Patricia Pearl - Small Claims Procedure - A Practical Guide


An excellent guide for the layperson in how to use the County Court - a must if you are intending to start a claim.

£19.99 + £1.50 (P&P)

  • Parking Eye Private Parking Penalties are ... Penalties

    In another blow for the Private Parking civil recovery industry, a Manchester county courticon judge refused to award 240 claimed by parking eyeicon car park management company in respect of two alleged private parking contraventions.

    Awarding a mere 15 the judge apparently found that the rest of parking eyeicon's claim amounted to an unenforceable penalty as it exceeded any actual losses suffered by the car park owners as a result of the parking infraction.

    Parking Eye was also awarded 95 costs which presumably was calculated on the cost of a claim valued at 15 plus the reasonable costs of travel for a single representative.

    Unfortunately for Parking Eye, it seems that they may have decided to use this claim as some kind of show-case and had instructed Pannone solicitors who have offices in the Manchester area.
    It seems that Pannone turned up mob-handed with four solicitors confident of glory. On the basis of their technical victory, Pannone asked for the costs of travel for their entire team. (Luckily they didn't have far to come and no doubt they all shared the same vehicle.)
    The judge refused to award these and agreed with the defendant that he couldn't understand why so many lawyers were needed for a claim worth a paltry 15.

    This result may have come as a surprise for Parking Eye and their extensive legal team but the Manchester judge has come up with precisely the reasoning which has been argued on many consumer forums throughout the internet over many years; the Civil Recovery Industry is premised upon the extraction of unenforceable penalties from ordinary members of the public who very often have made some human mistake in the way that so many of us do.

    It is a sad fact that Civil Recovery has become an increasingly common feature of our society over recent years. Civil Recovery companies operate as a kind of modern day "bounty hunters" bringing the Evil to justice, and pocketing the change. Civil Recovery seems to be a growth area in the fields of retail store security, file-sharing and of course car park management. A novel development which has been appearing over the last couple of years has been the use by the TravelLodge hotel chain to pursue their guests for alleged violations of their no smoking policy.

    No one doubts that there is a legitimate interesticon to be served in controlling the use of private car parks or apprehending shoplifters etc, but surely no one can question the principle that explanations should be given, that sanctions should be proportionate and that their should be an element of humanity and understanding in all cases. However, these desirable characteristics appear to be missing in most of the civil recovery cases which I have seen.

    The fact is that the civil recovery industry has an extremely poor reputation to the point of being thought disreputable by some. It is a puzzle as to why companies with household names and decent reputations for quality and customer service should choose to be associated with this "bounty hunting" industry. Even Bob Diamond, CEO of Barclaysicon very recently spoke about the need for his Bank to start practising citizenship, but there seems to be very little hint of this sentiment within the civil recovery industry. One wonders whether civil recovery clients really know what is going on.

    Of course, Parking Eye have the option to bring an appeal if they want to - but is this a risk which they are prepared to take?

    At the moment they run their legitimate business in a legitimate way. Even though a county court judge has found against the legitimacy of their charges, this decision is not binding on other courts. In theory there would be no particular impropriety if parking management companies generally continued to try and get the biggest chunk of lucre they could, for themselves and for their clients. However if the matter were to be decided against them in, say, the High Court then serious issues would be raised if the industry continued its practices unchanged.

    It may be time for the parking industry and for the civil recovery industry as a whole to start asking itself some serious questions.

    Parking Eye v Smith Manchester County Court discussed variously at:
    http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/...3648411&page=2

    and:
    http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?...0&#entry649258

    This piece is based on information contained in the above two threads.

    Pannone (pronounced approximately as in Punani.)
    http://www.pannone.com/

    The Consumer Action Group Transport forums
    http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk...rums-Transport


    ***Also see the latest scandal of Parking Eye's way of doing business****
    Comments 17 Comments
    1. Crocdoc's Avatar
      A judgement of this nature was always a racing certainty, the remarkable thing is that Parking Eye went for it HOOK LINE AND SINKER in trying to make a point by claiming huge legal expenses. All we need now is a second attempt by the numpties to take a similar route in Scotland where it is unusual other than in extreme cases to be awarded costs in Small Debt Actions. It is always nice to see petted lips in robes

      On the subject of numpties, I note with particular interest that the British Parking Association has failed to mention this LANDMARK JUDGEMENT on their website. There again perhaps Patrick Troy is otherwise occupied writing his script for the Future of Traffic Management event in London on the 8th of December, after all it is pantomime season.

    1. letsmakeamark's Avatar
      Parking eyes legal team panone also are the legal team behind interim justitia.

    1. Eaglewoman's Avatar
      Quote Originally Posted by letsmakeamark View Post
      Parking eyes legal team panone also are the legal team behind interim justitia.
      What intrigues me is calling the peeps from Pannone, 'the legal team', surely they cannot have studied the law and seriously thought they could get what they were asking for?

      It would be nicely rounded off if one of the parking management teams for those supermarkets who allow limited free parking, to take someone to court for the penalties they try to levy. A loss of zero, can only mean zero damages surely? But then I am looking at these things logically. Clearly I haven't studied the same law as the Pannone 'legal' team.

    1. Mosh's Avatar
      I had a run-in with Parking Eye a year or so ago. In general, if you get a letter from them, chuck it in the bin.

      I mentioned this on my blog and - after about 50-60 views - received a "take down" notice from my web host who had been threatened by PE's legal seagulls on the basis that the completely factual post was libellous. The fact that it hadn't been through the courts and therefore was only *potentially* libellous escaped their lawyers who went for the heavy-handed approach. Basically, I was told to remove my post or my provider would remove my entire blog. I was given 7 days as they didn't want to have the hassle of legal actions - and they would be the ones who would have to fight legal action as a result of precedent.

      During this time I copied the post to MoneySavingExpert.com, on to another friend's blog (hosted in the US) and to an other motorist forum (also US-hosted). I then posted links to all three, removing my own copy of the post at the last hour.

      In seven days I went from 60-ish hits to a collective total in excess of 10,000 across all three sites. Something I would never have achieved on my little blog. So I have to say "thank you" to Parking Eye's legal team for helping me advertise my grievance with them. Obviously another set of lawyers who seemingly *didn't* have much of a clue as to what they were doing.

    1. give them FA's Avatar
      A good win, but Mr Smith clearly forgot the first rule when sent a private parking ticket.

      As Mosh says, simply bin it.

      NEVER TELL THEM WHO THE DRIVER WAS, THEY HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO RIGHT TO THE INFORMATION.

      That way, they can't even contemplate bringing a case. Though after that disaster I don't think they will be in a hurry to try again.

    1. DonnaDay's Avatar
      It has definitely made me feel comfortable after reading all these posts that if I receive a ticket in the future that isn't from the Police or a Traffice Warden that I will be putting it directly in the bin!

    1. Deano11kv's Avatar
      Quote Originally Posted by DonnaDay View Post
      It has definitely made me feel comfortable after reading all these posts that if I receive a ticket in the future that isn't from the Police or a Traffice Warden that I will be putting it directly in the bin!
      Hi,
      The wife has just received a parking a parking charge notice from Parking Eye for 85 for parking for 3hrs 30 mins in a local retail park with photos of car entry and exit, when the maximum time allowed is 3 hours.She assued that this was free parking.Im confused because advice says dont tell them don't tell them who the driver is because they have no right to know.Also enclosed with the pcn was a letter stating that no matter who was driving the registered keeper is liable.Is the advice still just the same and ignore all further letters from parking eye?
      Thanks

    1. ericsbrother's Avatar
      The registered keeper would be liable under new legislation, if they failed to say who the driver was but as there is no liability to pay at all so it is rather academic. The companies will use exactly the same methods but just chase a different person.
      Wouldnt it be interesting if we all had a friend called David Cameron or similar high profile namesake and then pass on the sketchiest of details like they live in London and see if they do a trawl through the electoral roll to find such a person.

    1. CrazyEd's Avatar
      Quote Originally Posted by ericsbrother View Post
      The registered keeper would be liable under new legislation, if they failed to say who the driver was but as there is no liability to pay at all so it is rather academic. The companies will use exactly the same methods but just chase a different person.
      .
      When did the new legislation come into force, and does it apply retrospectively?

      If a charge is received for parking outside a bay in a free carpark on say, Sept 16th this year, is addressed to a company who are the registered keeper, what is the legal position?

    1. SweetRevenge's Avatar
      Quote Originally Posted by ericsbrother View Post
      The registered keeper would be liable under new legislation, if they failed to say who the driver was but as there is no liability to pay at all so it is rather academic. The companies will use exactly the same methods but just chase a different person.
      Wouldnt it be interesting if we all had a friend called David Cameron or similar high profile namesake and then pass on the sketchiest of details like they live in London and see if they do a trawl through the electoral roll to find such a person.
      I am very scared because I overstayed on a carpark in Leyland Lancashire which has, apparently in Dec 2012, become managed by Parking Eye. The signs are all at about 7ft on the lampposts and I didn't even see them (I was in the car and looking at pedestrians and other traffic at the time). They are demanding 100 for overstaying - I was 'trapped' in the local hairdressers at the time, but I didn't even realise there was now a maximum stay anyway.

      I am terrified that this will turn into hundreds of pounds of debt if I do nothing about it, being chased by bailiffs etc., when I am literally living from day to day on very low wages. Can someone please tell me if this is enforceable and what to do?

      Thanks
      Sweet

    1. ims21's Avatar
      Quote Originally Posted by SweetRevenge View Post
      I am very scared because I overstayed on a carpark in Leyland Lancashire which has, apparently in Dec 2012, become managed by Parking Eye. The signs are all at about 7ft on the lampposts and I didn't even see them (I was in the car and looking at pedestrians and other traffic at the time). They are demanding 100 for overstaying - I was 'trapped' in the local hairdressers at the time, but I didn't even realise there was now a maximum stay anyway.

      I am terrified that this will turn into hundreds of pounds of debt if I do nothing about it, being chased by bailiffs etc., when I am literally living from day to day on very low wages. Can someone please tell me if this is enforceable and what to do?

      Thanks
      Sweet
      Start a new thread here and we can help you

      http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk...newthread&f=88

      The advice is going to be ignore them or, if you feel you must respond, send a simple one line letter telling them that they are not getting anything.

      Also have a read around the other threads in the private parking forum...you'll get the idea.

    1. serverking's Avatar
      The advice is going to be ignore them or, if you feel you must respond, send a simple one line letter telling them that they are not getting anything.

      SweetRevenge, the one line in your letter to Parking Eye must include the text 'Up Yours!'

    1. liniann's Avatar
      Im also in a similar position. the problem with these sites is there are so many differing opinions. and quite a number of these opinions tend to be wrong or misleading.

      I want to ignore my fine, i was in B&Q car park in a disability bay, my blue badge was out of date and i failed to see it. Got a fine for 100. every answer i received ( seven in all ) have proven wrong so all i am doing is sending a letter to ukcps ( not crown prosecution services) just the same initials. to say i am not going to pay it and i will vigourously contest should they persue. and hope they feel i may be too much bother to persue.
      In my case I would rather go to court than pay these people

    1. DaleRowe's Avatar
      I'm about to send this letter, but before I do I would be interested to know what you legal eagles who obviously know your stuff would advise me doing....


      To Whom It May Concern,

      I would like to challenge the parking charge notice whichyou issued for the following reasons:
      • Due to the recent closure of the UNRESTRICTED FREE car park adjacent to your restricted car park for which this notice has been issued, there are now insufficient places for the number of cars requiring parking.
      • At the time of the alleged breach it was also a bank holiday weekend and lunchtime which compounded the above problem.
      • Due to the previous points mentioned I spent a minimum of 15 minutes driving around trying to actually obtain a parking space, as such my parking allowance time does not commence on entry to the area but the TIME ACTUAL PARKED, this can also be said for delays in attempting to exit the car park where your camera is located.
      • Due to these delays I did NOT EXCEED the permissible time period for parking and as such no parking charge is due.
      • I would like to add that on entering your car park this does not constitute a legally binding contract, or acceptance of said contract and is NOT ENFORCEABLE as you well know, despite your threatening, aggressive and misleading notice issued for this alleged breach.
      Should you refuse to accept my bulleted challenge pointsabove for the alleged breach, which is unenforceable, and continue to attempt yourpursuit of this charge I shall be happy to attend court and defend myself. However I should inform you that I will haveemigrated and be living in New Zealand by July, although I will return atyour expense.

      Should you decide to waive this alleged breach, as a “good will” gesture I shall not hold itagainst you and continue to shop at B&M for my remaining time whilst inthis country.


    1. jebelrebel's Avatar
      Hi DaleRowe,

      I would like to know if you sent the above letter and, if so, what reaction you received. I am currently looking at the best way to deal with a parking situation myself.

    1. dx100uk's Avatar
      the info here is very old and out of date
      please start a thread in CAG
      if you have an issue


      dx

  • Currently Active CaggersCurrently Active Caggers

    There are currently 874 visitors online. 5 registered Caggers and 869 guests

    Most Caggers ever online was 7,848, 23rd April 2012 at 14:44.

    1. neil-uk
    2. steampowered
    3. Needabreak
    4. oleg
    5. postmn

Viewing CAG on a small screen? Switch to the mobile version of the site

Reclaim the Right Ltd. - reg.05783665 in the UK reg. office:- 923 Finchley Road London NW11 7PE