-
Welcome to Stafford Forum. Please or sign-up and start posting!
TK Maxx Parking Fine.
- Thread starter k_p_abbott
- Start date
k_p_abbott
Active Member
I haven't admitted anything... In my appeal I advised that all all they've provided is photos of my parked car and the sign about leaving the site... if they have evidence of me leaving then they need to provide it.
proactive
Enjoying a drop of red.
It's not an 'offence'. It's a 'breach of contract'.
It is for the parking company to provide evidence of the breach. An image of a parked car is not enough. There needs to be an image of the cars driver leaving the site on foot or a reliable witness statement to that effect.
Theresa Green
Well-Known Forumite
Pay the fine in pennies
Cover yourself in entrails
Then nail your ear to a tree
You still get fined
But you become a legend
And Hollywood awaits
Cover yourself in entrails
Then nail your ear to a tree
You still get fined
But you become a legend
And Hollywood awaits
k_p_abbott
Active Member
Got this template letter to use if the appeal is rejected:
Vehicle Registration Number: XX XX XXX
Parking Charge Notice Number: YYYYYYYYYYYYYYY
Parking Charge Notice Issue Date:
Ref: Correspondence dated:
This is not an appeal against a parking charge.
This is a request for evidence of a claim made by parking attendant N0:1234567 that:
Vehicle owner/driver left site.
Please produce within 14 days the evidence provided by the parking attendant that the driver left the BBBBBB Road Retail Park site at any time while car registration number DD 55 YYY remained parked on the occasion of the single specified visit on XX/YY/2016.
As specified in:
Schedule four; Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 :paragraph 8; sub-paragraph 7:
'When the notice is given it must be accompanied by any evidence prescribed under paragraph 10'
If after 14 days from receipt of this document you cannot provide the necessary evidence to support the claim made by parking attendant No: 1234567 then I will regard the matter as closed.
Vehicle Registration Number: XX XX XXX
Parking Charge Notice Number: YYYYYYYYYYYYYYY
Parking Charge Notice Issue Date:
Ref: Correspondence dated:
This is not an appeal against a parking charge.
This is a request for evidence of a claim made by parking attendant N0:1234567 that:
Vehicle owner/driver left site.
Please produce within 14 days the evidence provided by the parking attendant that the driver left the BBBBBB Road Retail Park site at any time while car registration number DD 55 YYY remained parked on the occasion of the single specified visit on XX/YY/2016.
As specified in:
Schedule four; Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 :paragraph 8; sub-paragraph 7:
'When the notice is given it must be accompanied by any evidence prescribed under paragraph 10'
If after 14 days from receipt of this document you cannot provide the necessary evidence to support the claim made by parking attendant No: 1234567 then I will regard the matter as closed.
Trumpet
Well-Known Forumite
Doubt it really. I'm sure that Majestic accept card payments.
joshua
Well-Known Forumite
I remember talking to the guy a while back and he said if he saw someone go into one the shops then go off site then he didn't mind but if they parked and walk straight off then that was just taking the p and they would get a charge/ticket and to be honest i kind of agree.
k_p_abbott
Active Member
How about the ticketer behaved in a predatory manner? He could have called me back and advised me of this "rule" and prevent this "breach" ever occurring in the first place!
I've lived here for over 25 years and never knew it was a private car park. I rarely use it, and on this occasion just popped in to Devils Bottlehouse as the Newport Rd was really clogged up due to works on Chell Rd.
Last edited:
The Hawk
Well-Known Forumite
That's how most of these private operators work. The Friary Retail Park is on my avoid list and has been for many years. I tend to use council car parks, as at least they have a less draconian enforcement approach. The supermarket ones aren't too bad and many of them can be booked for extended stays via the Horizon parking app.
For the Devil's Bottle House, I'd suggest Tesco in future.
Mudgie
Well-Known Forumite
You're just digging yourself into a deeper hole.
Signs clearly state that "Drivers must remain on site during the entire period of parking" and you've now added that "I rarely use it, and on this occasion just popped in to Devils Bottlehouse as the Newport Rd was really clogged up due to works on Chell Rd".
Just pay up and learn a lesson from it.
Or write to our MP !!
airbusA346
Well-Known Forumite
If I am remembering correctly they also have 6 years to take you to court, so if they go quiet on you, it doesn't mean it has gone away.
And your comment about going to Devils Bottlehouse. This is why this rule is in place.
And your comment about going to Devils Bottlehouse. This is why this rule is in place.
Mudgie
Well-Known Forumite
Yes indeed. There's probably more comments on here about Stafford shops closing and it becoming a ghost town than about anything else. TK Maxx and Majestic Wine will have chosen the Friary Retail Park knowing that potential customers will easily be able to park there but that wouldn't be so if selfish motorists keep thinking they can park there willy nilly free to shop at Jack's bottle shop or anywhere else that end of town.
c0tt0nt0p
Well-Known Forumite
I think you're clutching at straws with that.
Its not the ticketer's job to tell you, that's why they have numerous notices up around the car park. If I'd never used a car park in 25 years I'd certainly make sure in 2023 I'd be aware of the local rule.
Mudgie
Well-Known Forumite
But then would you really have thanked him/her and happily used Majestic Wine instead of Jack's bottle shop ?
The Hawk
Well-Known Forumite
Speaking as a someone without a professional legal qualification, there are a number of defences that could be put to a court regarding an attempt to charge someone for 'leaving the site'. For example the claimant is obliged to minimise their losses (and if they were in a position to easily prevent the breach and failed to do so, their claim could fail for this reason).
Other defences include the site (which they have allegedly left) not being clearly defined on the signage. Also, a defence could be presented that the charge for the 'leaving the site' rule is an unfair term under the Consumer Rights Act 2015.
As I understand it, the private parking companies avoid taking people to court over the 'driver left site' rule, as there is a such high likelihood they will lose. Of course, most people will pay up or cave in early in the appeals process, especially as the paperwork sent out by such parking can seem threatening.
Feed The Goat
Well-Known Forumite
You parked in a car park you were not permitted to use.
Pay the fine and move on.
Lesson One : Life is not fair.
Lesson Two : Please refer to lesson one.
Pay the fine and move on.
Lesson One : Life is not fair.
Lesson Two : Please refer to lesson one.
Mudgie
Well-Known Forumite
So are you suggesting that any motorist should use with impunity any parking space they're not entitled to ?
By the same logic motorists would never pay to use any car park.
The Hawk
Well-Known Forumite
No, but I do think it's a two way street and I am completely opposed to heavy handed private parking companies that twist and turn, like a twisty-turny thing, in order to extract petty pseudo fines for minor infringements that don't impact on the businesses trading on the site.
It's one thing having a time limit rule, but a rule that states that the driver cannot leave the site (but the passengers apparently can) is petty beyond belief and I'm happy to support anyone caught up by such a rule.
PeterD
ST16 Represent.
@k_p_abbott regardless of the blemishless people who are telling you to pay it etc, please tune them out and let us know how you got on.
It's one thing having a time limit rule, but a rule that states that the driver cannot leave the site (but the passengers apparently can) is petty beyond belief
By parking in the carpark, the driver agrees to the terms and conditions of the site. If they don't like the T&C, then they should move on to somewhere else. If the driver believes that this is an unfair term, then they are free to appoint a solicitor, issue court proceedings and argue the matter in court. A solicitor would love this....loads of lovely cash. However remember, if the driver loses the case, then they will have to pay the court fees and for their solicitor. The parking company may also come after the driver for their costs.
Then of course, there could be an appeal.... lots of money for Barristers. Again, if the driver loses, there is a good chance that costs will be awarded against the driver.
This of course, if only relevant if there isn't already Court Decision on such a matter. If there is, then the court is likely to follow this, depending on the level of the court.
This is the type of case a solicitor would love. Such a simple way to make money.
By parking in the carpark, the driver agrees to the terms and conditions of the site. If they don't like the T&C, then they should move on to somewhere else. If the driver believes that this is an unfair term, then they are free to appoint a solicitor, issue court proceedings and argue the matter in court. A solicitor would love this....loads of lovely cash. However remember, if the driver loses the case, then they will have to pay the court fees and for their solicitor. The parking company may also come after the driver for their costs.
Then of course, there could be an appeal.... lots of money for Barristers. Again, if the driver loses, there is a good chance that costs will be awarded against the driver.
This of course, if only relevant if there isn't already Court Decision on such a matter. If there is, then the court is likely to follow this, depending on the level of the court.
This is the type of case a solicitor would love. Such a simple way to make money.