Can I ignore a parking 罰金 if it's not from the 会議? 消費者 lawyer DEAN DUNHAM replies
I’ve received a parking ticket after I 明らかに を越えて滞在するd the 量 of time I had paid to leave my car in my 地元の town centre car park.
One of my friends says that, as the ticket has not been 問題／発行するd by the 会議, I can ignore it.
But another friend says that I must 支払う／賃金 the 罰金 さもなければ I could be taken to the 治安判事s’ 法廷，裁判所.?
Who is 権利?
B.T., Sudbury
私的な ticket: A reader asks if is 安全な to ignore a parking 罰金 if it was not 問題／発行するd by the 会議?
Dean Dunham replies: Neither of your friends is 権利 ―and ignoring a valid parking ticket is never a good idea.
Parking tickets on 私的な land are not a 犯罪の 事柄, so you won’t be going to the Magistra tes’ 法廷，裁判所 either.
The Parking 告発（する），告訴（する）／料金 Notice (PCN) might look like an 公式の／役人 直す／買収する，八百長をするd 刑罰，罰則 from the police, but it isn’t one.?
It’s a notice that the owner of the land or the 私的な parking 操作者 ーするつもりであるs to take you to a 民事裁判所, and will 申し込む／申し出 to let you 支払う／賃金 the 告発（する），告訴（する）／料金 to settle the 事例／患者 out of 法廷，裁判所.
When you receive a 私的な parking ticket it’s really an invoice for a 刑罰，罰則 parking 告発（する），告訴（する）／料金, 問題／発行するd to you because you 違反d the 操作者’s 条件 of parking.?
Or, in 合法的な 条件, you 違反d the 契約 you entered into by default when you parked.
For a 私的な 操作者 to 施行する parking 条件 and the 契約, the 条件 must be 明確に and prominently 陳列する，発揮するd at the car park so those wishing to use it know the 条件 before they park.
If the 操作者 fails to do this, a parking ticket can be 控訴，上告d, に引き続いて the 手続き that will be 始める，決める out on the 逆転する of the ticket, and such an 控訴，上告 should be successful.
So if the signage in the car park 明確に 明言する／公表するd that there was a 最大限 stay time and you went over this, you will need to 支払う／賃金 the parking 罰金. However, if this （警察などへの）密告，告訴（状） was not prominently 陳列する，発揮するd, you can 控訴，上告.
Dryer 解雇する／砲火／射撃 保険 （人命などを）奪う，主張する?
My 宙返り／暴落する dryer caught 解雇する／砲火／射撃 in the kitchen.?
My 保険 company has been quick to 支払う／賃金 out for redecorating, but I’ve said I no longer want another 宙返り／暴落する dryer ― so I’d like to take the cash 同等（の）.?
The 保険会社 says it can only 取って代わる it. Is this true?
A.B 経由で email
Dean Dunham replies: Buildings and contents 保険 政策s are 一般に 政策s of 賠償金, which means they 目的（とする） to put the policyholder 支援する in the position they were in just before the loss or 損失 happened.
Typically, this means the 保険 provider must 支払う／賃金 for a 修理, 取って代わる something lost or 損失d, or make a cash 支払い（額） to the policyholder to cover the cost of the 修理 or 交替／補充.?
In this 尊敬（する）・点, most 保険 providers have a 条項 in the 政策 言い回し explaining how they settle （人命などを）奪う，主張するs.?
It will read something like: ‘We will decide whether to 修理, 取って代わる, 支払う／賃金 cash or 復帰させる the 損失d part of the building’.
However, while this gives the 保険 provider the ability to decide how to settle a （人命などを）奪う，主張する, the approach taken by the 財政上の Ombudsman Service (which is where you complain if you 落ちる into 論争 with a provider) is that, if a policyholder 主張するs on a cash 解決／入植地, the provider must not 軍隊 a 修理 or 交替／補充 on them.
So, in answer to your question, it is not true. Your 保険会社 is wrong and must give you cash if this is what you want.?
That said, a very big word of 警告 ― you are 訂正する to 最高潮の場面 ‘cash 同等（の）’, but it’s important to 公式文書，認める that your provider will only have to 支払う／賃金 you the 同等（の） 量 of cash it would have cost for it to source you a 交替／補充.
The significance of this is that most 保険 providers will have 取引，協定s with white goods 供給者s so will be able to source the likes of 宙返り／暴落する dryers at a cost that is far cheaper than the market price, meaning you will get いっそう少なく money.?
By contrast, if an 保険会社 主張するs on a cash 支払い（額）, rather than 修理 or 取って代わる, it cannot take this approach and must, in these circumstances, 支払う／賃金 an 量 equal to the usual recommended 小売 price.
- 令状 to Dean Dunham, Money Mail, Scottish Daily Mail, 20 Waterloo Street, Glasgow G2 6DB or email d.dunham@dailymail.co.uk. No 合法的な 責任／義務 can be 受託するd by the Daily Mail for answers given.?
