Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I remember a similar issue with a customer claiming that 'alexia' had ordered something that wasn't ordered and when it should have been off, .. with Amazon quoting evidence that they had that the customer had said a word 'similar' to the activation word - which 'accidentally' activated it .. followed by 'accidental' ordering due to interpreting what was said   I would not ever consider one of these things in my house.
    • is installing an Alexa type device in your home similar to having bug listening devices installed by Police or security services ?   Woman finds recordings collected by Amazon’s Alexa – and you can hear yours WWW.INDEPENDENT.CO.UK Amazon customers can request all their data from the shopping giant, and can automatically delete voice data in the Alexa app  
    • Yes please I think we would like to know all about it. Saying "I didn't foresee any problems so I didn't bother to…" As I say I didn't bother to look when I cross the road because I didn't think I would be run over
    • My WS as I intend to send it... any problems anyone can spot?         In the county court at Middlesbrough Claim No:  Between Vehicle Control Services Limited (Claimant) V   (Defendant) Witness Statement Introduction It is admitted that the Defendant is the registered keeper of XXnn XXX   Locus standi/bye-laws and Relevant land Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedom Act 2012 (PoFA) allows recovery of unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle. However, the first paragraph 1 (1) (a) states that it only applies “in respect of parking of the vehicle on relevant land:”. The definition of “relevant land” is given in paragraph 3 (1) where subsection (c) excludes “any land ... on which the parking of a vehicle is subject to statutory control”.  The bus stop is not on relevant land because the public road on which that stand is on is covered by the Road Traffic Act.  Notwithstanding that the claimant claims that " the claimant has given the Defendant its contractual licence to enter the site", the claimant has not given any contractual licence whatsoever. This is a road leading to/from the airport which is covered by the Road Traffic Act.  A list of highways on the Highways act 1980 does not even exist. The defendant brings the attention of the court that VCS is using this non existent document issue as a deliberate strategy to debunk the fact that this road is not relevant land. VCS are put to strict proof that it is relevant land not covered by the Road Traffic Act nor by Byelaws. While it is true that landowners can bring in their own terms, it is also true that whatever terms they bring  cannot overrule Byelaws and the Road Traffic Act. If Bye Laws are involved then the bus stop is not relevant land and neither is the specious argument about First Great Western Ltd. Is the claimant ignorant of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012? The road outside of Doncaster Sheffield Airport is not relevant land and is not covered by the Protection of Freedoms Act. That makes the charge against the claimant tantamount to fraud or extortion. The claimant mentions a couple occasions where they have won such cases. It is brought to the attention of the court that none of those cited cases were on airport land. VCS actually has also lost a lot more cases than they have won using their prohibitive signs.  Airport land is covered by Bye Laws and hence the claim by VCS is not applicable in this instance. The remit of VCS ends in the car park and does not extend to the bus stops on public roads or land which they have no jurisdiction over. All classes of people go to the airport. This includes travellers, taxis, fuel bowsers, airport staff, companies delivering food and drink for each aircraft, air traffic controllers and buses with passengers. It is therefore absolutely ridiculous to attribute VCS with any sort of permissions. The defendant submits that VCS should not confuse a major thoroughfare with a car park and presume to act as land owners and usurp the control of any land which is not relevant to them.   Protection of Freedoms Act The clearest point on section 4.1 of the Protection of Freedoms act is that “The provisions in Schedule 4 are intended to apply only on private land in England and Wales. Public highways are excluded as well as any parking places on public land which are either provided or controlled by a local authority (or other government body). Any land which already has statutory controls in relation to the parking of vehicles (such as byelaws applying to airports, ports and some railway station car parks) is also excluded.” Therefore, as this case pertains to an airport, the claimant unlawfully obtained the registered keeper’s details against the defendant’s vehicle. Thus, on this basis alone, the defendant implores the court to throw out this case. Notwithstanding the above point, if perchance Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms act 2012 were to apply, the claimant is put to strict proof that they complied with the requirements of section 7 stating, “(1)A notice which is to be relied on as a notice to driver for the purposes of paragraph 6(1)(a) is given in accordance with this paragraph if the following requirements are met. The notice must — (a)specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates;” Without such proof the court must of necessity throw out this case forthwith.   Deceit, Intimidation and Extortion The Claimant’s Particulars of Claim include £50 legal costs, yet in the letter dated  03/06/2021, the Claimant stated that they were no longer represented by Elms Legal and all further correspondence should be sent to the VCS in-house litigation department. Why should the Claimant be asking the Defendant to contribute to their employee’s salary?  Furthermore, as per another letter dated 30th July 2021, the Claimant wrote, ‘Should you fail to accept our offer of settlement then we will proceed to Trial and bring this letter to the Court’s attention upon question of costs in order seek further costs of £220 incurred in having to instruct a local Solicitor to attend the hearing in conjunction with the amount claimed on the Claim Form.’ I find this an extraordinary statement given the Claimant knows legal costs are capped at £50 in Small Claims Court. I cannot think of any reason why the Claimant would write this letter other than to intimidate the opposing party with the threat of an extortionate sum of money, hoping they would be able to take advantage of someone not knowing the Small Claims Court rules. Given that this letter came from the Claimant’s in-house litigation department, clearly well-versed in the law, this cannot be anything but deceitful and disingenuous behaviour which the court should never tolerate.    Contractual costs / debt recovery charge  In addition to the £50 legal costs, the Claimant is seeking recovery of the original £100 parking charge plus an additional £60 which is described as ‘debt collection costs’. In the Vehicle Control Service v Claim Number: 18 on 4th September 2019, District Judge Jones-Evans stated, ‘Upon it being recorded that District Judge Jones-Evans has over a very significant period of time warned advocates […] in many cases of this nature before this court that their claim for £60 is unenforceable in law and is an abuse of process and is nothing more than a poor attempt to go behind the decision of the Supreme Court in Beavis which inter alia decided that a figure of £160 as a global sum claimed in this case would be a penalty and not a genuine pre-estimate of loss and therefore unenforceable in law and if the practice continued he would treat all cases as a claim for £160 and therefore a penalty and unenforceable in law. It is hereby declared […] the claim be struck out and declared to be wholly without merit and an abuse of process.’  In Claim number F0DP806M and F0DP201T, Britannia v Crosby went further in a landmark judgement in November 2019 which followed several parking charge claims being struck out in the area overseen by His Honour Judge Iain Hamilton-Douglas Hughes GC, the Designated Civil Judge for Dorset, Hampshire, Isle of White & Wiltshire. District Judge Taylor echoed the earlier General Judgement or Orders of District Judge Grand stating, ‘It is ordered that the claim is struck out as an abuse of process. The claim contains a substantial charge additional to the parking charge which it is alleged the Defendant contracted to pay. This additional charge is not recoverable under the Protection of Freedom Acts 2012, Schedule 4 nor with reference to the judgment in ParkingEye v Beavis. It is an abuse of process from the Claimant to issue a knowingly inflated claim for an additional sum which it is not entitled to recover. This order has been made by the court of its own initiative without a hearing pursuant to CPR Rule 3.3(4) of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998…’ Vehicle Control Service v Claim Number: 19 51. Moreover, the addition of costs not specified on signage are also in breach of the Consumer Rights Act 2015, Schedule 2, specifically paras 6, 10 and 14.  It is the Defendant’s position that the Claimant in this case has knowingly submitted inflated costs and thus the entire claim should be similarly struck out in accordance with Civil Procedure Rule 3.3(4).  The Defendant is of the view that the Claimant knew, or should have known, that to claim in excess of £100 for a parking charge on private lands is disallowed under the Civil Procedure Rules, the Beavis Case, the Protection of Freedom Act 2012 and Consumer Rights Act 2015, and that relief from sanctions should be refused.   Alleged contract The court should consider if there is any contract to start with and if the alleged offence is on relevant land. The consideration will inevitably lead the court to conclude that there is no contract.  Also the court should note that there is no valid contract that exists between VCS and Peel. Under the Companies Act, a contract should be signed by the directors of both companies and witnessed by two independent individuals. This alleged contract, which makes no mention of pursuing registered keepers of vehicles to court, makes its first appearance as a Witness Statement. Thus the alleged contract is null and void.  The Beavis case referred to by the claimant is about parking in a car park. The claimant is here attempting to equate that case to stopping, not parking, in a bus stop and on a road that is covered by the Road Traffic Act. The defendant submits that there can be no contract as there is no offer but there is only a prohibition. Again, it is not relevant land and VCS has absolutely no rights over it. Further, the defendant would like to point out that motorists NEVER accept any contract just by entering the land. First they must read it and understand it and then, and only then can they realise that "No stopping" is prohibitive and cannot offer a contract.   Bus stop signage The signs around the bus stop do not mention who issued the “No Stopping” signs so it could not have been issued by VCS since the IPC CoP states that their signs should include the IPC logo and that the creditor should be identified. Nothing on the signs around the bus stop that says “NO Stopping” mentions VCS or Peel Investments who are now purporting to be the land owners of a public road. As the signage should identify the creditor, since it does not, this is a breach of the CoP.   The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016 does not prohibit stopping in a restricted bus stop or stand, it prohibits stopping in a clearway. The defendant would like to ask the court to consider if any clause of the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016 that the claimant alleges has been violated by the defendant. There is no mention of permits on the signage. If there were, would it mean that Permit holders were allowed to stop on “No Stopping” roads? Notwithstanding what the claimant calls it, the mentioned signage is NOT a contractual clause. A “No stopping” sign is not an offer of parking terms.  Since the signage around the bus stop is prohibitive, it is as such is incapable of forming a contract. Further, the defendant would like to point out that the prohibitive sign is not actually at the bus stop but a few metres before the stand itself. There is no mention of a £100 charge for breaching the “No stopping” request, or if there is one then it is far too small to read, even for a pedestrian. As already stated, a Witness Statement between VCS and Peel Investments is not a valid document. It will need more than the Claimants feather to outweigh the case against the Defendant regardless of who was driving. There is no law of agency involved. This is not a case of employer/employee relationship. VCS cannot transfer the driver's liability to the registered keeper. There can be no comparison between a railway station and an airport. This is a totally fatuous analogy which cannot be applied to this case.  As stated in the defence, it is denied the Claimant is entitled to the recovery or any recovery at all. The nefarious parking charge notice given for a vehicle on a public road bus stop was ill advised to start with.   Conclusions:   VCS has failed to present ANY reasonable and valid cause to apply to the DVLA for the Defendants details. VCS has failed to provide ANY valid  contract with the landowners. “No stopping” is prohibitive therefore cannot form a contract the event happened on a bus stop over which VCS has no jurisdiction the signage either does not show that there was a charge of £100 for stopping, or the font size was too small for any motorist to be able to read it  the signage does not show the Creditor which fails the IPC CoP and hence the signage is not valid the WS contract does not authorise VCS to pursue motorists to Court Given all these factors it seems that VCS have breached the GDPR of the Defendant quite substantially and it would appear right that an exemplary award is made against VCS in the hope that they will drop all further cases at Doncaster airport where they are pursuing motorists on non relevant land. The Defendant wishes to bring to the attention of the court that the Claimant cites an irrelevant case of a car park and tries to apply its merits to a bus stop. That in itself invalidates the entire fallacious claim. Accordingly, this case is totally without merit. Some statements are pretty close to perjury and others are designed to mislead or misdirect. None of the analogies seem appropriate or relevant. All the false information presented as a statement of truth could have been stated using half the words and without all the repetition which appears to be trying to build a strong case where there is none at all. One particularly bad example of misdirection is in the photographs. The Clearway sign shown near the bus stop is very unclear unlike the Clearway sign two photos before it which may well include terms and conditions. The one by the bus stop is totally different.   47. Lastly I wish to bring to the attention of the court, a systematic pattern of the Claimant’s court action behaviour in several of their cases. They tend to have a VCS paralegal writing a Witness Statement, then mentioning in the last paragraph of the Witness Statement that they may be unable to attend court and subsequently the paralegals never turn up to be cross examined. In the event that Mohammed Wali is unable to attend court to be asked about his claims, then I would like to know why he is not able to attend when the hearing has been scheduled months in advance, is during working hours and as a result of covid, is online, meaning there is no travel involved. Ambreen Arshad, the other paralegal employed by VCS, does exactly the same. 
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

  • Recommended Topics

Parking Eye parking fine - HELP!


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3371 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.

Please Note

 

The advice I offer will be based on the information given by the person needing it. All my advice is based on my experiences and knowledge gained in working in the motor and passenger transport industries in various capacities. Although my advice will always be sincere, it should be used as guidence only.

 

I would always urge to seek face to face professional advice for clarification prior to taking any action.

 

Please click my reputation 'star' button at the bottom of my profile window on the left if you found my advice useful.

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.

Please Note

 

The advice I offer will be based on the information given by the person needing it. All my advice is based on my experiences and knowledge gained in working in the motor and passenger transport industries in various capacities. Although my advice will always be sincere, it should be used as guidence only.

 

I would always urge to seek face to face professional advice for clarification prior to taking any action.

 

Please click my reputation 'star' button at the bottom of my profile window on the left if you found my advice useful.

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...

Please note;

 

I am not a legally qualified solicitor and all my advice is based on my past experiences in the relevant field. Although my advice will always be sincere, it should be used as guidance only.

I would always recommend to seek professional advice for clarification prior to taking any action.

Please click my reputation 'star' button at the bottom of my profile window on the left if you found my advice useful.

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.

 

 

HSBC WON three times!!!!! Read about my continuing battle (claim FOUR!) Link HERE

Capital One WON Link

HERE

GE capital (5 accounts) WON link HERE

Lloyds bank account WON second claim starting! link HERE

Budget insurance cough up WON link HERE

Principles WON link HERE

A&L (Mrs Crusher's account) claim link HERE

Barclays claim link HERE

 

Any advice given is on an informal basis only and without prejudice or liability. In in any doubt, consult a qualified lawyer.

IF YOU HAVE GOT YOUR MONEY BACK, PUT SOME BACK INTO THE SITE TO HELP KEEP IT OPEN!

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

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...