Help me win this argument.

[Globalti]

If I understand this correctly, GTi knowingly mis-parked in a private car park 'cause all the spaces were full, refuses to pay the subsequent fine and wants to get his employer to help him wiggle off the hook. Nice.

Bollocks. You have not understood at all; I mis-parked because I had no alternative. I spent money in their establishment and the cheeky feckers then had the temerity to try to bully me into paying them £280 when they had suffered NO LOSS at all as a consequence of my action.

I am not trying to get my employer to "get me off the hook". I am trying to persuade my employer that there is an important point of principle here, which is that they should not allow these extortionists to bully citizens into paying them money. My employer could achieve this simply by passively asking them to identify the driver, since the onus is on them to identify the driver and take it up with him. As I wrote earlier, the employer would have to make it clear that this "protection" could only apply once, otherwise employees would feel they had a free hand to abuse landowners' parking facilities.

Is that clear enough?

FWIW I have paid a parking fine to a local authority in the last three years for having overstayed on a parking meter on the public highway, a criminal/Police matter, with which I have no dispute.

 

[rusky]

Since it's a civil matter, does your employer have any right to divulge your identity??

I don't know that's why I'm asking!

 

[col]

Even if they took you to court, they have to prove that it was you with a picture and time and date. Then they have to show the fine is reflective of their losses caused by you, by showing what and why the losses were. Even if your boss identifies you to them its heresay and rumour, still no proof, its easy to say they are mistaken, I was here at this time ect. Just ignore them, seriously its that simple.

 

[Globalti]

I am ignoring them and certainly don't intend to make any contact at all. At the moment they have no way of proving I was driving that day and that's how it will remain.

 

[Mr Celine]

The standard of proof in civil cases is balance of probabilites.
The first thing the parking company will have to show is that it was GTi that parked the car. The employer's reply to the owners of the land would suggest (to me at any rate) that it was more likely than not that GTi was driving.

The ignore letters strategy works where the parking company don't know who to pursue, ie they can't show who the driver was. But if the driver has been identified, or they establish that only one person is insured to drive the car, then they can try to take it a step further.

 

[SpokeyDokey]

It's not your employers problem. You parked there, you deal with it. Why should your employer take the heat for you? It's not their fault is it?

 

[RecordAceFromNew]

The ignore letters strategy works where the parking company don't know who to pursue, ie they can't show who the driver was. But if the driver has been identified, or they establish that only one person is insured to drive the car, then they can try to take it a step further.

Ignoring Gti's car being a company car and therefore likely under a blanket policy covering many cars and indeed unnamed drivers for the time being, even when only one person is insured under a private car's insurance policy it doesn't mean only one person is insured to drive that car. I am insured to drive any car because I have insurance for my car.

 

[rusky]

He's not asking his employer to take the heat!

 

[Globalti]

He's not asking his employer to take the heat!

Slowly, oh-so-slowly, we are getting towards the point of my original question. I am merely asking my employer to take a principled stand against extortionists, not by actively lying but by passively explaining that all employees are insured to drive that car and asking them to name the driver. That would put and end to it.

However nobody has yet got to the nub of the question: knowing nothing about civil process I am asking if the extortionists could issue a writ forcing the employer to name the driver, how much would that cost them, how complicated and serious a matter is it and how likely are they to do it. In the event that they did fancy their chances, what effect could receiving a writ have on a company's reputation, credit rating, etc?
This is the information I need to know.

 

[rusky]

I suggest a visit to pepipoo, (someone already has but not sure where they linked to on the site) especially here http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=46975

When dealing with "tickets" from private parking companies (PPCs) our advice is ​

ignore them​

 

[Globalti]

No. You're wrong on two counts: Firstly, I am not expecting them to lie and nor would I lie; I am hoping they will merely ask the extortionists to identify the driver. What's lying about that?

Secondly, if you contact them you remove that element of uncertainty in their minds by confirming your name and address and the fact that you have an interest in the matter.

Like all scams especially the well-known advance fee fraud made famous by Nigerians, money-making scams only work if they have a good success rate. The Public has a duty to be informed about scammers and resist them. What right does anybody have to demand £280 from you for leaving a motor vehicle in the wrong part of their car park? If they wrote saying they had suffered an actual pecuniary loss thanks to my actions I would, in all conscience, reimburse them but they haven't suffered any loss, in fact they earned income from my visit. I liken their kind of avarice to ambulance-chasing lawyers and all the other low-life who suck at the fringes of society while contributing nothing to public life.

Is that principled enough for you?

 

[mickle]

..... What's to stop everyone just parking where the **** they like unless land owners are able to levy a penalty?

 

[Bromptonaut]

The landowners right of action is against you as driver because you drove onto their land and parked. They therefore claim you've entered into a contract including payment of their penalty. They can issue a a County Court summons against you (writs are High court and way OTT for this sort of caper) to try and recover their loss but in practice it'll cost them an issue fee to be laughed out of court. The most they can recover is their losses - any damage you did or perhaps the charge (if any) you would have paid to park in a proper space. The claim for a penalty or fine is unlawful and bound to fail.

They could theoretically try on the issue of a summons for debt against your employer as 'owner' but again it will get them nowhere. They know this but might hope the employer pay up out of fear. No way on earth can they drag your employer before a court and force him to finger you.

Under the protection of freedoms bill, once enacted, there will be a principle of owner liability for these charges. The cowboys may then have amore identifiable target but it's not clear whether they gai a right to charge more than current losses.

 

[ASC1951]

What right does anybody have to demand £280 from you for leaving a motor vehicle in the wrong part of their car park?

The fact that they told you in large letters that that was what would happen if you did.

I liken their kind of avarice to ambulance-chasing lawyers and all the other low-life who suck at the fringes of society while contributing nothing to public life.

As opposed to people who park where they are told not to park, then try to get a third party to collude in escaping the consequences. You're completely in the wrong on this one, Globalti, as everyone here keeps telling you.

If you want to look at the legalities, the vehicle belongs to your employer, so the parking company don't have to know who was driving - they can just sue the employer as the registered keeper and leave the employer to recover it from the driver i.e. you. If the parking company can't be bothered to take that step, no doubt you will feel proud and vindicated; but you damn well shouldn't.

 

[srw]

The most they can recover is their losses - any damage you did or perhaps the charge (if any) you would have paid to park in a proper space. The claim for a penalty or fine is unlawful and bound to fail.

I have just driven past a retail park car park which says, effectively, "maximum parking 3 hours - charge £70 if you park longer". That's no penalty or fine - and I bet that Gti's indiscretion is covered by exactly the same sort of notice.