Help me win this argument.

[dellzeqq]

the op's employer is possibly confusing the issue with their legal obligation to identify the driver if caught on a speed camera…

that is the nub of it.

 

[dellzeqq]

Soooooo. You missparked, accrued a penalty and no are now expecting your employer to cover up for you to save you paying the penalty? Where is the extortion of which you speak?

it's not a question of covering up. They're just not obliged to answer.

Put it this way. Mickle writes 'Dellzeqq eats worms'. DZ writes to Shaun and says 'tell me the name and address of this Mickle character, because I wish to sue him'. Shaun says 'no'. End of. (Except I know where you live, Mickle, so leave the worms thing alone......)

And I reckon Geoffrey Robertson would agree with me.

 

[swee'pea99]

Pretty fancy talk coming from a worm-eater...

 

[Globalti]

If the car park company asked for a fiver they may have a case for the moral high ground. As they've asked for £90 they haven't and I would take the legal option of ignoring it.

Be aware though that I am talking about a private car park, if it was a local authority one then it is a very different matter as they do have the power to issue fines.

Spot on Sir. Thank you for putting the issue so clearly. Everybody has a duty to resist extortionists especially when they prey on people's ignorance.

 

[srw]

If the car park company asked for a fiver they may have a case for the moral high ground. As they've asked for £90 they haven't and I would take the legal option of ignoring it.

As I understand it, no-one in this thread has challenged the validity of penalty charge notices issued by local councils. Here's what my local council has to say on the matter:
http://www.chiltern.gov.uk/site/scripts/documents_info.php?categoryID=1358&documentID=284

You will notice that they refer to a penalty charge of £70. The all-day rate for parking in the local station carpark is just over a fiver. The difference between £70 and £90 is neither here nor there - if smutchin's local M&S is in a large town rather than my small town that alone would explain the difference.

The council's rubric also refers to the Traffic Management Act 2004. And that's why I think the moral thing to do is to pay parking penalties if you incur them. Rationing of parking is one way of managing traffic. If you believe in the appropriateness of trying to manage traffic (and my sense is that this forum generally does) then you should also accept the appropriateness of charging penalties for overstaying parking. It so happens that we've got a real mess of a situation at the moment, where some carparks are in private hands and some in local government hands - and some of the local government carparks are managed by private companies. But that doesn't change the moral argument.

You will also notice that the council's policy refers to the registered keeper of the vehicle. The form for challenging a penalty notice states:

Please note that the registered keeper of the vehicle is liable for the charge, even if they were not the driver of the vehicle on the date of the contravention.

So I'm afraid smutchin, as the registered keeper, is definitely on the hook if it's a statutory penalty notice. He can try and claim back from his elderly mother-in-law if he wants. I don't know in the OP's case whether he's the registered keeper or his employer is - that will depend on the contract he's got. But if his employer is the registered keeper they have a moral duty to pay the charge - and they will no doubt claim it back from him.

If it is really the case that private companies have no legal right to levy excess parking charges then the whole basis of our legal system (which is based on the right of property owners to do, more or less, what they want with their land, as long as it doesn't infringe other people's rights too much) begins to be undermined. And our rush to privatise carparks needs to be stopped.

 

[smutchin]

As I understand it, no-one in this thread has challenged the validity of penalty charge notices issued by local councils.

Indeed not. I've been hit by council parking fines before and paid them with good grace.

if smutchin's local M&S is in a large town rather than my small town that alone would explain the difference.

This was on a retail park outside the city centre. The terms are two hours of free parking with no option to pay for a longer stay. I understand why they want to discourage people abusing their free parking but that isn't what happened in this case and the charge is neither reasonable nor fair. To my mind, the fact that it would be legally unenforceable reinforces the view that it is morally indefensible.

And that's why I think the moral thing to do is to pay parking penalties if you incur them. Rationing of parking is one way of managing traffic.

But draconian enforcement and punitive charges when all the "offender" is guilty of is spending a little bit too long doing their shopping in your shop is just perverse.

So I'm afraid smutchin, as the registered keeper, is definitely on the hook if it's a statutory penalty notice.

It's not a statutory PCN.

If it is really the case that private companies have no legal right to levy excess parking charges then the whole basis of our legal system (which is based on the right of property owners to do, more or less, what they want with their land, as long as it doesn't infringe other people's rights too much) begins to be undermined. And our rush to privatise carparks needs to be stopped.

There's a fundamental misconception there - private land owners haven't had the right to do whatever they want with their land since... ooh, the dark ages?

There's a separate issue as well, which I haven't brought up so far because it's somewhat tangential but you've touched on it in your comments, namely the morality of out-of-town shopping centres being allowed to offer privately operated parking. It gives them a massive unfair advantage that is killing our town centres. At very least, these facilities should be taxed much more heavily than they are. Ideally, the land would be reclaimed for public use and all users would pay the going rate to park there.

d.

 

[srw]

But draconian enforcement and punitive charges when all the "offender" is guilty of is spending a little bit too long doing their shopping in your shop is just perverse.

It is. Insane - I can understand 5 hours free to discourage people parking all day and going and working elsewhere but nearby. But...

There's a separate issue as well, which I haven't brought up so far because it's somewhat tangential but you've touched on it in your comments, namely the morality of out-of-town shopping centres being allowed to offer privately operated parking. It gives them a massive unfair advantage that is killing our town centres. At very least, these facilities should be taxed much more heavily than they are. Ideally, the land would be reclaimed for public use and all users would pay the going rate to park there.

I agree - and that's why I think the moral thing to do is to pay up. The going rate to park in that particularly car park is zero for two hours, and something penal for longer than two hours.

But given that it was an out-of-town shopping centre, I do wonder whether part of the planning consent was that the shopping centre should only be allowed to offer two hours of free parking - so as not to bleed the town centre dry. Certainly I can't think of a logical reason for an out-of-town shopping centre to curtail visits so stingily.

(I admit I am partly arguing for the sake of arguing, and because I think there's a far more interesting policy debate to be had than the frankly sterile one of what the law currently says.)

 

[smutchin]

A small part of me thinks yes, they've got us bang to rights, but that's outweighed by other considerations. If they'd demanded, say, £20, I would probably have paid up without a fuss.

d.

 

[smutchin]

Funnily enough, that thought did occur to me, but I can't help thinking it would be a mistake to try to enter into reasonable negotiation with these people. They don't seem the type for reasonable behaviour.

Besides, I fear that merely opening negotiations could in itself be taken as accepting liability.

d.

 

[neil earley]

my story ! went to my dentist for routine check{ usually takes 20min at most ] Unfortunate for me needed a filling so was 30 min meanwhile I had parked in a pub carpark which state only for patrons only !, had a coke in pub [ had intended to have lunch but my mouth was to numb ] ONLY TO FIND MY CAR WAS CLAMPED !! went back into pub and spoke to this Pr,,ck of a landlord who refused to unclamp my car and cost me £70 the sign didnt say how long you have got to park before ordering anything !

 

[col]

I would have used a bolt cropper or grinder. But then if there was a sign saying clamping in progress, I wouldnt have parked there anyway. Your token coke didnt fool the owner either He is probably sick of people taking the piss er overdoing the parking in his private area, and takes no prisoners now.

 

[neil earley]

Honest col I was going to go for lunch , but ended up with a filling £35 and a £70 removal charge for the clamp, think he was taken th p,ss .

 

[col]

Honest col I was going to go for lunch , but ended up with a filling £35 and a £70 removal charge for the clamp, think he was taken th p,ss .

Sounds like he was taking the piss too. I dont know how you would stand with it being the owner of the car park in question. But private companies dont have the law on their side as far as I know, they are similar to those companies that try to fine you and if you ignore them they stop,hence my bolt cropper post.I wonder what he could have done if you had taken the clamp off and drove away?

 

[swee'pea99]

Have you considered torching the pub?

I'm just putting it out there...

 

[neil earley]

When I asked him to release my car , he was trying to be ; I AM BIGGER THAN YOU ATTITUDE !! So I asked him come outside and take clamp off my car , but he wouldnt and sent a barmaid instead , he was a right Di,,,head to say the least.