<!–
<!–
<!– <!–
<!–
<!–
<!–
I received a parking ticket after apparently overstaying my car in my local town center parking lot.
One of my friends says that since the ticket has not been issued by the city council, I can ignore it.
But another friend says I must pay the fine, otherwise they could take me to the magistrate court.
Who has the reason?
BT, Sudbury
Private ticket: A reader asks if it is safe to ignore a parking ticket if it has not been issued by the city council
Dean Dunham responds: None of your friends are right, and ignoring a valid parking ticket is never a good idea.
Fines for parking on private land are not a criminal matter, so you will not go to trial court either.
The Parking Charge Notice (PCN) may seem like an official fixed police fine, but it is not.
It is a notice that the landowner or private parking operator intends to take you to civil court and will offer to pay the fee to settle the case out of court.
When you receive a private parking ticket, it is actually a bill for a parking ticket charge, which was issued to you because you breached the operator’s parking terms.
Or, in legal terms, you breached the contract you signed by default by parking.
In order for a private operator to enforce the parking conditions and contract, the conditions must be displayed clearly and prominently in the parking lot so that those who wish to use it are aware of the conditions before parking.
If the operator fails to do this, a parking fine can be appealed, following the procedure to be set out on the back of the fine, and such appeal should be successful.
So if the parking signage clearly indicated that there was a maximum stay time and you exceeded it, you will have to pay the parking fine. However, if this information was not prominently displayed, you can appeal.
Dryer Fire Insurance Claim
My dryer caught fire in the kitchen.
My insurance company was quick to pay for the redecoration, but I said I don’t want another dryer anymore, so I’d like to accept the cash equivalent.
The insurer says they can only replace it. Is this true?
AB by email
Dean Dunham responds: Buildings and contents insurance policies are generally indemnity policies, meaning that their aim is to return the insured to the position they were in just before the loss or damage occurred.
Typically, this means the insurance provider must pay for a repair, replace something lost or damaged, or make a cash payment to the policyholder to cover the cost of the repair or replacement.
In this sense, most insurance companies have a clause in the policy text that explains how they settle claims.
It will read something like: “We will decide whether to repair, replace, pay cash, or rehabilitate the damaged portion of the building.”
However, while this gives the insurance provider the ability to decide how to resolve a claim, the approach taken by the Financial Ombudsman Service (which is where you make a complaint if you have a dispute with a provider) is that If an insured insists on a cash settlement, the provider should not force a repair or replacement.
So, in answer to your question, it is not true. Her insurer is wrong and should give her cash if this is what she wants.
That said, a big caveat: you’re right to highlight “cash equivalent,” but it’s important to note that your supplier will only have to pay you the cash equivalent amount it would have cost to get you a replacement. .
The importance of this is that most insurance providers will have agreements with appliance suppliers, so they will be able to get tumble dryers at a much cheaper cost than the market price, meaning you will get less money.
Conversely, if an insurer insists on a cash payment, rather than repair or replacement, it cannot take this approach and in these circumstances must pay an amount equal to the usual recommended retail price.
- Write to Dean Dunham, Money Mail, Scottish Daily Mail, 20 Waterloo Street, Glasgow G2 6DB or email d.dunham@dailymail.co.uk. The Daily Mail cannot accept any legal responsibility for the responses given.