I Have Had A Parking Charge Notice From Gb Solutions Ltd

[didghtara]

do i have to pay this ?

[moonraker558]

More info required I recon.

[mrs_overall]

It used to be a doddle getting off these but the law changed on 1.10.12. They send the INVOICE (it is not a penalty) to the registered keeper who used to be able to say they couldn't remember who was driving and that was the end of it.
Since the law changed last October, if the reg keeper does not name the driver, the keeper is "liable" to pay the invoice.
There are several ways to get out of paying this, but I need more details from you

[humbersloop]

they're a parking management company by the looks of it, with copywriters who have a pretty idiosyncratic grasp of english - try this

http://www.gbparkingsolutions.com/parkinglegalties.aspx

[puternut]

Surely it is not a matter of 'who was driving' as the car was park when the offence took place. Are we confused with a speeding ticket?

Might be help here

http://www.parkingcowboys.co.uk/

[mrs_overall]

puternut - semantics! I meant who parked the car

[Kathyan]

If it was a 'Parking charge notice' then you don't have to pay. If it's a 'Penalty charge notice', you do!

[mrs_overall]

kathyan - your answer is wrong.
There have been several instances where these companies HAVE taken drivers to court and won. Have a Google and you can read about it.

[LCDMAN]

Something like 54 cases went to court out of 2.8 million invoices, less than half were found in favour of the PPCs (so less than 30), and usually coz of an incorrect defence by the parker in question. I'd bin it (and have - with no repercussion bar increasingly stupid threatening letters, which stopped after 3 months), whatever you do don't contact them, they'll just figure you for another of their victims/suckers... No unagreed penalties are allowed under Contract Law - which is what governs these "invoices".

Find the truth at www.pepipoo.com - fighting for motorists rights!

[Kathyan]

Both my husband and son-in-law have had parking charge notices. Haven't paid them and not heard anything else from them and it's been over a year now.

[mrs_overall]

One legal defence you can use is to say that the driver who parked was under 18. A minor (17 year old) cannot enter into a contract and a parent cannot be held responsible for the "invoice", therefore it is void.

[north star]

Agree , pepipoo is the place to seek advice. My advice, whatever you decide to do, do not lie, it will come back to bite you.

[tonywiltshire]

mrs_o is quite correct the Protection of Freedom Act 2012 can be used from 1 October 2012 to demand from the registered keeper the name of the driver who was driving at the specified time, the theory is that the driver has entered into a contract by parking where signs are clearly displayed showing the terms to be used. Up to this point a Norwich Pharmacal order (which had nothing to do with parking) had to be used to try to discover the driver details the origins, in 1974, of this order are from Norwich Pharmacal v Customs & Excise. The parking companies have been very reluctant to date to take the matter to court and if you are considering disclosing the driver information or you were the driver and are considering paying the charge which is not a fine this is a decision only you can make after consulting your conscious and the comments made by north star and others.

[FredPuli43]

mrs_o, you have the makings of a Mrs Loophole. If your conscience allows it, you can always try saying, at the outset, that the driver was,in law, an infant.

If the parking company pursues the claim, it's a defence which the court expects to be raised in pleadings, in the Defence. You can't put the claimant to proof that both parties had capacity; you have to positively assert that the driver had not got capacity and that what he contracted for was not a 'necessity' (it's not true that parents avoid all contractual liability for their children's agreements. They can be sued if what was obtained was a necessity to the child; following precedent and as judged by ordinary adults, not the child!)

This line might become fashionable and so claimants would press on despite it. But the fact is that claimants rely on people paying. It is not worth their while suing everyone who refuses to pay. Those payers more than compensate for those who don't and make the chasing costs worthwhile.

[ABerrant]

"the Protection of Freedom Act 2012 can be used from 1 October 2012 to demand from the registered keeper the name of the driver who was driving at the specified time"

That is an inaccurate summary of Schedule 4 of the Act. There is no obligation or compulsion within the Act for the RK to name the driver; rather, the Act states that, where conditions are met, liability for unpaid parking charges reverts to the RK, i.e. 'the creditor has the right to recover any unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle'. This applies:

1. when 'unable to take steps to enforce that requirement against the driver because the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver'

- or -

2. when the identity of the driver may be known but the parking charge remains unpaid after 28 days of the notice to keeper being given.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2012/9/schedule/4/enacted

[tonywiltshire]

AB when you read the act properly you will probably see your comments are rather foolish and not in the least helpful, the registered keeper can either pay the outstanding parking charge or name the driver, not a wonderful choice. My suspicion is the registered keeper would prefer to name the driver, if it were not them, than pay.

[mrs_overall]

Fred, there are several stated cases regarding a parent NOT being liable for a minor's contract:
Blackburn V Mackey
Law V Wilkins
Mortimore v Wright

[sir.prize]

Whether they can trace the driver or not - the parking charge notice is unenforceable; despite the law change last October.

[tonywiltshire]

The problem of debts with young people mrs_o is that they cannot usually make a legally enforceable contract, the exception may be when debts are incurred for necessities, which Fred makes clear he is aware of (is one of the cases you mention not clothes?) and it is correct to say that parents are not usually under any obligation to pay the debts of their child.

I think the Protection of Freedom Act 2012 (s4) is important and certainly should be considered, rather than the Norwich Pharmacal order, which was unlikely to be obtained. I am not sure if the 2012 Act has been well tested yet sir prize, if it has not perhaps you would like this dubious honour?

[mrs_overall]

tony, I have researched contract law in some depth because someone in my household (looks guilty) has had a PCN recently.
Fortunately I have a 17 year old....