ParkingEye car park management 'speculative invoice'

[Thinker123]

If you say something often enough, then people will believe it!

[The Slithy Tove]

I read on another forum that it cost him £105!

 

Also, he must have spent a fortune on defending his case, not mention the time it must have cost and the anxiety he must have gone through.

 

Rather him than me!

 

£95 of which were costs. And NOT costs that were incurred from sending out the original tickets & chasing letters (which you are attempting to claim are reasonable), but purely the costs for one solicitor (they sent 4!) to attend court that day.

 

Believe it or not, he endured the hassle for the "greater good", i.e. to show that the PPCs cannot legitimately claim the charges they do, and on that count, he succeeded.

[citizenB]

ParkingEye vs Hussain

 

 

22/11/2011

Shoreditch Clerkenwell County Court

 

claim no. 1XJ81956

 

verdict - ParkingEye won plus cost's

 

£2500:00

 

One imagines if it was / is a genuine case then parking eye would be shouting this from the rooftops. Aside from that, it is a county court and therefore any decision is not binding on other courts.

 

I would think if this is a genuine case then it was very likely undefended.

[Jamberson]

If you say something often enough, then people will believe it!

 

So how many times are you planning to say people who don't pay parking charge notices will lose thousands of pounds in court? You'll get bored before anyone here believes you.

[crem]

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.

.

 

Example doesn't work! If my daughter drives to a hotel in my car and stays without paying, then the hotel owner needs to chase her not me.

 

If she now takes my car to the shops and breaks on of their silly little parking rules, then again, they need to take that up with her, not me. But of course we know they can only write to me because I am the RK of the car. Doesn't change the law of contract though, her poor parking is nothign to do with me so they can send me as many letters ars they like, they ain't getting paid!

[Thinker123]

The hotel charge is not for the car, it is for her person that resided in the hotel. So yes you are right they will legitimately chase her of her wrong doing. The hotel owners have staff there that need to be paid. Your daughter will have broken her contract with the hotel. They trusted her to make good on her part of the bargain and she has reneged on it. They should chase her for all that she owes + costs of collection.

 

Regarding the keeper liability, try not taxing your car and having someone else leave it on the road for you. See who they come after!

 

Fact is that if you don't pay your road tax then you are not contributing your bit to the cost of upkeep to the roads. The law is clear on this one and it clarity has now been given to the burden of liability if your car is parked on private land. The upkeep of the private car park has to be paid for by the car owner. Have a read of the protection of freedoms bill.

Edited December 15, 2011 by Thinker123
word left out

[Thinker123]

http://services.parliament.uk/bills/2010-11/protectionoffreedoms.html

[esmerobbo]

Car park operators or owners have always had the right to recover monies owed. The freedom bill will give them the option of pursing the keeper if they don't name the driver who parked the car. However all they can do is exactly the same as they can now. Recover unpaid charges, they still will not be able to impose a penalty. Anything over what the company has actually lost is a penalty

 

The Parking Eye case your talking about the Judge made it clear he awarded 2x £5 unpaid parking charges 2x £2.50 DVLA charges so £15 in total. The Judge awarded £95 costs because the defendant had not contacted Parking Eye until he received the claim.

 

Parking Eye tried to claim 2x £120 and £4250 costs.

 

So technically Parking Eye won they got £15!!!! and a bill from Pannone for £4235!

[ManxRed]

Thinker123 is having a nightmare here. Especially with the hotel analogy.

 

Contracts cover payment for services. If I stay at a hotel, use those services and don't pay then the hotel has a perfectly legitimate claim for breach of contract for the costs of those services. All perfectly correct under contract law. What they can't do is add on any arbitrary charges to deter me from breaching that contract. Such as £120 or £60 if paid within 14 days. That is nothing to do with their liquidated damages or costs of the services I didn't pay for. This is unenforceable under contract law.

 

You then go on about denying a parking space for a legitimate shopper to spend money in the shops, but fail to take into account that the original poster on this thread states that his missus WAS shopping at those shops and has receipts to prove it. So again, where is the loss to the land occupier?

 

Leaving your car untaxed and out on the road is covered under legislation and isn't a civil matter under contract law. What on earth has that got to do with private parking tickets or hotels??

 

Dear me, you are out of your depth here.

Edited December 15, 2011 by ManxRed

[Michael Browne]

 

The car park is a service provided to customers.

It's not a service at all, it's a business necessity. If retail parks/supermarkets did not provide parking they wouldn't have hardly any customers at all.

People that use it without shopping or paying are engaging in an act of theft!

That has to be the most idiotic statement of the year.

[Thinker123]

Interesting that you use the term 'land occupier'. Do you not believe in land ownership? Is this whole thing just a way of having a go a property owners? If so then you have most of the country to battle with on this one as we are a pround nation of property owners. The people of this country work hard for what they have and they have a legal right to charge a rent from those that choose to spend time on their property.

 

It may be that a property owner has shop with a car park and so allow you a rent free period on that car park, but if you choose to stay longer, then you need to comply with the rules imposed by the landowner on the tennants. If you don't like the rules, then stay off the property!

[Thinker123]

Interesting that you use the term 'land occupier'. Do you not believe in land ownership? Is this whole thing just a way of having a go a property owners? If so then you have most of the country to battle with on this one as we are a pround nation of property owners. The people of this country work hard for what they have and they have a legal right to charge a rent from those that choose to spend time on their property.

 

It may be that a property owner has shop with a car park and so allow you a rent free period on that car park, but if you choose to stay longer, then you need to comply with the rules imposed by the landowner on the tennants. If you don't like the rules, then stay off the property!

 

Thinker123 is having a nightmare here. Especially with the hotel analogy.

 

Contracts cover payment for services. If I stay at a hotel, use those services and don't pay then the hotel has a perfectly legitimate claim for breach of contract for the costs of those services. All perfectly correct under contract law. What they can't do is add on any arbitrary charges to deter me from breaching that contract. Such as £120 or £60 if paid within 14 days. That is nothing to do with their liquidated damages or costs of the services I didn't pay for. This is unenforceable under contract law.

 

You then go on about denying a parking space for a legitimate shopper to spend money in the shops, but fail to take into account that the original poster on this thread states that his missus WAS shopping at those shops and has receipts to prove it. So again, where is the loss to the land occupier?

 

Leaving your car untaxed and out on the road is covered under legislation and isn't a civil matter under contract law. What on earth has that got to do with private parking tickets or hotels??

 

Dear me, you are out of your depth here.

[ManxRed]

Interesting that you use the term 'land occupier'. Do you not believe in land ownership? Is this whole thing just a way of having a go a property owners? If so then you have most of the country to battle with on this one as we are a pround nation of property owners. The people of this country work hard for what they have and they have a legal right to charge a rent from those that choose to spend time on their property.

 

It may be that a property owner has shop with a car park and so allow you a rent free period on that car park, but if you choose to stay longer, then you need to comply with the rules imposed by the landowner on the tennants. If you don't like the rules, then stay off the property!

 

What are you on about? I use the term land occupier purely because they may be different to the land owner - I've referring specifically to the shops and/or the people who hire the parking company - they are the ones with the right to operate a parking scheme. No one's having a go at landowners. Tenants? What on earth are you on about? We're talking about a contract for services, not a rental agreement.

 

You're having a nightmare. I'd give up if I were you.

[Tony P]

and they have a legal right to charge a rent from those that choose to spend time on their property.

 

It may be that a property owner has shop with a car park and so allow

 

Legal Right to charge a rent from whom they choose? Tosh.

Rent is only due under an agreement, not some arbitary, escalating charge - effectively a charge or penalty levied in hindsight and disguised to look like something else with the intention of frightening people into paying excessive amounts.

 

Oh, and a minor point, an agreement needs two willing parties.

 

Out of depth?

Sinking....

 

 

Redeem yourself a little - provide verifiable details of the case you quote.

That fact you don't is the only significant thing to come from your posts. ie. Nothing

Edited December 15, 2011 by Tony P

[Thinker123]

So you accept that the landowner has a right to operate a parking scheme on their property. That is good.

 

Not sure if most other posters on here with agree with you on that one.

[Thinker123]

What are you on about? I use the term land occupier purely because they may be different to the land owner - I've referring specifically to the shops and/or the people who hire the parking company - they are the ones with the right to operate a parking scheme. No one's having a go at landowners. Tenants? What on earth are you on about? We're talking about a contract for services, not a rental agreement.

 

You're having a nightmare. I'd give up if I were you.

 

So you accept that the landowner has a right to operate a parking scheme on their property. That is good.

 

Not sure if most other posters on here with agree with you on that one.

[ManxRed]

So you accept that the landowner has a right to operate a parking scheme on their property. That is good.

 

Not sure if most other posters on here with agree with you on that one.

 

Provided its operated within the boundaries of proper contract law, then why not? And I think you'll find most people on here would agree with that. What we disagree with is when a Private Parking Company, engaged by the person who owns the right to operate the scheme, then step outside of normal contract law in order to extract money which they are not legally entitled to from innocent motorists who are duped into believing they have broken some kind of law, when in actuality they haven't.

 

So, if I park in a car park which is £1 an hour, and I buy a £1 ticket but I end up staying 15 mins over, I owe the parking company 25p. I don't have a problem with that. What I DON'T owe them, and contract law backs me up here, is £120 or £60 if paid within 14 days.

 

 

Is that clear?

[Thinker123]

Legal Right to charge a rent from whom they choose? Tosh.

Rent is only due under an agreement, not some arbitary, escalating charge levied in hindsight and disguised to look like something else with the intention of frightening people into paying excessive amounts.

 

Oh, and a minor point, an agreement needs two willing parties.

 

Out of depth?

Sinking....

 

Do you rent a house? If so, then try not paying the rent and see what happens. Alternatively, do you own a house? or even rent one out? See what your rights are if your tennant chooses not to pay.

 

On entering a private car park with clear signage as to the rules of that car park, there is obviously a choice made to abide by those rules. Or alternatively, the choice has been made to ignore the rules in full knowledge of what they are! If the party has chosen to park on the land, if they chose to do and not abide by the rules, then who is in the wrong?

 

If someone choses to park in full knowledge of the rules and relies on the fact that it might cost the landowner more to chase them for the money than they will get for it, then again they are very much in the wrong. They are abusing the service that is being offered to them and they are wasting the time of service provider. This kind of free-rider attitude will always result in the cost being higher for those who do abide by the rules as they will have to subsidise the non-payers!

 

This and other threads like it are encouraging moral bankruptcy!

[Tony P]

Again To Dave the Porch

What you are continuing to see, 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.

 

Keep IGNORING and enjoy life!

[Thinker123]

Provided its operated within the boundaries of proper contract law, then why not? And I think you'll find most people on here would agree with that. What we disagree with is when a Private Parking Company, engaged by the person who owns the right to operate the scheme, then step outside of normal contract law in order to extract money which they are not legally entitled to from innocent motorists who are duped into believing they have broken some kind of law, when in actuality they haven't.

 

So, if I park in a car park which is £1 an hour, and I buy a £1 ticket but I end up staying 15 mins over, I owe the parking company 25p. I don't have a problem with that. What I DON'T owe them, and contract law backs me up here, is £120 or £60 if paid within 14 days.

 

 

Is that clear?

 

If the contract states that you can pay 25p for 15 minutes up front, or £60 if you chose pay afterwards, or £120 if you chose to pay 14 days later, then you should stick to the contract!

[Thinker123]

Again To Dave the Porch

What you are continuing to see, 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.

 

Keep IGNORING and enjoy life!

 

Do you have that one on cut and paste?

[Tony P]

it might cost the landowner more to chase them for the money

 

So are you saying Parking Eye is the "land owner" or if acting as Agent, all monies Parking Eye receive is handed over to the" Land Owner" ?

 

Oh - and by the way - where are the verifiable details of the case you quote?

[seanamarts]

Lets get this back to the question at hand from the OP and leave it there shall we

[ManxRed]

Do you rent a house? If so, then try not paying the rent and see what happens. Alternatively, do you own a house? or even rent one out? See what your rights are if your tennant chooses not to pay.

 

On entering a private car park with clear signage as to the rules of that car park, there is obviously a choice made to abide by those rules. Or alternatively, the choice has been made to ignore the rules in full knowledge of what they are! If the party has chosen to park on the land, if they chose to do and not abide by the rules, then who is in the wrong?

 

If someone choses to park in full knowledge of the rules and relies on the fact that it might cost the landowner more to chase them for the money than they will get for it, then again they are very much in the wrong. They are abusing the service that is being offered to them and they are wasting the time of service provider. This kind of free-rider attitude will always result in the cost being higher for those who do abide by the rules as they will have to subsidise the non-payers!

 

This and other threads like it are encouraging moral bankruptcy!

 

What on earth are you on about now? What have tenancy agreements got to do with service contracts?

 

I assume by 'rules' you mean terms and conditions, but under contract law, you are restricted to what you can and cannot impose as fair terms and conditions. And of course one party's redress should the other party breach those terms. These are limited to actual losses only (liquidated damages), and NOT some arbitrary sum dreamt up by one of the parties, which would be deemed to be punitive and there solely to deter any breach. So, £120 for example. That would NOT be considered a fair condition to include in any contract, and would be thrown out if tested in court (see Thurlow v Observices if you want a parking related example).

 

 

Please give up, you are seriously out of your depth here.

[Jamberson]

Thinker - I have never read so much nonsense in my life. I presume your user name is intended as irony?

 

You draw the most bizarre and irrelevant analogies regarding things like running from hotel rooms and precisely nothing to back up your prized court case.

 

I'll draw your attention to a couple of places where your mind is muddled:

 

Do you rent a house? If so, then try not paying the rent and see what happens.

 

You will get evicted. This has nothing to do with parking.

 

Alternatively, do you own a house? or even rent one out? See what your rights are if your tennant chooses not to pay.

 

You can get them evicted. Nothing at all to do with parking.

 

On entering a private car park with clear signage as to the rules of that car park, there is obviously a choice made to abide by those rules. Or alternatively, the choice has been made to ignore the rules in full knowledge of what they are! If the party has chosen to park on the land, if they chose to do and not abide by the rules, then who is in the wrong?

 

Who you jugde to be right or wrong is irrelevant. Your either-or scenario is fantasy. Where for example do you pigeon-hole someone who is unintentionally 5 minutes late back to the car? You only see "abiding by rules" or "Choosing" not to. It's a fantasy world where everything is black or white and has no relation to reality.

 

If someone choses to park in full knowledge of the rules and relies on the fact that it might cost the landowner more to chase them for the money than they will get for it, then again they are very much in the wrong. They are abusing the service that is being offered to them and they are wasting the time of service provider. This kind of free-rider attitude will always result in the cost being higher for those who do abide by the rules as they will have to subsidise the non-payers!

 

No one is wasting anyone's time. There's no free-rider attitude if someone buys a p&d ticket and accidentally leaves it face down. No-one has to subsidise anyone. You are again inventing a world in your imagination which does not exist.

 

This and other threads like it are encouraging moral bankruptcy!

 

Your comments are encourging intellectual bankruptcy. Go figure.