Parking fines should be contested says charity

Thinkstockphotos-86536308

​Many private parking companies are flouting the law says advice charity 

20th July 2015 by Robert Armour 1 Comment

Fines imposed by private parking companies are open to legal challenge and may not be enforceable, a leading charity has warned.

Citizens Advice Scotland (CAS) said the number of people seeking help on fines issued by private car parks had risen by 45% in the past year.

Although the law states private car parks must indicate fines clearly and can’t be excessive, CAS says many are flouting the law.

The charity said one woman in the east of Scotland was charged an astonishing £120 for staying 28 minutes longer than permitted.

A campaign, called It's Not Fine, has helped over 25,000 people seeking advice from the charity on the issue.

Head of policy Susan McPhee said: "Last year we launched a major campaign to highlight the issues and to urge people to fight unfair charges.

"However the problem was that the legal situation has always been unclear in Scotland, because it has never been defined.

"So that's why we commissioned a formal legal opinion.

"Now for the first time ever in Scotland, we have that legal opinion.

"And it states clearly that people can challenge private parking fees on two specific grounds: the size of the charge and whether the charges were adequately displayed in the car park."

Comments

Please enter the word you see in the image below:


21st July 2015 by Dave Howie

A take on this from Perth & Kinross Trading Standards puts this in better context:http://www.pkc.gov.uk/article/10733/Advice-for-private-car-park-usersBasically, the contract is with the driver of the car. To pursue any action, the private car park company must be able to identify the driver. As this is a civil matter, there is no legal obligation on the registered keeper to identify the driver at the time of the "offence". Therefore, the company will not be able to instigate court proceedings if if cannot positively identify the "culprit".I think that your article misleads the public into thinking that they should identify the driver and appeal on the two specific grounds. This is erroneous information.