Jump to content


ParkingEye car park management 'speculative invoice'


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4523 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

My wife parked in the Priory Fields Retail Park in Taunton which is isolated from the town centre.

 

She spent 3 hours 26 minutes shopping only at that retail centre and had not realised there was a limit of 3 hours.

 

I find it highly unlikely that this would stand up in court as we can prove by receipts that she never left the retail park.

 

ParkingEye have clearly been employed to catch out people who just use the car park.

 

My wife is considering writing a letter of appeal to them but I feel that we should write and tell them that we will not be paying as we can prove she never left the site.

 

Does anyone have similar experience of this scenario?

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 58
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Ignore completely and DON`T appeal, you will get the six standard letters of threat.

Now instead of being peed off at getting at ticket you can laugh, relax and sit back with a smile on your face having found this site!:lol:

I know what its like! But trust me, ignore and laugh and tell your friends!

 

Tell them you got a fake parking ticket and sound happy! Really happy!

Link to post
Share on other sites

My wife parked in the Priory Fields Retail Park in Taunton which is isolated from the town centre.

 

She spent 3 hours 26 minutes shopping only at that retail centre and had not realised there was a limit of 3 hours.

 

I find it highly unlikely that this would stand up in court as we can prove by receipts that she never left the retail park.

 

ParkingEye have clearly been employed to catch out people who just use the car park.

 

My wife is considering writing a letter of appeal to them but I feel that we should write and tell them that we will not be paying as we can prove she never left the site.

 

Does anyone have similar experience of this scenario?

 

 

its NOT a fine

 

nowhere on the paper work does it say that

 

its a speculative invoice

 

ignore them

 

and do some reading in this forum.

 

dx

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

They do take people to court. Apparently one person was ordered to pay costs totaling £2500!!!

 

My wife parked in the Priory Fields Retail Park in Taunton which is isolated from the town centre.

 

She spent 3 hours 26 minutes shopping only at that retail centre and had not realised there was a limit of 3 hours.

 

I find it highly unlikely that this would stand up in court as we can prove by receipts that she never left the retail park.

 

ParkingEye have clearly been employed to catch out people who just use the car park.

 

My wife is considering writing a letter of appeal to them but I feel that we should write and tell them that we will not be paying as we can prove she never left the site.

 

Does anyone have similar experience of this scenario?

Link to post
Share on other sites

They do take people to court. Apparently one person was ordered to pay costs totaling £2500!!!

 

 

Really?

Care to give details so we can verify and then believe it?

(because, Dear brand new subscriber, quite frankly I don't)

Link to post
Share on other sites

That, according to numberous threads on various forums, was a highly suspect case. None of the circumstances, claims, defense and details have been revealed.

 

Widely thought to be a Plant Case in the hope of success for its future threat purposes. This is especially in view of the number of 'new posters' who keep appearing and 'know' all about it in discussions. and who certainly did not always quote correctly about such circumstances and involvements as are known.

 

It is interesting that full details are never produced in suport of the fear effect they try to induce. Maybe the thinker, unlike those before him, can assist.

Link to post
Share on other sites

surely if it was a plant case then the perpetrator would be guilty of fraud or purgery or something?

 

why? PPC says he owed charges, "victim" agreed. Court orders payment. Seems straight forward enough to me.

 

Seems unlikely that a car parking company would do that when the freedoms bill is shifting everything in favour of parking charges being more enforceable.

 

Really? So how do you figure the freedoms bill is shifting in their favour? It's still a "contract" which cannot involve a 3rd party.

 

Anyway, this is looking more and more like a plant thread soI think I will head for the door now. :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

You are right the contract is between the car park owner and the vehicle owner. The PPC is hired by the property owner to collect the money owed. Seems fairly straight forward.

 

If you stay in a hotel and go without paying, you will get an invoice. It would be fair to assume that the hotel owner will use the legal process to enforce payment of the amount owed.

 

Morally, it seems that anyone that uses a property should be prepared to pay the charge that applies. That is as long as the property owner makes the charges clear up front.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you stay in a hotel and go without paying, you will get an invoice. It would be fair to assume that the hotel owner will use the legal process to enforce payment of the amount owed.

 

Bad example!

 

If, after a night in a hotel, you fail to check out by the time stated the maximum they will seek is no more than for another period (night) at the same rate.

Compare that with a private car park where the first period is free or maybe a couple of pounds - there the PPCs feel it 'fair' to try to claim many many times the original amount, and then escalates the amount if unpaid, all dressed up as a 'penalty'!

 

(un)thinker - please give us the details of the case you are quick to quote.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you go away from the hotel without paying, then you will get charged more than the original cost as they will add collection fees... or the third party will.

 

Sad fact is that you don't get something for nothing. And if you want them to chase you, you will have to pay them for it!

Edited by Thinker123
incorrect
Link to post
Share on other sites

If you go away from the hotel without paying, then you will get charged more than the original cost as they will add collection fees... or the third party will.

 

Sad fact is that you don't get something for nothing. And if you want them to chase you, you will have to pay them for it!

 

£90 (for example) "collection fees" for a FREE car park?? In what way is that a fair cost of losses + reasonable collection fees, rather than a penalty? Just look at the recent case of Parking Eye v Smithy, where all they got was the daily charge + the £2.50 DVLA fee.

Link to post
Share on other sites

What i never understand is , why a large retail park would be happy with a PPC limiting the time its customers can stay before penalising them? surely that is counterproductive to the retail outlets on the park?

The only reason i can see for a time limit is for the greed of the PPCs.

hello all:-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

What i never understand is , why a large retail park would be happy with a PPC limiting the time its customers can stay before penalising them? surely that is counterproductive to the retail outlets on the park?

The only reason i can see for a time limit is for the greed of the PPCs.

 

These commercial companies must have some reason for doing it. If the car park is full and genuine shoppers can't get in, then they will be missing out on revenue. Those that are in the car park, but are not genuine shoppers are blocking others from getting in.

 

The car park is a service provided to customers. People that use it without shopping or paying are engaging in an act of theft!

Link to post
Share on other sites

To Dave the Porch

What you are seeing is, to me, clearly a PPC 'plant' trying to unnerve you into paying unreasonable amounts of money to his employer.

 

Note the extensive 'knowledge'and one sided arguments - but never a mention of the details of the Case he quoted.

 

My advice to you is to follow the advice of those who have a good reputation and post count on these threads sooner than a newby.

Having followed these threads for a long time, posters and posts 2, 3, and 4 would convince me.

And you will get support and assistance from them and others in the unlikely event of things progressing beyond threats-o-gram letters to the Registered Keeper, who may or may not be the Driver.

Don't write and dont tell them the Driver's details - there is no obligation to provide these details to anyone other than to Police and Local Councils.

 

IGNORE and enjoy life!

Link to post
Share on other sites

The car park is a service provided to customers. People that use it without shopping or paying are engaging in an act of theft!

 

You mean unlike private parking companies who send frightening letters. carefully designed to look like official documents, to motorists trying to con them out of their money?

 

I'm endeavouring to find out more about this case. I don't believe it's genuine. I will post on here whatever I can find.

 

Perhaps meantime, you can answer the request above for more info, or at least tell us where you got your case details from.

 

I wait with little hope - go on, surprise me.

Link to post
Share on other sites

These commercial companies must have some reason for doing it. If the car park is full and genuine shoppers can't get in, then they will be missing out on revenue. Those that are in the car park, but are not genuine shoppers are blocking others from getting in.

 

The car park is a service provided to customers. People that use it without shopping or paying are engaging in an act of theft!

But people who park on large retail outlets are genuine shoppers or users of the retail park. most retail parks i have been on are in out of town areas or dissused old industrial areas. The car parks are not used for anything other than customers!

hello all:-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...