Quick one here.
My car got a ticket from parking eye, working for Morrisons, from one of their car parks. They say I was there for over 2 hours, and it was caught on camera.
However, it was my mother driving the car - she's on my insurance and uses it from time to time.
I used the basic set of letter templates, and have informed them that I was not the driver at this time, but they've sent me a letter, saying that my appeal was unsuccessful because of '2008 Judge Ackroyd Oldham court, Combined Parking Solutions verse Stephen Thomas, in the case where Mr Thomas claimed not to be the driver, it was ruled that he was, and was ordered to pay the charge and costs.'
Is this true? What are my next steps? I have no intention of giving them my motherís details, so I would just end up paying it. Or should I just state her name and refuse the address?
You have done too much already by "appealing". That system is a complete sham as it's done "in-house" and is not in dependant. From now on do not contact this company again and ignore any correspondent from them. You do not owe them a penny.
As for that court case, it's widely beleive that it was a "set-up" and can be discounted. And parking eye have never been known to take anyone to court.
FIrst thing - don't panic at the official looking paperwork. It is designed to look official and frighten you into reaching for the cheque book.
All you have is an invoice for an unjustifiable amount - the driver was a shopper in Morrisons and used their free car park so all they can claim for is actual loss which is zero. A Morrisons I occasionally get caught at has the same bunch of [problem]sters running the car park and there is a website set up on how to deal with them (google Morrisons Reigate)
The Thomas case - may have been a setup or just that he did something foolish like say too much on the internet under (PPC's monitor the forums). More recently one of these PPC's tried their luck in court (Wakefield) and came badly unstuck being fined heavily because they set out to intimidate
The fact is inspite of all the threats PPC's very rarely do court because there are too many defenses and they know they would lose and that costs them money.
Currently am receiving junk mail from another PPC and the latest debt collectors letter (powerless sad people) gives an impressive list of successful CCJ's but the important point they have missed out is what they are for which is most likely unpaid utility bills, council tax etc.
The invoice will contain lots of might's, may's and if's - all empty threats because parking eye do not do court. It simply is not worth their while taking you to court for their zero loss. If they are stupid enough to go to the expense of installing ANPR cameras etc. then that is their problem and should not be funded by innocent shoppers. The whole system is a [problem] and relies on the fact that the victim does not know it is a [problem] and hands over an unwarrented amount of their hard earned cash.
Do what you should have done in the beginning and ignore all the paperwork they send and if still in doubt search through the various threads
Suggest you watch BBC Watchdog on iplayer from last night. They hit the nail very much on the head. There is no appeal, the case quoted means sod all as far as you are concerned for goodness sake. My mate was found guilty of speeding once, that doesn't mean I am!
2008 Judge Ackroyd Oldham court, Combined Parking Solutions verse Stephen Thomas, in the case where Mr Thomas claimed not to be the driver, it was ruled that he was, and was ordered to pay the charge and costs