Many thanks...hope they do post here...would be most helpful. Thanks Ray

Hi The Magician... I do want to post here but as it is an open forum was simply being cautious....in view of that have amended my post/reply above. My concern was that as we all try to assist each other that as defences are identified, Parking Eye will simply close, or attempt to close them at court. Not sure how that can be avoided but simply wanting to ensure anything which might help others was not immediately made available to PE....but I appreciate the drawback of an open site. Hope you see my logic. Best wishes Ray

Hi Kirkbyinfurnesslad...many thanks. I will look at pepipoo as my friend also recommended. I have changed my original posting following the comments from the magician below. Ray

Hi Esmerobbo....do you have details of the Barrow in Furness case please or how may I obtain them? Thanks Ray

Oh dear...was hoping for a chat... However, I will follow the situation here and see if I can glean any help...been doing lots of research top the point of it being too much ...so becoming confused as I have other things to do as well as this.! Not sure if there is any way to private message here? Ray

Hi Kirkbyinfurnesslad.... just wondered if there was any chance of a chat as I am in Barrow and received a very aggressive call from Parking Eye's debt collectors Debt Recovery Plus Ltd threatening Court Action.... Not for me but employee who was in company vehicle at time of the alleged offence and there are some issues I would like to discuss which, if correct, will be helpful to others...I will not post here because I suspect PE monito these sites etc... Thanks Ray

Hi CrocDoc... Just received the reply below...any thoughts please??? Thanks Ray “You are notified under paragraph 9(2)(b) of schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 that the driver of the motor vehicle is required to pay this parking charge in full. As we do not know the driver’s name or current postal address, if you were not the driver at the time, you should tell us the name and current postal address of the driver and pass this notice to them. You are warned that if, after 29 days from the date given (which is presumed to be the second working day after the Date Issued), the parking charge has not been paid in full and we do not know both the name and current address of the driver, we have the right to recover any unpaid part of the parking charge from you. This warning is given to you under Paragraph 9(2)(f) of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and is subject to our complying with the applicable conditions under Schedule 4 of that Act.” The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 states that the operator (ParkingEye) is able to acquire the Registered Keeper Details from the DVLA. It is then the Registered Keeper’s responsibility to provide the operator with the name and contact address of the driver. 28 days are provided for this to be done. This is considered to be ample time for a Registered Keeper to uncover and provide the driver details. As these 28 days have now expired, it is too late for these details to be provided, and ParkingEye is now pursuing the registered keeper for the full outstanding Parking Charge. This was outlined in the Keeper Liability Letter dated 06/08/2013. As stated in the Letter Before Action, ParkingEye is fully prepared to pursue this matter through the courts if needs be. In our most recent case that was settled in court, the defendant relied upon the fact that she was not the driver of the vehicle for her defence. The Judge found this defence to have, “no basis in law,” and it was struck out. ParkingEye was therefore able to reclaim its full costs from the defendant. For your consideration, please find copies of the correspondence sent attached with this message. In relation to your claim that our charges are disproportionate and therefore not a genuine pre-estimate of loss, we refer you to the below cases that indicate that the Parking Charge amount is fair and reasonable. Furthermore we have calculated this sum as a genuine pre-estimate of loss as we incur significant costs in managing this car park to ensure motorists comply with the stated terms and conditions and to follow up any breaches of these. These costs include (but are not restricted to); • Erection and maintenance of the site signage • Installation, monitoring and maintenance of the Automatic Number Plate Recognition systems. • Employment of office-based administrative staff. • Membership and other fees required to manage the business effectively including those paid to the BPA, DVLA and ICO. • General costs including stationery, postage etc. This sum, and the calculations which have been made in setting it, has been approved and agreed by the landowner (or the landowner’s agent). This sum was also clearly laid out on the signage at the site, and by remaining on site, we contend that the motorist has accepted all of the prevailing terms and conditions of that contract, including the charges for breach of contract. We also note that a number of your queries are of a generic nature, a number of which we have seen before. Please see ParkingEye’s answers to Frequently Asked Questions below. FAQ’s How was a contract formed with the driver? The Parking Charges issued for and on behalf of the landowner are levied on the basis of a contract with the motorist, set out via the signage at the site. The signage sets out the conditions under which a motorist is authorised to park, be that by payment of the appropriate paid parking tariff or by parking within a limited stay period or similar, and that a Parking Charge will be payable, if the conditions are not met. We ensure signage is ample, clear visible and in line with the BPA (British Parking Association) Code of Practice to ensure the motorist is bound by them when they enter and remain at a client site, so that all users of the site are obliged to follow these rules. A number of cases, such as Vine v London Borough of Waltham Forest [2000], prove particularly useful in respect to the creation of a contract with the driver. This is again reiterated in Section 7.1 of the Department of Transport’s guidance on Section 56 and Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. This provides strong evidence that if the signage and terms and conditions are sufficient it will be considered that the driver has entered into a contract to park on the land. Also see Combined Parking Solutions v Dorrington (2012), Combined Parking Solutions v De Brunner (2007), Combined Parking Solutions v Blackburn (2007) and Combined Parking Solutions v Rees (2007). Is the Parking Charge enforceable, is it a penalty? ParkingEye does not issue or collect Penalty Charges, fines or Excess Charges which are only relevant to on-street or civil enforcement area and enforced by police/traffic wardens or council civil enforcement officers under the Traffic Management Act 2004 or the Road Traffic Acts. This legislation is not applicable on private land. We can confirm, however, that ParkingEye has the authority to issue and enforce Parking Charge Notices, for contractual breach. Further evidence, that ParkingEye’s Parking Charges cannot be viewed as penalties, can be found in Mayhook v National Car Parks and Fuller [2012], Combined Parking Solutions v Mr Stephen James Thomas [2008], Combined Parking Solutions v De Brunner [2007] and, in a case tested at High Court and the Court of Appeal (ParkingEye v Somerfield Stores [2011]) and more recently in ParkingEye v Mr Kevin Shelley [2013] where it was found that ParkingEye’s Parking Charges were not a penalty and were upheld in court. Furthermore the judge ruled that there was a commercial justification for them. Is the Parking Charge fair and reasonable? ParkingEye firmly believes that its Parking Charges are fair and reasonable, ParkingEye’s Parking Charges are in line with the British Parking Association guidelines, and have been tested at the Court of Appeal. A charge of £75 was found by HHJ Hegarty QC in the case of ParkingEye v Somerfield Stores (2011) to be a reasonable charge, by which the motorist (when exceeding the specified time limit) would be contractually bound. See also Combined Parking Solutions v Dorrington (2012) and Combined Parking Solutions v Blackburn (2007). How can the charge be enforceable if there is a reduction for early payment? The offer to reduce the charge for the first 14 days is not indicative of the fact that it should be considered a penalty. As a matter of practicality there are many commercial situations where a discount is offered for the early settlement of a contractual claim. HHJ Hegarty QC in the case of ParkingEye v Somerfield Stores (2011) stated that this was the case. Does ParkingEye have the authority to issue Parking Charges? ParkingEye can confirm that it only operates on sites that are situated on private land, are not council owned and that ParkingEye has written authority to operate and issue Parking Charge Notices on all of its sites from the landowner. It must also be noted that any person who makes a contract in his own name without disclosing the existence of a principal, or who, though disclosing the fact that he is acting as an agent on behalf of a principal, renders himself personally liable on the contract, is entitled to enforce it against the other contracting party. (Fairlie v Fenton (1870) LR 5 Exch 169). It follows that a lawful contract between ParkingEye and the motorist will be enforceable by ParkingEye as a party to that contract. I wasn’t the driver, therefore I will not be paying the Parking Charge? Paragraph 9(2)(b) of schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, states that the operator must inform the registered keeper that the driver of the motor vehicle is required to pay the parking charge in full. It also notes that, as the operator does not know the driver’s name or current postal address, the registered keeper, if they were not the driver at the time, should inform the operator of the name and current postal address of the driver and pass the notice to them. The Act also warns that if, after 29 days, the parking charge has not been paid in full and the operator does not know both the name and current address of the driver, they have the right to recover any unpaid part of the parking charge from the registered keeper. This warning is given under Paragraph 9(2)(f) of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and is subject to the operator complying with the applicable conditions under Schedule 4 of that Act (which ParkingEye firmly believe it has). Is Vehicle Control Services v The Commissioners for her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs applicable? The Court of Appeal reversed the decision in March 2013. In this case HM Revenue & Customs was claiming that VCS had to account for VAT as they had no interest in the land and as such were acting as agents. HM Revenue & Customs therefore argued that the retention of Parking Charge Notices was payment for services. However this was found not to be the case in this ruling. This notwithstanding the VAT treatment of Parking Charge Notices remains the same, this was decided in the Tribunal Case, Bristol City Council LON/99/261 and is enshrined within HM Revenue & Customs VAT Brief 57. ParkingEye accounts for VAT to HM Revenue & Customs on all its Parking Charge Revenue. However the Parking Charge Notice itself remains outside the scope of VAT. Therefore any VAT ruling in respect to VCS does not currently apply to ParkingEye. ParkingEye must accept or reject my appeal within 35 days? The clause to which this argument refers to has been amended and has been made accessible to the general public in the latest British Parking Association Code of Practice (June 2013). Yours sincerely, ParkingEye Enforcement Team