Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

  • 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
      • 162 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

Parking Tickets , Private parking firms


Guest danielmakepeace
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4600 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

Guest danielmakepeace

Parking Eye (private car park operator)

 

If the photographs on the parking charge notice PCN do not show the driver of the vehicle then there is no evidence of who the driver was. It is up to the company to discover this.

 

You could telephone them on 01772 885800 - this is their office number not the automated one on the letter!

 

The contract agreed upon entering the car park is between the Driver and Parking Eye. The Driver agrees to abide by the terms and conditions listed on the sign which must be legible, obvious and clean too. Any court claim would be Parking Eye v 'The Driver' .

 

It is Parking Eye's responsibility to actually prove who the Driver was and send the Parking Charge to them - rather than the details sold (they pay for this) to them by DVLA of the Keeper of the Vehicle.

 

 

Read the Code of Practice for parking operators on the website of the British Parking Association (BPA) . If any of the terms have been breached then complain to DVLA , the BPA and Parking Eye. Perhaps even your MP. The BPA may exist just to protect its members - it is not an independent Ombudsman...

Edited by danielmakepeace
addition of phone number
Link to post
Share on other sites

Somewhat bizarre??

 

From what I know, I always thought that 'without prejudice' is used where the author of said letter or correspondence doesn't want it disclosed in court?

Never heard of it being used to deny liability?

 

Besides, private parking companies just need to be ignored, they can escalate their fine/fees/charges all they like they are unenforceable and never go to court.

Who ever heard of someone getting a job at the Jobcentre? The unemployed are sent there as penance for their sins, not to help them find work!

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

REMEMBER: Never admit to being the driver by email, letter or phone or any other way.

 

 

Their "penalty charges" are not enforcable in law, so I fail to see what difference it makes. The driver is no more liable than the milkman's cat. Advising people to act this way merely reinforces the illusion that there is a credible threat. The fact is, you can't be made to pay these things, so there's no need for cloak-and-dagger tactics.

 

 

but paying by cheque (not card) purely to avoid escalation. Then demand a refund within 10 days of the amount to avoid you prosecuting them in the Small Claims Court .

 

 

Are you serious???? Just ignore them!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Daniel,

 

Daniel, you are preaching to the converted on this site.

 

If you look hard enough, you will find that the CAB have given very poor advice regarding parking in the past, and don't come with a very good reputation.

All of these are on behalf of a friend.. Cabot - [There's no CCA!]

CapQuest - [There's no CCA!]

Barclays - Zinc, [There's no CCA!]

Robinson Way - Written off!

NatWest - Written off!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Daniel-san..PPCs generally don't do court. The ones that do take the occasional punt tend to be unsuccessful. Why bother to pay up via cheque then try and claim a refund? I think you'd have more chance of getting crap out of a rocking horse than getting any money back off them. Keep your chequebook closed.You are quite right about the keeper not being liable, but the general consensus with PPCs is simply to ignore everything they send, that way they will never be able to identify the driver.

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Also to prevent any letter from being used as evidence in court . which was my purpose.

 

Evidence of what? Let's say they can prove you were the driver and you've admited it, and they can prove you contravened their rules, and you've admitted it - how does that empower them to dole out a "fine"? What would you be sued for exactly?

 

The answers to these questions are: They have no authority to "fine" anyone; and they can't sue you for non-payment - admission or not.

 

That's why they never do. The minute number of cases which they try and progress are on the basis of breach of contract - not non-payment of their fantasy charges. Really, if you want to advise people what to do, you should advise them to ignore these letters and not take the threats seriously.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest danielmakepeace

I'm stirring up serious trouble for Parking Eye - as they have not adhered to the British Parking Association code of practice in several ways. Hence problems with DVLA, the BPA and the car park owner - a well known supermarket company who have been onto them. and lost my custom.

 

I find it disgusting that Parking Eye only has a phone number which is totally automated - no way of speaking to anyone. Its also against the code of practice....oops should have picked on someone else.

Edited by danielmakepeace
errors
Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest danielmakepeace

Correct about the cheque - i'm not sending it - i'd much rather send my dogs doo doo's.

According to Companies House their real address is not a post office box but

 

PARKINGEYE LIMITED

40 EATON AVENUE

BUCKSHAW VILLAGE

CHORLEY

LANCASHIRE

UNITED KINGDOM

PR7 7NA

Might be worth a visit - sounds nice.

 

Real telephone number is 01772 885800

Edited by danielmakepeace
Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest danielmakepeace

On a mission on behalf of the 99% of us who are decent and dont feed (or try to) off the carcasses of society. I wont be paying them a bean but other people may feel obliged, threatened or intimidated by the official looking document posted out.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Daniel, you're trying to re-invent the wheel and making a pig's ear of it.

 

You don't need to phone them or contact them at all

If you wish to then just pretend a friend or relative was using it but refuse to provide their details due to Confidentiality then there is no obligation to do so - they are a private company not the Police! Without witnesses they have no means whatsoever of enforces the charge. Finished.

This is bad advice. You should not be encouraging people to lie. Is this the sort of advice that CAB give? Quite apart from anything else it's not necessary.

 

If you feel pressured to pay up to avoid the escalation of the amount then email or write to them clearly stating "without admitting liability" , denying being the driver but paying by cheque (not card) purely to avoid escalation. Then demand a refund within 10 days of the amount to avoid you prosecuting them in the Small Claims Court . And do it if you need to . With plenty of costs etc

Again bad advice. Implying that if people pay they can easily get their money back after is irresponsible.

 

If you want to go on a one man crusade against the PPC's, by all means do so, just don't encourage people to follow you.

 

Ignore works, your advice will just confuse people.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest danielmakepeace

Not CAB. Ex CAB providing information as to how I resolve the situation. Persons reading are entitled to make their own decisions. Any complaints email CAG

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm stirring up serious trouble for Parking Eye - as they have not adhered to the British Parking Association code of practice in several ways. Hence problems with DVLA, the BPA and the car park owner - a well known supermarket company who have been onto them. and lost my custom.

 

Who are Parking Eye responsible to? - Their unprincipled, cash grabbing business model of ill founded, intimidatory and incorrect threats and use of other people's land.

And who are the BPA answerable to? - Only their own members which includes ..err.. Parking Eye?, certainly not the public.

And who do the DVLA believe they are answerable to? - Their own cash flow, it seems, having ignored and relinquished their Statutory and Legal responsibilities for the fees paid by BPA members.

 

This Citizen (although living elsewhere) has some advice.

 

Don't embark on your campaign with such near-hysterical language.

As a comparison look at the cool, informed, measured manner Nev Met is going about his own way of dealing with DVLA (on CAG DVLA threads). Irrespective of content, I know who will be listened to the more.

 

Think how Michaell Browne was able to pigeon-hole your 'legal' background so quickly after so few words! That, should demonstrate your use of your undoubted fire and energy is so transparent rather than carefully researched and executed.

 

At least you are not hijacking someone elses thread.

 

Good luck anyway - if you are genuine in original intent and not a plant to enable Parking Eye to dismiss your arguments in a more formal arena.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest danielmakepeace

Thanks for that as I intend to become much better at this CAG thing with practice. Definitely not a plant though many of the replies to my original thread indicate other people may be plants. Certainly there is nothing to stop employees of parking companies to do so in disguise.

Link to post
Share on other sites

many of the replies to my original thread indicate other people may be plants.

 

?

 

Your original thread was Closed by the Site Team with not a single reply!

 

You have (at present) made 11 posts. 1 on the Closed Thread, 3 on Tom105's and 7 here.

And all within 24 hours of first joining CAG.

 

Please direct us to those "many" replies that may be from plants on your "original thread".

Link to post
Share on other sites

As HB said earlier in the thread the chances of your persuading the BPA to take affirmative action against PE for alleged breaches of their CoP is somewhere between nil and zero. The BPA is not a regulator, has no public remit whatsoever as it is nothing but an old fashioned trade protection society looking simply to protect its members interests. Multiple criminal convictions at Wolverhampton Crown Court incurred by an AOS member (and one of its directors) earlier this year - all in connection with the way it enforced its parking charges - saw no real action and the company concerned remains an AOS member.

 

With this in mind how do you think minor breaches of their CoP will be played out?

 

By all means get fired up by what you see but it would be far better if you focus your frustration and anger more productively. Try making sure all your friends and relatives know how ppc's operate, for example.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest danielmakepeace

Up to now

 

1. Contacting the supermarket which owns the land and gaining assurance they have contacted Parking Eye to request a withdrawal of the claimed charge. The supermarket is losing up to £30 a week due to taking business elsewhere and does not want to lose customers.

 

2. Writing a letter email of complaint to the British Parking Authority detailing the multiple breaches of the Code of Practice and demanding disciplinary action against their member.

 

3. A follow up letter email to BPA due to their reply refusing that any breach of the code had occured ( a pre prepared letter quite obvious)

 

4. Telephoning DVLA to enquire about their provision of information and whether Parking Eye are a suitable company to provide it to.

 

5. Finding out the real address and phone number of parking Eye to challenge them directly . (the phone number on the PCN is automated)

via Companies House website and the 118118 website.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest danielmakepeace

Certainly will be spreading the word in other ways including CAG. Interestingly , the DVLA has an agreement with Parking Operators that they have to be members of the BPA (British Parking Association) And adhere to the code of practice.

Thus we all dont need to reply on BPA doing anything (which they wont) but can apply the pressure to DVLA instead via a complaint to them

I'd appreciate you further discussion on this matter as I've never had a ticket before 1st Time eh

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...