Parking Eye State Judge Ackroyd 2008

[Phiddius]

Hi Forum,

 

Firstly, thanks for all the help, even though I only just joined properly,

I’ve been taking advice for a while from here, so thanks.

 

 

I have had several letters from Parking Eye regarding their Parking Charge Notice.

I ignored them all, until the last one, stating I had to pay their full amount of £70 and another £70 on top of that if not paid by yesterday, which I didn't pay of course.

 

I wrote using snippets from other letters posted on forums, including:

 

“You appear to claim that I, as the keeper, am legally responsible for this alleged debt/charge. I deny this. Please substantiate your claim with appropriate citations of case and/or statute law.

 

Please also note that I am familiar with the Office of Fair Trading Debt Collection Guidance which states that it is unfair to send demands for payment to an individual when it is uncertain that they are the debtor in question.

I would also point out that the OFT say under the Guidance that it is unfair to pursue third parties for payment when they are not liable. In not ceasing your pursuit of the alleged debt you are using deceptive/and or unfair methods"

which I'm sure you have all seen already,

 

the letter says;

"My Appeal" has not been accepted (I didn’t make one?)

“You have stated that you were not the driver of the vehicle at the time, but have failed to tell us who was.

 

Judge Ackroyd, 2008, Oldham Court, Combined Parking Solutions Vs Mr Stephen Thomas, where Mr Thomas claimed not to be the driver, but did not state who was, ruled that on balance of probability he was the driver and ordered the charge to be paid plus costs”.

 

and now they will hold my charge for a further 14 days to give me a chance to appeal again ?

 

can anyone see any reason why I should take any action ? thanks for your advice

 

I added a PDF of the letter

Parking Eye forum2.pdf

Edited March 7, 2012 by Phiddius
image is shrunken

[Conniff]

Welcome to the forum.

 

You say you have been reading and taking advice from these forums for some time and yet you wrote to them which is against all the advice given on here for invitational invoices.

 

edited to add: You should go sit on the naughty step.

[BankFodder]

You probably shouldn't have given in and answered that last one either.

I'm afraid that you blinked first.

 

Also, the responses you have made indicate that you might pay up if pressed.

 

Read the article linked to the parking charge link

Also read the discussion here http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?341260-court-claim-forms-from-ukcps%2815-Viewing%29-nbsp and especially think about sending the letter suggested in post 7 of that thread

[Phiddius]

Haha, Conniff it s not a thanks just for parking eye, theres a goldmine of info in here

but I will go to the naughty step right away !

 

Yes, BankFodder, it looks like I blinked first, but I wont be giving in, even if pressed,

thanks for your advice

[ManxRed]

With the Stephen Thomas case he had something in excess of 30 tickets and had a poor defence, and was not terribly reliable when questioned.

 

Given the number of tickets he found it difficult to answer the question on whether he was aware of the risk associated with parking there.

 

He relied solely on 'I was not the driver', when in fact if he had also questioned the fact that the charges were unenforceable contractual penalties he might well have won.

 

Some people have even speculated that he might have been a patsy for the parking companies

- they certainly use his case quite a bit on websites and correspondence.

 

It has no bearing on your circumstances whatsoever.

 

Please cease corresponding with them, you are more likely to receive a speculative punt in court from the PPC, than if you simply ignored them completely.

[Phiddius]

Thank you

I shall not communicate with them any further ,

I'll post anything they send here though, incase its of any use for reference

 

Thanks again

[Rob S]

Stephen Thomas had also admitted to being the driver on internet forums and I understand the PPC produced this evidence at the hearing.

[dx100uk]

yes i think at a later point it was discovered he was 'related' to the company or it's family.

though the info was latterly buried.

 

it was even published in a newspaper i seem to recall.

 

dx