The change in the law on 01 October had two effects. First of all it enabled the 'landholder' to pursue the registered keeper; they no longer need to positively identify the driver before issuing proceedings for debt.

The second change was to give a definition, though still a fairly imprecise one, as to what charges might be sought under the 'contract' to park. Baiscally this is about clear and accurate signage.

I don't tihnk to be honest you've got a great deal of wriggle room. Your post admits you parked, even if you waited in the car, for fourty(?) minutes. You will need to identify yourself to the company anyway to protect your father from being chased.

PAy up at reduced rate and move on.

It is presumed that there were signs clearly displayed outlining the T&C's relating to the park.

If not you have grounds for appeal.

When the new law was brought in HMG said that charges for breaking a parking contract must be reasonable and a genuine pre-estimate of loss. This means charges must compensate the landholder only for the loss they are likely to suffer because the parking contract has been broken. For example, to cover the unpaid charges and the administrative costs associated with issuing the ticket to recover the charges. Charges may not be set at higher levels than necessary tp recover business losses and the intention should not be to penalise the driver

There appears to be three options in your case.

1. Pay up quickly to qualify for the reduced charge

2. Send letter with £10 cheque explaining empty park and HMG's take on the matter as above and that encashment of the cheque ends the matter.

3. Do nothing and hope beyond all hope that they will not, because of the cost and time/trouble, take the matter further against the Reg Keeper to County Court in an action to fulfil the debt. (Only for the brave anbd maybe foolhardy)

dvd

Edited by Dwight Van Driver on 03/12/2012 at 14:23

Hi all,

Thanks for all your input. I appreciate the guidance that's been given here!

Obviously in future I will have to be more careful where I choose to stop my car.

Having looked over some of the suggested courses of action, I've decided to go for the tenner in an envelope route. Given that the law states charges should be a 'reasonable and genuine pre-estimate of loss', even the reduced charge they offer for quick payment is in my view unfair.The DoT guidlines seem to state that the legal remit for the company is to recover business losses, not penalise the driver.

There is no way on gods green earth that they would be out of pocket to that extent, unless they're using gold leaf on their letterheads.

I'll post up again just in case you're interested in the outcome of this course of action!

Many thanks again