Jump to content
  • Tweets

  • Posts

  • Our picks

    • Hermes lost parcel.. Read more at https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/422615-hermes-lost-parcel/
      • 49 replies
    • Oven repair. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/427690-oven-repair/&do=findComment&comment=5073391
      • 49 replies
    • I came across this discussion recently and just wanted to give my experience of A Shade Greener that may help others regarding their boiler finance agreement.
       
      We had a 10yr  finance contract for a boiler fitted July 2015.
       
      After a summer of discontent with ASG I discovered that if you have paid HALF the agreement or more you can legally return the boiler to them at no cost to yourself. I've just returned mine the feeling is liberating.
       
      It all started mid summer during lockdown when they refused to service our boiler because we didn't have a loft ladder or flooring installed despite the fact AS installed the boiler. and had previosuly serviced it without issue for 4yrs. After consulting with an independent installer I was informed that if this was the case then ASG had breached building regulations,  this was duly reported to Gas Safe to investigate and even then ASG refused to accept blame and repeatedly said it was my problem. Anyway Gas Safe found them in breach of building regs and a compromise was reached.
       
      A month later and ASG attended to service our boiler but in the process left the boiler unusuable as it kept losing pressure not to mention they had damaged the filling loop in the process which they said was my responsibilty not theres and would charge me to repair, so generous of them! Soon after reporting the fault I got a letter stating it was time we arranged a powerflush on our heating system which they make you do after 5 years even though there's nothing in the contract that states this. Coincidence?
       
      After a few heated exchanges with ASG (pardon the pun) I decided to pull the plug and cancel our agreement.
       
      The boiler was removed and replaced by a reputable installer,  and the old boiler was returned to ASG thus ending our contract with them. What's mad is I saved in excess of £1000 in the long run and got a new boiler with a brand new 12yr warranty. 
       
      You only have to look at TrustPilot to get an idea of what this company is like.
       
        • Thanks
      • 3 replies
    • Dazza a few months ago I discovered a good friend of mine who had ten debts with cards and catalogues which he was slavishly paying off at detriment to his own family quality of life, and I mean hardship, not just absence of second holidays or flat screen TV's.
       
      I wrote to all his creditors asking for supporting documents and not one could provide any material that would allow them to enforce the debt.
       
      As a result he stopped paying and they have been unable to do anything, one even admitted it was unenforceable.
       
      If circumstances have got to the point where you are finding it unmanageable you must ask yourself why you feel the need to pay.  I guarantee you that these companies have built bad debt into their business model and no one over there is losing any sleep over your debt to them!  They will see you as a victim and cash cow and they will be reluctant to discuss final offers, only ways to keep you paying with threats of court action or seizing your assets if you have any.
       
      They are not your friends and you owe them no loyalty or moral duty, that must remain only for yourself and your family.
       
      If it was me I would send them all a CCA request.   I would bet that not one will provide the correct response and you can quite legally stop paying them until such time as they do provide a response.   Even when they do you should check back here as they mostly send dodgy photo copies or generic rubbish that has no connection with your supposed debt.
       
      The money you are paying them should, as far as you are able, be put to a savings account for yourself and as a means of paying of one of these fleecers should they ever manage to get to to the point of a successful court judgement.  After six years they will not be able to start court action and that money will then become yours.
       
      They will of course pursue you for the funds and pass your file around various departments of their business and out to third parties.
       
      Your response is that you should treat it as a hobby.  I have numerous files of correspondence each faithfully organised showing the various letters from different DCA;s , solicitors etc with a mix of threats, inducements and offers.   It is like my stamp collection and I show it to anyone who is interested!
        • Thanks
        • Like

Parking Eye - "dishonest" - used "police-like" letters, falshoods, "semi-literate", misrepresented their authority


Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 2924 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

Recommended Posts

Not my words - but the words of the Court of Appeal.

 

 

Dishonest without intending to be, apparently.

 

So of course ParkingEye had an incentive to operate the “fine” system aggressively.

 

7. This it did – too much so: some of the letters it wrote to motorists contained falsehoods. The first letter was not so held. It perhaps might have been. For it was dressed up rather like police issued document with a chequered edging and described the amount claimed as a “penalty” when it was no more than a contractual obligation to pay.

serious falsehoods
Sent "semi-literate" letters

 

It said “ParkingEye will issue proceedings” indicating that ParkingEye had authority to do so. It did not.
No intention to bring legal proceedings at all!!!!!

In any event neither ParkingEye nor Somerfield actually had any settled intention of issuing legal proceedings if the money was not paid. The contract provided by Schedule 2 that if the registered keeper did not pay after a fourth letter, no further action would be taken but detailed records of non-payers and persistent offenders would be stored. If Somerfield decided to sue ParkingEye was to assist.
The Judge not only found that the third letter contained falsehoods but that those falsehoods were deliberately made by the relevant ParkingEye executive,
Hence the Judge found ParkingEye was guilty of the tort of deceit on those occasions when the third letter was sent on its behalf. ParkingEye does not challenge this decision.
See the judgment attached for the whole grisly story.

 

Of course this Court of Appeal judgment is about Parking Eye but you may find similarities in the way of doing business used by other private parking companies.

 

Apart from anything else this is more evidence of the slack attitude of the British Parking Association to the behaviour of their own members.

The BPA must be aware of this. What action have they taken against Parking Eye for their breach of the Code of Practice?? If anyone knows, then please let us know.

 

The BPA is the outfit which pretends to want to set an Independent Appeals Service.

 

Has Parking Eye's access to the DVLA database been suspended? I don't think so.

 

 

 

If you have paid money to Parking Eye then you have a basis for claiming it back. certainly, if you have paid the so-called "full rate" then you have clearly paid an unenforceable penalty and you should go and get you money back

 

Please note that the trial judge held that the initial sum was an enforceable charge. The Court of Appeal referred to it but did not consider it and made no finding which approved it .

In other words, don't let Parking Eye or any other parking company tell you that there is binding authority for saying that the initial charge is valid. That would be a porky.

 

Thanks to user:Tomtubby for discovering this judgment.

 

Important rider - the Court of Appeal decision was based upon the Parking Eye arrangement as agreed with Somerfields in 2005.

 

If their agreements are different elsewhere then that could affect the situation.

 

Now original High Court judgment also available below. Thanks to Tomtubby again.

Link to post
Share on other sites

be good to get the original high court case as well. This jumps from the page "This semi-literate letter was false in a number of respects: i) It said that the debt was due to ParkingEye. It was not. It was due to Somerfield." As per the Dft guidance document - and the law !

Link to post
Share on other sites

Bankfodder.

 

Thanks to user:Tomtubby for discovering this judgment.

 

 

Thank you for your kind words.

 

This most significant Judgment from the Court of Appeal was only released in court earlier today and a "little birdie" sent a copy to me. Given the seriousness, I am pleased to share this with others.

 

For the past few hours I have been reading and re-reading this Judgment and in the morning, hope to be in a position to have more information.

 

What I do know is that this appeal by Somerfield Stores followed a Judgment that was was made over 18 months ago (March 2011) following a 3 week hearing in the Mercantile Court.

 

The immediate question that springs to mind is this:

 

Apart from Somerfield Stores, Parking Eye Ltd and their legal representatives..... WHO ELSE IN THE PRIVATE PARKING INDUSTRY KNEW OF THE INITIAL JUDGMENT?

 

Did the BPA know?

 

Did DVLA know?

 

If not...WHY NOT !!!

Link to post
Share on other sites
Bankfodder.

 

Thanks to user:Tomtubby for discovering this judgment.

 

 

Thank you for your kind words.

 

This most significant Judgment from the Court of Appeal was only released in court earlier today and a "little birdie" sent a copy to me. Given the seriousness, I am pleased to share this with others.

 

For the past few hours I have been reading and re-reading this Judgment and in the morning, hope to be in a position to have more information.

 

What I do know is that this appeal by Somerfield Stores followed a Judgment that was was made over 18 months ago (March 2011) following a 3 week hearing in the Mercantile Court.

 

The immediate question that springs to mind is this:

 

Apart from Somerfield Stores, Parking Eye Ltd and their legal representatives..... WHO ELSE IN THE PRIVATE PARKING INDUSTRY KNEW OF THE INITIAL JUDGMENT?

 

Did the BPA know?

 

Did DVLA know?

 

If not...WHY NOT !!!

 

It seems the High Court hearing would have been at first instance rather than on appeal, so it would not be an authority. Hence not published.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ignored ? No. I would argue that that is the wrong word however. As it wasn't (by the looks of it) an authority then it can say says nothing that Judicial Notice can be taken of. And as it is unpublished there is nothing to ignore. Believe me I wish it were otherwise. But you have revealed this CoA to us and that really is something. Besides all the good 'legal stuff' have a look at the payment percentages in the Somerfiields stores car parks. Rather encouraging and it goes against the perceived wisdom.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just had a couple of glasses of white so do forgive me if I have misunderstood the following:

 

 

Last November there was an important court case brought by Parking Eye at Manchester County Court ( Parking Eye v Smith). Regulars on here will remember that Parking Eye's lawyers; Pannone attended the hearing with 4 of their solicitors and tried to get the court to agree to award them costs of £4,457.20 They lost.

 

What is concerning is that 9 months EARLIER in March 2011 Mr Mike Kennedy; Partner at PANNONE represented Parking Eye in the Mercantile Court in the case of Parking Eye v Somerfield Stores.

 

That hearing was over a 3 week period and from the Judgment, Pannone (representing Parking Eye) would have known that if a legal case were to be taken that it would need to be by Somerfield Stores Ltd and NOT Parking Eye

 

Therefore, why was this same legal company issuing a claim in Manchester County Court 9 months later against Mr Smith !!!

Edited by tomtubby
Link to post
Share on other sites

so

 

are we or should we be making a thread that outlines there is a way to reclaim that what parking eye have charged?

 

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

I think that Parking Eye will have had a duty to inform the BPA. Whether of not they did so - who knows.

Certainly, this judgment was handed down in July - about 3 months ago. The BPA must know about it and the question is - what action have they taken against Parking Eye?

Very little I imagine.

 

It needs an FOI request to the DVLA to see if they have been informed of this judgment and when.

 

Can you reclaim from Parking Eye? Yes, I think so..

 

At least anyone who has paid the full amount should be able to recover all of it - not just the portion which might be considered to be a lawful charge if the money had been paid over in response to one of the unlawful letters.

 

Also it seems to me that on the basis that Parking Eye's behaviour is in breach of their so-called "Code of Practice", that they may have operated an unfair commercial practice contrary to CPUT and therefore complaints should be made to Trading Standards and the OFT as well.

 

 

 

************************************************

Important rider - the Court of Appeal decision was based upon the Parking Eye arrangement as agreed with Somerfields in 2005.

 

If their agreements are different elsewhere then that could affect the situation.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Finally - it seems to me that not only have Parking Eye brought further discredit to their own already discredited industry but that also they are not alone in their way of doing business and so therefore much of the Court of Appeal judgment must be generally applicable.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Therefore, why was this same legal company issuing a claim in Manchester County Court 9 months later against Mr Smith !!!

 

I imagine that PE would argue that as it was a different location and (probably) a different contract between PE and the landowner/occupier that the facts were different. As I recall the decision in the Appeal Court fell short of saying the moneys were due to the landowner in all cases. Believe me I am not arguing as pro PE and anti TT. The decision is very interesting but I do have issues with it and not just the extant one.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I understand that Somerfields are no longer owned by the Coop - bought for $1.6b in 2009.

 

I'm not sure how that ties into this case which I thought was started later than that.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I understand that Somerfields are no longer owned by the Coop - bought for $1.6b in 2009.

 

I'm not sure how that ties into this case which I thought was started later than that.

 

Somerfield, formerly known as Gateway, was a chain of small to medium sized supermarkets operating in the United Kingdom. The company also previously owned the Kwik Save chain of discount food stores. The company was taken over by the Co-operative Group on 2 March 2009 in a £1.57 billion deal,[2] creating the UK's fifth largest food retailer. The name was phased out and replaced by the Co-operative Food brand in a rolling programme of store conversions ending in spring 2011.

PUTTING IT IN WRITING & KEEPING COPIES IS A MUST FOR SUCCESS

Link to post
Share on other sites

Nick Smith MP for Blaenau Gwent has indicated that he is taking an interest.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Somerfield, formerly known as Gateway, was a chain of small to medium sized supermarkets operating in the United Kingdom. The company also previously owned the Kwik Save chain of discount food stores. The company was taken over by the Co-operative Group on 2 March 2009 in a £1.57 billion deal,[2] creating the UK's fifth largest food retailer. The name was phased out and replaced by the Co-operative Food brand in a rolling programme of store conversions ending in spring 2011.

 

That makes it clearer. Ta

Link to post
Share on other sites

For the moment I think that the advice must be that Parking Eye will not be suing anybody unless their Supermarket clients bring the case themselves. This is most unlikely.

One purpose of these management contracts is to allow the High Street brands to distance themselves from the business of suing their own customers.

It is a kind of extraordinary rendition.

Instead of flying you out of the jurisdiction to be tortured in Pakistan or Morroco, the High Street brands can wash their hands and leave it to the parking companies to do the dirty work - and to attract the hatred.

 

I can't imagine that Boots, Asda, B&Q, Morrisons, whoever - whether they are currently using private car park operators or not, really want to see their names in claim forms and judgments as having the people successfully or not to pursue their own customers.

 

Frankly, this judgment will be all around the industry by next week and any one who tries to sue a driver/keeper directly is open to challenge on the basis of abuse of process.

Don't forget that not so long ago a judge in Sc unthoorpe also concluded that VCS parking had no basis for suing directly and the judge even wondered whether there might not have been a question of contempt.

 

As Tomtubby has already remarked, if Parking Eye and their advisors Punani were aware of the Somerfield judgment when they sued Mr Smith in Manchester (even though they lost!!) there could be a question of an impropriety there.

 

Watch this space

 

*********************************

Important rider - the Court of Appeal decision was based upon the Parking Eye arrangement as agreed with Somerfields in 2005.

 

If their agreements are different elsewhere then that could affect the situation.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Yes, I saw that and I think that they have fully misunderstood the point and the effect of the judgment.

 

I have the name and number of the journalist and I'll be calling him tomorrow

Link to post
Share on other sites

Parking Eye may well believe that they have scored a "victory" against Somerfield. If I were them, I would NOT be opening the blubby just yet. This "award" could very easily come at a huge cost to them and other private car park operators.

 

As I have said many times, the poorly drafted Freedoms Bill ( introduced on 1st October) looks very likely to lead to "rouge ticketing" and as far as I am concerned, will lead to an unprecedented number of "tickets" being given to shoppers who overstaying in a supermarket. The grocery chain should be DELIGHTED to have shoppers spending their hard earned cash in their stores. Instead, the likes of Parking Eye will in my opinion drive customers AWAY !!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

In 2009 we received a letter from Parking Eye's solicitors complaining of defamatory posts and required us to remove them.

 

In view of this judgment we will be restoring those posts in the next few days.

 

Parking Eye complained about being accused of being dishonest and of using correspondence which falsely represented them selves as official in some way.

 

We now see that Parking Eye was abusing the laws of defamation to suppress legitimate comment about their activities.

 

I should say that quite a few websites and blogs received similar letters - including, for example, MSE.

We all removed content.

 

What goes around, comes around.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeh lets see them sue the JUDGE

 

dpick

cannot find it A to Z

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/consumer-forums-website-questions/53182-cant-find-what-youre.html

 

 

Halifax :D

Paid in full £2295

 

MBNA:mad: 20/03/2008 settled in full out of court

 

Capital One:D

07/07/2007 Capital one charges paid in full £1666

19/01/2008 recovered PPI £2216 + costs

 

Littlewoods :-D

12/08/2007 write off £1176.10 debt.

 

JD Williams charges refunded in full £640

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...