Parking Eye Parking Charge

[spiritgirl59]

Hello everyone

 

My husband took his elderly father to look round a local market recently, and today has received a parking charge letter from Parking Eye which states he either did not pay the parking fee on the car park where he parked, or overstayed his welcome

 

My husband remembers paying for a ticket and displaying it, so they are literally trying to charge him (£60 if he pays straight away or £90 if he doesn't etc.), for overstaying by a few minutes according to the times on the letter that he arrived and departed!!

 

Bearing in mind the fact that my father in law is in his 80s and doesn't exactly run like a gazelle - I think its unfair that my husband should be expected to pay this fine! However I've also read its best not to appeal but just to ignore their letters and only respond to any court papers.

 

I've been reading up on other threads on here about Parking Eye, and we fully intend to ignore the letter, but I wanted to come on here and share our experience for a bit of moral support and to ask for help if I may, if Parking Eye start to get nasty?

 

Love SG x

[BankFodder]

Many peope will tell you to ignore them.

 

I'm not sure that is necessarily the best way.

 

These parking firms do sometimes issue proceeedings and we get the impression that they do so if they feel that there is going to be no defence put up so that they can add the case to a list of "successes".

 

We are also fairly sure that the business model of these firms is based upon getting their charges paid without having to go to the expense of a small claim in court.

 

For this reason, my feeling is that it is better to write to them - once only and to tell them that you do not admit any debt, that you do not admit that you were the driver, that you do not admit that there was any contract - and that if there was any contract, then any charge which they are trying to levy is excessive as it exceeds their actual losses.

 

Tell them that if they will supply full evidence which addreses each of these points specifically - that then you will consider your position.

 

If they rely then let us know that the reply is.

 

I think that thsi kind of response sneds a warning to them that you will be dealing with this and that you won't just give in to any unreasonable and unreasoned demand.

 

I don't see any disadvantage to you in this approach - only advantage.

[spiritgirl59]

Thanks for your advice Bankfodder

[Crocdoc]

Many peope will tell you to ignore them.

 

I'm not sure that is necessarily the best way.

 

These parking firms do sometimes issue proceeedings and we get the impression that they do so if they feel that there is going to be no defence put up so that they can add the case to a list of "successes".

 

We are also fairly sure that the business model of these firms is based upon getting their charges paid without having to go to the expense of a small claim in court.

 

For this reason, my feeling is that it is better to write to them - once only and to tell them that you do not admit any debt, that you do not admit that you were the driver, that you do not admit that there was any contract - and that if there was any contract, then any charge which they are trying to levy is excessive as it exceeds their actual losses.

 

Tell them that if they will supply full evidence which addreses each of these points specifically - that then you will consider your position.

 

If they rely then let us know that the reply is.

 

I think that thsi kind of response sneds a warning to them that you will be dealing with this and that you won't just give in to any unreasonable and unreasoned demand.

 

I don't see any disadvantage to you in this approach - only advantage.

 

To be honest I agree with this approach, I am aware of someone in my area who deals with many of these invoices on a regular basis using one letter and the companies simply give up.

[SURFBOY]

To be honest I agree with this approach, I am aware of someone in my area who deals with many of these invoices on a regular basis using one letter and the companies simply give up.

I have delt with Parking Eye on 4 different times and my approach has been to Ignore the 2 letters they send.

This has worked for me on 4 different occasions, each time one begging letter and one reminder was sent then they gave up.

I did not waste my time replying , writing letters , paying postage or anything.

People are free to do whatever they feel is right , but for me , IGNORING Parking Eye was the best course of action.

[SURFBOY]

I truly belive that Parking Eye dont care what you send them, they dont read it, they send their chain of letters , if they get payment then they are "UP" if they dont then they try again.

[Sidewinder]

I completely agree that in the vast majority of cases a blanket 'ignore' will do the trick, however for the cost of a single letter, posted second class with a certificate of posting, the fact that a reasonable request by the RK was completely ignored by the PPC would be extremely valuable IF they were daft enough to go to Court over it. One could then ignore every other letter in the spamming series - I do not believe that this would indicate to the PPC that they have a wriggler on the line, more that this could be trouble if they were to pursue it.

 

Many people wouldn't want to face a court case in the extremely rare cases where this might happen, however much the case could be defeated, and formally denying the claim at the outset might well be the best way to make the PPC think twice about issuing that spurious claim in the hope of getting a default judgment or an iffy defence.

[andydd]

At last, some good advice offered. Whilst ignoring letters works out ok 90% of the time, it wont help IF court action is pursued, and contary to opinion, some companies DO pursue it. (If pre-action protocol rules are followed it may also count against yo)

 

Personally I think replying and making clear that you are no pushover and will defend a case may influence parking companies on whether they take action or not (Im pretty sure that it does influence others such as civil recovery and debt collection companies when they decide who to take action against).

 

Andy

[DBC]

But the vast majority (99.9%) never get to court. Unless you receive proper court papers just ignore. The only time you need to be proactive is if those court papers arrive.

[andydd]

Personally I'd encourage a more pro-active approach instead of ignoring which is a bit like burying your head in the sand, the trouble is as soon as court papers arrive there will be extra costs attached (perhaps £100-£200).

 

If parking comapnies had absolute zero chance of winning then ignore would be good, but there are now quite a few high court prescedents set where parking companies are succesful, and admitteedly an equal number where they lose.

 

Andy

[DBC]

All private parking cases are held in the small claims court , so no "high court precedents" have ever been set. Could you please give us a list of these so-called "precedents"?

[SURFBOY]

I have ignored EVERY demand.

Ignoring has cost me NOTHING , not even STRESS.

IF i got a court claim i wouldnt IGNORE,

But i have never got a court claim so IGNORE costs me no money or stresss!

RESULT!!

[SURFBOY]

With PPCs "burrying your head in the sand " does work!

[DBC]

I'm still waiting for all those "high court precedents" to be listed.

[BankFodder]

I truly belive that Parking Eye dont care what you send them, they dont read it, they send their chain of letters , if they get payment then they are "UP" if they dont then they try again.

I'm sure that you are right that at least the parking companies don't pay much attention to the letters - but it does fire a warning shot and MUCH more important, it lays down a paper trail.

If it did go before a court, a judge will be far more impressed with you that you have responded and that you have very reasonably asked for them to set out the basis for their costs and to identify what are the administrative losses involved.

Even more importantly, in the same way that you will get brownie points for having been communicative and cooperative, the parking company will get negative points for not have responded in kind and for not having provided you with the information whcih you so reasonably provided.

It is a contract, after all, (they say) and you are entitled to know the details.

 

Judges are citizens themselves. They have their families and they go shopping in supermarkets. I think that you can take it that they don't like the Civil Recovery industry and that they see it for what it is.

It is a piece of unforgiving antisocial nastiness which seeks to make money out of the accidents or human errors of UK citizens and it does it by levying disproportionate penalties on ordinary people who for the most part are just going through their ordinary everyday lives.

Imagine losing a week's shopping budget because you had a 5 minute overstay in a carpark. Imagine losing the budegt for your child's new shoes or birthday present because you got caught up in a supermarket queue or simply forgot the time.

The Civil Recovery industry is really quite a disgusting development in this 21st century.

Of course it is a great for the retail clients because for them, using civil recovery is a sort of extraordinary rendition. You don't have to get your hands dirty. You leave the dirty work to others who are prepared to do that kind of thing - for money.

 

Basically, Parking Eye, their cronies and the BPA have painted themselves into an embarrassing corner - and the recent judgment against VCS and Simon Rickshaw Smith as well as the recent figures disovered by Nev Metson seem to demonstrate that we are dealing with quite a disreputable and shambolic industry.

Even the judge suggested that there could be issues of contempt of court to deal with.

 

How amazing that family companies with great reputations such as Asda, Tescos, Morrisons, B&Q - loads of others should want to get mired in this sort of nastiness.

You would have thought that they had more pride and more self-respect - apart from any considerations of their role as Citizens in the Big Society.

 

Why on earth don't they just erect barriers and have a tarrif for parking which is clear, unambiguous, reasonable and which would find approval with the general public.

[spiritgirl59]

Hello again everyone

 

My husband did write to them as suggested by Bankfodder and has now received a response (of sorts).

 

They have acknowledged receipt of the letter.

 

They have stated that his "recent appeal" has been referred for further information.

 

They have commented that he has not confirmed who the driver of the vehicle was, but has said it was not him, and as such he should provide information as to who the driver was and they will put the outstanding charge on hold for a further 14 days in order to give him time to do so.

 

They have confirmed that he is not obliged to provide this information but have then quoted case law "Combined Parking Solutions -v- Mr Stephen Thomas, Oldham County Court, 2008" where Judge Ackroyd stated that on the balance of probabilities though Mr Thomas claimed not to be the driver he was the driver and the charge incurred was to be paid plus additional court costs.

 

They have reiterated to where payment should be made.

 

They have stated that if the charge has been paid and he chooses to provide further evidence relating to his appeal he should forward it to them for consideration.

 

Prior to the letter being received he received a further Parking Notice (relating to the same alleged incident) which advised he had paid for insufficient time. The insufficient time in question is stated as exactly 8 minutes (!)

 

Nowhere have they confirmed (as they were asked to) the reason for their hefty costs/charges!!

 

What next guys?

 

Love SG x

[DBC]

Just ignore.You do not have to "provide information". Note them quoting that very old case.It's not case law They forget to quote all the other cases which have been lost by PPCs.

[BankFodder]

Yes, ignore. You have made your reasonable request for information. They have chosen not to address your questions.

 

Now just wait it out.

If they issue a claim, then let us know and we'll take it from there

[andydd]

The only real reason to reply back is if both sides are seriously going to follow the general CPR pre-action potocols, if this is the case, then both sides should lay out what provisions of law they are going to rely upon and how the amount claimed is arrived at, IMO most judges just ignore the pre-action steps anyway but in theory if you followed it and the other side didnt you could ask for extra costs.

[BankFodder]

I think that it is reasonable to say that the more that you engage with them, the more it costs them, the more reaonable it will look for you if it goes to court - and I expect that the more likely it will be that they will not go to court because they will not want to incur the cost and also not want to risk losing a case to a feisty and knowledgable defendant and not wish to suffer the publicity which the case will receive on this site, in our 300,000+ newsletter - and elsewhere.

 

I'm pleased also to be able to tell you that we now have some MPs who we are keeping updated with the threads on this forum and who are very concerned at what is going on.

 

I know that Parking Eye monitors this forum and so I am sure that they will read this thread and this post as well.

 

In one letter their lawyers sent us, they required us to remove all instances of the name "Parking Eye" from the forum!! How on earth they managed to get a solicitor to make that request, I will never understand.

The private parking industry doesn't like the internet very much.

[Graeme_soton]

Hi i received a parking eye parking ticket on the 19th july 2012 stating that i used a short stay car park on the 15th july 2012 admittedly i was in there but only for 42 minutes wich i class as a short stay anyway . on the letter they have sent me 2 pictures of my number plate but not of who is driving . the want £75 before the 1st august 2012 but if i don't pay by then they want £110 .

i'm not sure what to do really . should i IGNORE or PAY?

 

can somebody help me please.

[Homer67]

You should start your own thread really but PE are safe to ignore, come back if you need a pep talk as you go through their begging letter procedure.

[Graeme_soton]

Thanks homer67 . i recieved another letter this morning i was going to pay but then googled parking eye and loads of people have ignored them so i thought i would as well. i will let you know if i get anymore letters from them .

[Graeme_soton]

had another letter on the 11/8/12 saying final notice and if i pay by the 16/8/12 it will be £110 and if i don't pay it will go up to £150 on the 17/8/12 .

if i still ignore the letters they will contact their solicitors and start court proceedings either way i can't pay because i'm out of work and every bit of money i have is for

my other bills i have to pay.

[SURFBOY]

You are safe to IGNORE.

It is all empty threats designed to scare you into giving them money they are NOT entitled to.