|
Ignoring is no longer a wholly sensible approach in England and Wales. This is because a Supreme Court Case called Beavis found that prospect of a contractual penalty for parking outside the car park's term was legitimate. The penalty in that case was broadly in line with those imposed on Council Car Parks and was found not to be, of itself, an unreasonable sum.
I have a somewhat more liberal view of the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA). It seems to me axiomatic that companies providing parking for their customers or employees should have some come back if their spaces are abused by, say, rail commuters. The PoFA outlawed clamping as a remedy but put in its place a right to pursue the keeper, tracing him via DVLA. If somebody abused my space in a residential housing block I'd be glad of the right to pursue.
Before Beavis ignoring was possible as the parking companies lacked the confidence to sue in the Small Claims Court. After Beavis they're much more bullish. If you're prepared to put up with letters from Debt Collectors and Solicitors, watch your post like a hawk for intimation of court action and defend your case, at risk of cost way over that for settling the ticket then ignoring is still an option.
Others have suggested courses such as appealing to the retail owner/tenant. That's a good one if you've just overstayed while shopping. The CEO of the parking company is another possibility.
There is also an 'Independent' Appeal Adjudicator of which there are at least two.
The adjudication for the British Parking Association was initially provided by London Tribunals who adjudicate tickets from Councils in the GLA area. They are very good and I say that as a successful appealing regarding on street parking in Camden. Perhaps they were too good; the service was re-contracted is now run (I think) by The Ombudsman Service Limited, a company limited by guarantee which is the operating arm of several Omuds.
I would be confident of their independence too but not sure how the process works on the ground.
The other service is, reportedly, neither transparent nor fair.
Obviously, any appeal or small claims process needs proper grounds like signage or other requirement not being properly met. Turning up ill prepared and saying it's not fair guv, or spouting some old nonsense about the Bill of Rights won't cut the mustard. Anecdotally County Court Judges are giving short shrift to such cases.
For myself, if I thought I'd a case, then I'd use the appeal mechanism.
Whether I'd then pay up if I lost might depend on how fairly I thought I'd been heard.
Hope this helps.
|
