Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • They have defended the claim by saying that the job was of unsatisfactory standard and they had to call another carpenter to remedy. My husband has text messages about them losing the keys a second time and also an email. What do they hope to achieve??? Most importantly,  as far as I have seen online, now I need to wait for paperwork from the court, correct?
    • The Notice to Hirer does not comply with the protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule  4 . This is before I ask if Europarks have sent you a copy of the PCN they sent to Arval along with a copy of the hire agreement et. if they haven't done that either you are totally in the clear and have nothing to worry about and nothing to pay. The PCN they have sent you is supposed to be paid by you according to the Act within 21 days. The chucklebuts have stated 28 days which is the time that motorists have to pay. Such a basic and simple thing . The Act came out in 2012 and still they cannot get it right which is very good news for you. Sadly there is no point in telling them- they won't accept it because they lose their chance to make any money out of you. they are hoping that by writing to you demanding money plus sending in their  unregulated debt collectors and sixth rate solicitors that you might be so frightened as to pay them money so that you can sleep at night. Don't be surprised if some of their letters are done in coloured crayons-that's the sort of  level of people you will be dealing with. Makes great bedding for the rabbits though. Euro tend not to be that litigious but while you can safely ignore the debt collectors just keep an eye out for a possible Letter of Claim. They are pretty rare but musn't be ignored. Let us know so that you can send a suitably snotty letter to them showing that you are not afraid of them and are happy to go to Court as you like winning.  
    • They did reply to my defence stating it would fail and enclosed copies of NOA, DN Term letter and account statements. All copies of T&C's that could be reconstructions and the IP address on there resolves to the town where MBNA offices are, not my location
    • Here are 7 of our top tips to help you connect with young people who have left school or otherwise disengaged.View the full article
    • My defence was standard no paperwork:   1.The Defendant contends that the particulars of claim are generic in nature. The Defendant accordingly sets out its case below and relies on CPR r 16.5 (3) in relation to any particular allegation to which a specific response has not been made. 2. Paragraph 1 is noted. The Defendant has had a contractual relationship with MBNA Limited in the past. The Defendant does not recognise the reference number provided by the claimant within its particulars and has sought verification from the claimant who is yet to comply with requests for further information. 3. Paragraph 2 is denied. The Defendant maintains that a default notice was never received. The Claimant is put to strict proof to that a default notice was issued by MBNA Limited and received by the Defendant. 4. Paragraph 3 is denied. The Defendant is unaware of any legal assignment or Notice of Assignment allegedly served from either the Claimant or MBNA Limited. 5. On the 02/01/2023 the Defendant requested information pertaining to this claim by way of a CCA 1974 Section 78 request. The claimant is yet to respond to this request. On the 19/05/2023 a CPR 31.14 request was sent to Kearns who is yet to respond. To date, 02/06/2023, no documentation has been received. The claimant remains in default of my section 78 request. 6. It is therefore denied with regards to the Defendant owing any monies to the Claimant, the Claimant has failed to provide any evidence of proof of assignment being sent/ agreement/ balance/ breach or termination requested by CPR 31.14, therefore the Claimant is put to strict proof to: (a) show how the Defendant entered into an agreement; and (b) show and evidence the nature of breach and service of a default notice pursuant to Section 87(1) CCA1974 (c) show how the claimant has reached the amount claimed for; and (d) show how the Claimant has the legal right, either under statute or equity to issue a claim; 7. As per Civil Procedure Rule 16.5(4), it is expected that the Claimant prove the allegation that the money is owed. 8. On the alternative, as the Claimant is an assignee of a debt, it is denied that the Claimant has the right to lay a claim due to contraventions of Section 136 of the Law of Property Act and Section 82A of the consumer credit Act 1974. 9. By reasons of the facts and matters set out above, it is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief.
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like
  • Recommended Topics

Parking Charge Notice From Parking Eye


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4539 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

Hi all, new to the forum no doubt like many others when they do a google search for advice on parking tickets!

 

I've today received a parking charge notice from Parking Eye, requesting payment of £80 or £50 if paid in next 14 days.

 

They have sent the notice to me as the registered keeper, and I was driving, although obviously the letter doesn't offer any proof of this but photographic evidence may!

 

The charge is for parking in B&Q Crewe before hoping on the train to Manchester, so was over the 3 hour limit by 4 hours (09:50 til 16:59).

 

I accept that it was me driving, I'd also accept that I was parked there that long, but its not a busy car park on a weekend (it was Saturday) and I'm reluctant to pay such a large charge for very little.

 

What would you suggest I do, I don't really want to keep receiving letters from them, nor from any solicitors, and certainly don't want a black mark against my name/credit, or someone turning up at the door.

 

If I ignore will they really go away, or just increase the charge and eventually take it to court.

 

I have no financial problems, I could pay it to avoid hassle, but thats not really the point is it? I just can't spend much time on this, as I'm busy enough already!

 

Please help.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 74
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Private companies cannot issue 'fines'. You have just received an unenforcable invoice.

 

It's a [problem].

 

• do not pay

• do not contact them

ignore all letters you receive, no matter how threatening

ignore all their lies about court costs, CCJs and owner liability

• they will go away after 5 or 6 letters

• they will not go to court

 

These companies make their money by scaring people into paying when they don't have to. If they can scare 50% of people into paying with a few letters, it's a good business to be in.

 

Parking Eye are well known here. They just send a few letters and then give up.

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

So with such a bad reputation why do companies as large as B&Q employ their services?

 

What makes companies like these any different from council owed parking companies conducting the same practises?

 

I have no problem with paying for the use of their car park, after all, I did use it to get a train elsewhere, and was over their allowed time by 4 hours, but I'd prefer a reasonable charge, say of £10 (what it would have cost me to park in the train station car park or in manchester itself), therefore I'm not willing to pay £50!

 

In their letter they have used the following words/wording which I'd class as either intimidation, or giving the illusion of legal:

 

"You are required to pay..."

"Breach of the terms and conditions..."

"We are happy to provide parking facilities for legitimate customers..."

"legal proceedings may be issued against you..."

"Your possessions being seized"

"If you are unable to pay the debt..."

 

.

Edited by ian-d
Link to post
Share on other sites

ian-d

 

The £60 may not be that much to you but it is very important to Parking Eye. Multiplied by the number of tickets by the number of different sites, it is a multi million pound business. They do not have the statutory powers that councils have so try to compensate by aping the council paperwork and add to the mix by making all sorts of outrageous claims of their own.

 

Their claims have no basis in law but that in itself will not stop them making them. You have a simple choice, either accept the minor annoyance of receiving 5 or 6 letters which you don't have to answer or pay a completely unjustified £60 to a bunch of latter day dick turpins.

 

Remember any "moral" issues you may have would be with B&Q not Parking Eye. It is not Parking Eye's store, it is not their land, why should they benefit at all?

Link to post
Share on other sites

haha, was wondering what you were talking about before removing it :)

 

Well I guess I'll leave it be then, see how many letters they send me, here's hoping no one has ever been taken to court. :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

So with such a bad reputation why do companies as large as B&Q employ their services?

 

What makes companies like these any different from council owed parking companies conducting the same practises?

 

Ignorance or profiteering usually. B&Q either won't have a clue about the legality of the ticketing system, or they know full well and are happy to take a cut out of each ticket.

 

As well as raking in their ill gotten gains, private parking companies pitch to gain new business and will present themselves as solving all your car parking problems. They usually gloss over the legality of charging penalties, or twist the law to make themselves sound legit.

 

The Co-op are probably the worst. Despite their 'ethical' image, they love to employ parking companies who rip people off.

 

As for local authorities, they have statutes in law which legitimately allows them to charge fines.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Ian and welcome,

 

You could always wait until they spend their £2.50 with the DVLA to get the registered keepers details, and then simply send them a letter telling them, 'to take the matter up with the driver'. Information which of course you are not obliged to provide.

regards

Please remember our troops, fighting and dying in our name. God protect them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

I didn't go anything in the end and no surprises have not heard from them, I atleast expected a second letter to feel the satisfaction of knowing they've wasted more money pursuing me.

 

Is it still a little early to expect nothing more from them (3 weeks) or can I look forward to the second letter soon? ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

It was 6 months between the ticket and the first letter with the PPC I'm dealing with at the moment.

 

Wow! And there was me thinking that as it is 14 weeks since I got my invoice and still no "Letter to RK" that mine had died an instant death. Seems I have a fair few weeks to wait as yet.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Mine was from one of these 'buy-it-yourself ticketing schemes'. You pay £99 for some tickets, dodgy signage and fraudulent yellow PVC envelopes and send the details of who you've caught to the parking company. Then you get a cut of any tickets that pay up.

 

The man who was playing traffic warden must have been slow to get his tickets in, in my case!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, they finally got in touch, but not ParkingEye, it's a letter from CCSCollect, requesting that I must pay the debt immediately, and that it's now £110.

 

They go on to say that they may pursue this matter through the appropriate legal channels, and that if I ignore them, a bailiff may attend your address, to remove goods.

 

Is that still a 'run-of-the-mill' response? Still ignore then?

Link to post
Share on other sites

some of us want to get real court papers from one of these outfits....

Your bang on there Lamma, I want Simplex to take me to court, oh what fun it would be, especailly after the Dept Collectors letter I recevied today! :)

 

Ian-d, it might be worth you reading my experiences, mine started in Mar 08, still ongoing, but nothing at all for me to worry about.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, they finally got in touch, but not ParkingEye, it's a letter from CCSCollect, requesting that I must pay the debt immediately, and that it's now £110.

 

They go on to say that they may pursue this matter through the appropriate legal channels, and that if I ignore them, a bailiff may attend your address, to remove goods.

 

Is that still a 'run-of-the-mill' response? Still ignore then?

 

Yes, it is completely run of the mill, continue to ignore everything short of actual court papers.

Link to post
Share on other sites

seeing a lot more of these clearly deliberately misleading letters now. I wonder of the PPC hit rate is falling ( :) ) and they are getting so desperate that they sinking even further into unlawfulness ? There are a lot of SUN readers aren't there ? so a couple of million ( ? ) extra people just found out about the PPC 'game'.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Heyup Ian D, I'm in exactly the same boat chap, awaiting my 3rd installment of hilarity from Parking Eye or CCS Collect even.

Looking at the CCS Collect website I notice the wording "our pursuasive techniques offer excellent results" which tends to suggest they will lean on you with lots of scary threats and warnings.

 

End result ? UNLESS its an official court summons that comes through the door it's all bull**** in the breeze...

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 5 months later...

Has anything else happened since you got the notices, have they given up??

 

I got one of these notices from Parking Eye in January... knowing it was a mistake with their number plate system (seen me going in one day, coming out another, assumed I'd been there 20 hours?!) I rang them to let them know they'd made a mistake, and to check their video, they would see me leaving 2 minutes after entering each time (drive through coffee from McDonalds in moto services).

 

But no - they took up until yesterday to send me another letter, saying I now owe them £50 more than before, and it's non-negotiable.. I rang their line to have a go, and got into an arguement with the rude woman on the phone about it, who said I could always write in with evidence.

 

Tomorrow I'm sending them a letter, with 2 witness statements and some video footage of my car in the company carpark from the time they claim to have had me in their carpark (I work for a security camera company ironically, so the video evidence is time-stamped and archived!!), sending a duplicate letter to moto and mcdonalds, letting them know I've bought a coffee machine and thermos for £100 instead of paying a bogus fine, so they've lost custom)... the letter is going to be closing with how I will happily go to court over this, and watchdog, but I won't be replying or responding to anything less than a court summons after this letter, bar an apology.

 

Does anybody see any problem with this reply? I know it sounds like alot of effort, but if I don't do it I know it will annoy me everyday until the debt collection agencies give up... hilariously, they are still sending these letters to my old address, which I moved from 3 months ago! :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

STOP !!!

Do not write in - that is exactly what they want you to do. Its a mail scan, do NOT play along. just ignore them and they will go away after sending some (unlawful) letters. Have a read on here about Parking eyes and PPCs in general.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Tomorrow I'm sending them a letter, with 2 witness statements and some video footage of my car in the company carpark from the time they claim to have had me in their carpark (I work for a security camera company ironically, so the video evidence is time-stamped and archived!!), sending a duplicate letter to moto and mcdonalds, letting them know I've bought a coffee machine and thermos for £100 instead of paying a bogus fine, so they've lost custom)... the letter is going to be closing with how I will happily go to court over this, and watchdog, but I won't be replying or responding to anything less than a court summons after this letter, bar an apology.

 

Does anybody see any problem with this reply? I know it sounds like alot of effort, but if I don't do it I know it will annoy me everyday until the debt collection agencies give up... hilariously, they are still sending these letters to my old address, which I moved from 3 months ago! :)

 

I was going to suggest you shouldn't bother, but you seem quite confident to be able to handle the twaddle they will send you afterwards. (you do realise I assume even this documented evidence is probably still going to result in an "appeal unsuccessful" reply?)

 

The letter to McDonalds is good though as well. It will never get anywhere near court (unfortunately)

Link to post
Share on other sites

hilariously, they are still sending these letters to my old address, which I moved from 3 months ago! :)

 

btw, they will have got this address from the DVLA. Have you updated the DVLA with your new address? Not having done so could be a bigger problem for you than this stupid PPC invoice if, for example, you get flashed by a speed camera and miss a "real" PCN being sent to your old address.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...