Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Thank-you dx, What you have written is certainly helpful to my understanding. The only thing I would say, what I found to be most worrying and led me to start this discussion is, I believe the judge did not merely admonish the defendant in the case in question, but used that point to dismiss the case in the claimants favour. To me, and I don't have your experience or knowledge, that is somewhat troubling. Again, the caveat being that we don't know exactly what went on but I think we can infer the reason for the judgement. Thank-you for your feedback. EDIT: I guess that the case I refer to is only one case and it may never happen again and the strategy not to appeal is still the best strategy even in this event, but I really did find the outcome of that case, not only extremely annoying but also worrying. Let's hope other judges are not quite so narrow minded and don't get fixated on one particular issue as FTMDave alluded to.
    • Indians, traditionally known as avid savers, are now stashing away less money and borrowing more.View the full article
    • the claimant in their WS can refer to whatever previous CC judgements they like, as we do in our WS's, but CC judgements do not set a legal precedence. however, they do often refer to judgements like Bevis, those cases do created a precedence as they were court of appeal rulings. as for if the defendant, prior to the raising of a claim, dobbed themselves in as the driver in writing during any appeal to the PPC, i don't think we've seen one case whereby the claimant referred to such in their WS.. ?? but they certainly typically include said appeal letters in their exhibits. i certainly dont think it's a good idea to 'remind' them of such at the defence stage, even if the defendant did admit such in a written appeal. i would further go as far to say, that could be even more damaging to the whole case than a judge admonishing a defendant for not appealing to the PPC in the 1st place. it sort of blows the defendant out the water before the judge reads anything else. dx  
    • Hi LFI, Your knowledge in this area is greater than I could possibly hope to have and as such I appreciate your feedback. I'm not sure that I agree the reason why a barrister would say that, only to get new customers, I'm sure he must have had professional experience in this area that qualifies him to make that point. 🙂 In your point 1 you mention: 1] there is a real danger that some part of the appeal will point out that the person appealing [the keeper ] is also the driver. I understand the point you are making but I was referring to when the keeper is also the driver and admits it later and only in this circumstance, but I understand what you are saying. I take on board the issues you raise in point 2. Is it possible that a PPC (claimant) could refer back to the case above as proof that the motorist should have appealed, like they refer back to other cases? Thanks once again for the feedback.
    • Well barristers would say that in the hope that motorists would go to them for advice -obviously paid advice.  The problem with appealing is at least twofold. 1] there is a real danger that some part of the appeal will point out that the person appealing [the keeper ] is also the driver.  And in a lot of cases the last thing the keeper wants when they are also the driver is that the parking company knows that. It makes it so much easier for them as the majority  of Judges do not accept that the keeper and the driver are the same person for obvious reasons. Often they are not the same person especially when it is a family car where the husband, wife and children are all insured to drive the same car. On top of that  just about every person who has a valid insurance policy is able to drive another person's vehicle. So there are many possibilities and it should be up to the parking company to prove it to some extent.  Most parking company's do not accept appeals under virtually any circumstances. But insist that you carry on and appeal to their so called impartial jury who are often anything but impartial. By turning down that second appeal, many motorists pay up because they don't know enough about PoFA to argue with those decisions which brings us to the second problem. 2] the major parking companies are mostly unscrupulous, lying cheating scrotes. So when you appeal and your reasons look as if they would have merit in Court, they then go about  concocting a Witness Statement to debunk that challenge. We feel that by leaving what we think are the strongest arguments to our Member's Witness Statements, it leaves insufficient time to be thwarted with their lies etc. And when the motorists defence is good enough to win, it should win regardless of when it is first produced.   
  • 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 Eye parking fine - HELP!


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4286 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 there

I received a parking fine from Parking Eye (Maybrook Retail Park in Canterbury) saying that I'd overstayed my 2 hour limit. This occured on 18th Jan. I was out of the country between 22Jan-20Feb (the letter arrived on the 23rd Jan - so my husband picked it up).

 

I didn't realise that there was a 2 hour limit, but anyway I have received supporting letters from M&S (a store on that retail park) saying that I had indeed spent my money there etc) and in that letter, they said that they had an agreement with the landlord of that car park that genuine customers who'd overstayed there would have their parking fines overturned. (even in their original letter, Parking Eye said that in our appeals, we could send them supporting documents like receipts/bank statements - which we had and yet they have kept saying that our appeal has been unsuccessful...4 times!).

 

I've spent the last 2 months battling this... do I have any hope of not paying the £120!?!?!?

 

Please advise.

Thank you...

:mad2:

DC

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi and welcome to CAG.

 

I'm not suprised your 'appeal(s)' have been turned down as there is no appeal process. You are responding (which you need not) to an invoice issued by a private company. The only way the invoice can be inforced is A) if it is made out to the person (the driver) who used the facility and B) by taking the driver to the small claims court. Now they obviously have the means to trace the registered keeper but I doubt if they have the means to indentify the driver. You are no obligation to provide them with any information what so ever. This is not a fine or a penalty, only a court, inland revenue or an LA can issue those. A private co has no powers to do so. If they took you to court, they would also have to prove their loss of income or damages from the space you overstayed in.

 

So basically, ignore all correrspondence from them and don't worry about it.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Sailor Sam

Thank you for your quick reply! The issue with A is, the letter has been addressed to me (the keeper of the car) but more importantly, in my letters back, I DID say that it WAS me... dang... should I still continue to ignore them? I was on maternity leave with a 10 week old baby... I had to eat, shop, feed/change baby... under 2 hours?! MY MP wrote me back saying 'I hope you didn't pay it'!! (But I'm not sure how that would hold up in small claims - 'my MP told me not to pay...'..! )

TIA

dc

Link to post
Share on other sites

In the very unlikely event of them taking you to court, they can only recover actual losses or damages from your actions. It is illegal for them to issue 'fines' or 'penalties' as a private company. What ever amount they are demanding from to will need to be propotionate to their losses. I can't see a judge agreeing that £120 equates to a few minutes 'rental' of a parking space which is normally free. I would suggest that a judge would consider it to be a penalty and thus he will dismiss the claim.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

thank you!! I will sit tight. Have just had a lengthy conversation with the Mgr at M&S. And he's said that the area manager is now involved in trying to resolve this with the landlord of the parking lot. Let's see. In the meantime, I've told a few of my 'mummy-friends'... we will not be shopping there till this is resolved.

thanks again.

dc

Link to post
Share on other sites

You have wasted months over this, trying to 'fight it' and resolve it'?! Why? Do you reply to phishing emails and other fake requests for money as well? Sorry but I am so surprised that you have put so much energy into a pointless battle over a pretend fine that means nothing.

 

All you needed was to search online and you would know it wasn't even a real fine. Just ignore them please - you are treating this much too seriously! Apart from CAG info which I assume you have already seen, read the sticky info etc. (?) there is so much info out there I can't see why you fell for it:

 

MSE forums on Parking Eye

 

pepipoo forums on Parking Eye

 

You DO NOT need this 'resolved' 'cancelled' 'overturned' or anything else and Parking Eye have never taken anyone to Court, ever. You will NEVER have to pay this invoice, you owe nothing. I never ceases to amaze me why the British public do not suss these companies out on t'internet in seconds.

Edited by Coupon
Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure if my reply did appear...so here it is again... thanks for all the help. I will sit tight and ignore. I think with respect to the great British public, most of us writing on these sites for help are law-abiding citizens and therefore panic at the thought of having contravened some law..! So of course, one's initial reaction is either to defend it, appeal it or pay it (as my lawyer friend whom I had lunch with on that fated day did!).

 

thanks again.

DC

Link to post
Share on other sites

Even if you have admitted being the driver there's very little they can do. In civil cases they can only usually claim for actually monetary losses, so the £120 "fee" that they have plucked out of thin air would get laughed out of court. If it was a private car park that charged say £100 per hour and you stayed for 2 hours without paying, they could theoretically charge you for the £200 of lost revenue. However as it's a free car park, their actual losses for your overstay are zero, so this is all they could sue you for.

 

You have a friend who's a lawyer, and they actually paid up? Oh dear...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi - They are a nuisance arn't they but hold in there they will not do a thing and once they have realised you are not falling for their little scheme they will move onto another potential victim

 

Have just been a very naughty boy myself visiting a local business park twice within an hour (different PPC same 'S' word) as a genuine shopper, the repeat visit being to return a wrong part and am waiting for the junk mail to arrive. I have a different approach as I like to wind them up with questions all sent in their own envelopes as 'not known at this address return to sender'.:mad2:

 

I also request that they supply an SAE as a courtesy if anything requires a reply. The only problem with this is most of these knuckle draggers have trouble reading and they assume they are appeals and the standard letter comes back - I just hope they get charged for the returned mail :smile:

 

This plus a really strong letter of protest to the store managers copied to the local rag and trading standards usually ensures they desist quite quickly. As a bonus if the letters get published then more people are warned

 

At no stage do I admit to be the driver and can always prove this as the car is insured for other

family members to drive however even if I did there are plenty of defenses and my expereince of court (small claims) shows that he who is reasonable and has prepared his case well, wins

 

As regards Court - sorry to disappoint but it is very unlikely to happen. Have requested PPC's to move to the Court stage will all haste and so far have been bitterly disappointed with their refusal to do so

 

Lets see what they (the PPC) can come away with - at the very best the car parking fee which in a free car comes out at zero so does not give them a profit especially as it has cost them to take it this far - at the worst looking at the few recent cases that have reached court a good telling off, maybe a small dose of porridge and hefty fines for the threatening and harrassing system they apply to their victim

 

Ask yourself - if you were in their shoes would you take the court route ?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps if they didnt hide behind a PO BOX people would confront these beggars eye to parking eye.

PARKINGEYE LIMITED

40 EATON AVENUE

BUCKSHAW VILLAGE

CHORLEY

LANCASHIRE

UNITED KINGDOM

PR7 7NA

 

Directors home address and phone number to follow

 

Edited by coppullcaveman1
paste error
Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps if they didnt hide behind a PO BOX people would confront these beggars eye to parking eye.

PARKINGEYE LIMITED

40 EATON AVENUE

BUCKSHAW VILLAGE

CHORLEY

LANCASHIRE

UNITED KINGDOM

PR7 7NA

 

Directors home address and phone number to follow

 

 

in an entirely peaceful manner of course.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...

Having just received my ‘Parking Charge Notice’ from Parking Eye for spending 2 hours 11 minutes in Maybrook Retail Park, it took me a while to realise that this was the car park outside Marks & Spencers, Halfords, KFC etc on the Sturry Road.

Apparently you are only allowed 2 hours, which was not quite enough for lunch and shopping at Marks plus choosing a bike for my granddaughter at Halfords.

So I get a bill for £90, reduced to £60 for immediate payment, but rising to £120 if reminders have to be sent.

A quick phone call to the customer service department of one of these stores, to inform them that I intended to avoid their retail outlets henceforth, resulted in the charges being dropped within minutes.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...