Who’s liable for parking fines? The driver or the operator?
depends on the contract
was you delivering at the time the fine was issued?
or, was you just parked up having a snooze?
more info is needed before an accurate answer can be given
Legally now with the changes in parking charges oct 2012
It is down to the driver now not the owner
Eg you park in services dont pay and company get parking eye etc charge through they can pass details of driver on now to be chased charged
If on a delivery technically i would say down to driver as legally in charge
But if carrying out a delivery i would say most companies would pay the fine
Never park illegally until you get confirmation that your not liable for any fines received! You don’t want the hassle of trying to get it cleared, or having to pay for it if you can’t.
If the office or customer is not willing to pay for it, then refuse delivery/collection if no alternative parking is available. For any other reason (with the exception of breakdowns) it’ll be the drivers ticket parking illegally! Again, don’t do it!
If a private charge and both operator and driver ignore it then what happens?
Ccj now legally done through courts
The days of ignoring have gone
gettin-on:
The days of ignoring have gone
This is true, although Parking Eye seem to be the only major private parking company (PPC) who are taking small claims actions, and they lose every single case where a proper defence is presented.
In any case it does not need to get that far. Any appeal to POPLA on the grounds that…
-
The recipient of the Parking Charge Notice did not agree to enter into any legal contract with the PPC, and,
-
The amount claimed is not a reasonable pre-estimate of any loss incurred by the plaintiff
is slated to succeed.
gettin-on:
Ccj now legally done through courts
The days of ignoring have gone
Don’t believe their hype, they’re relying on peeps falling for a toothless change in legislation and still don’t bother persuing ‘‘offenders’’ through the courts.
Under the new legislation they can now only persue the driver, and if the registered keeper refuses to identify the driver which they are entitled to do under the Protection Of Freedom Act, theres SFA they can do.
Anyway, a judge would still throw it out if they insist on levying their £80+ PCN as it bears no relation to any loss they may have suffered through the ‘‘un-authorised’’ occupation of a parking space.
Had one knocked out by popla
Cash machine wasnt working ■■■■■■■ till tol driver leave details will contact employer
Any way argued their staff had changed contract etc also asked how they justified £100
As seamed to much of a loss to them etc
Popla agreed on just the cost £100 and said their defence of admin costs etc is part of day to day running of their business and quashed the charge notice
Cant just leave anymore but def appeal through popla
At 20:02, on August 08 2013, a CCTV automatic number plate recognition (ANPR) system recorded the appellant’s vehicle entering the Welcome Break Woodall (South) car park.
The operator’s case is that the appellant breached the car parking conditions by either not purchasing the appropriate parking time or by remaining at the car park for longer than the permitted free stay or purchased parking time.
The appellant made representations stating his case. The appellant raised a number of points and one of them was that the charge notice was excessive to any losses incurred.
The parking charge appears to be a sum sought for liquidated damages, in other words, compensation agreed in advance. Accordingly, the charge must represent a genuine pre-estimate of the loss any breach may cause.
The Operator submits that the charge is in fact a genuine pre-estimate of loss, and further submits that the charge is justified commercially and so need not in any case be a genuine pre-estimate of loss.
I find that the charge is not justified commercially and so must be shown to be a genuine pre-estimate of loss in order to be enforceable against the Appellant. It seems that the courts have accepted a third category of liquidated damages, a sum which is commercially justified — in cases where the sum is neither a penalty nor is it strictly a genuine pre-estimate of loss — where the Operator has substantiated the loss incurred, or the loss that might reasonably be incurred, by the breach. However, I do not accept the Operator’s submission that the inclusion of costs which in reality amount to the general business costs incurred for the provision of their car park management services is commercially justified. The whole business model of an Operator in respect of a particular car park operation cannot of itself amount to commercial justification.
The Operator must show that the charge sought is a genuine estimate of the potential loss caused by the parking breach. The Operator has produced a list of costs; however, a substantial proportion of these appear to be general operational costs, and not losses consequential to the Appellant’s breach. The aim of damages for breach of contract is to put the parties in the position they would have been in had the contract been performed. Accordingly, the Operator cannot include in its pre-estimate of loss costs which are not in fact
contractual losses, but the costs of running its business and which would have been incurred irrespective of the Appellant’s conduct.
Consequently I must find that the Operator has failed to produce sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the parking charge is a genuine pre-estimate of loss.
I need not decide any other issues. Accordingly, I allow the appeal.
the driver of the vehicle is responsible for a parking offence.you know the rules,obey them. 
