking to impose is punitive and therefore void (i.e.unenforceable). The £75 charge is arbitrary and disproportionate to any alleged breach of contract. This would also apply to mention of any costs incurred through debt recovery (unless it followed a court order).
"b. Unfair: The £75 charge is an unfair term (and therefore not binding) under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999. In particular, Schedule 2 of those Regulations gives an indicative (and non-exhaustive) list of terms which may be regarded as unfair and includes at Schedule 2(1)(e) "Terms which have the object or effect of requiring any consumer who fails to fulfil his obligation to pay a disproportionately high sum in compensation." Furthermore, Regulation 5(1) states that: "A contractual term which has not been individually negotiated shall be regarded as unfair if, contrary to the requirement of good faith, it causes a significant imbalance in the parties' rights and obligations arising under the contract, to the detriment of the consumer" and 5(2) states: "A term shall always be regarded as not having been individually negotiated where it has been drafted in advance and the consumer has therefore not been able to influence the substance of the term."
"c. Unreasonable: The £75 charge is an unreasonable indemnity clause under section 4(1) of the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977, which provides that: "A person cannot by reference to any contract term be made to indemnify another person (whether a party to the contract or not) in respect of liability that may be incurred by the other for negligence or breach of contract, except insofar as the contract term satisfies the requirement of reasonableness.”
"In summary, we shall not be paying the charge demanded. I just want to make this absolutely clear so there can be no later argument that there was a 'misunderstanding' on your part; the alleged debt is denied. To avoid doubt (and without suggesting that you would), please do not do any of the following: a. Send any further correspondence or documentation to myself or attempt to communicate further in any way whatsoever. b. Send me any document purporting to be from the County Court unless it is a valid Claim Form duly issued. c. Write to me threatening to send round bailiffs without first going through the process of issuing a Claim Form and obtaining judgment. d. Send me any standard letters either from your company or debt collectors.
"Finally, I note that on your signage at the location, you state that you may apply to the DVLA to obtain the registered keepers data. I have therefore copied the DVLA Data Sharing Team into this email as I believe that to be a misrepresentation because it falsely implies that the DVLA has endorsed your activities."
Similar questions
I am the registered keeper of a car that was given a private parking ticket. I was not driving the vehicle at the time and I supplied the driver’s name and address as requested. The parking enforcer has...
I have corresponded on a previous occasion to you regarding a ticket issued on December 21 2010 and you advised me accordingly. Just for your information I thought you may be interested in the current...
So far I have not been caught by private parking enforcers, but I have some ideas if I ever am. For example, if I'm in breach of contract with anyone, it's with the owner of the supermarket or whatever,...
.jpg)
