Debt Recovery Plus's answer to how charge is calculated

[Ell-enn]

A colleague received one of Parking Eye's charge letters - he overstayed by some 20 minutes in a free car park which serves a supermarket and several other shops (they just didn't finish their shopping in time) . I gave him the letter suggested on CAG particularly asking how the charge was calculated - affixed is their explanation !

 

Unless I'm missing something - I cannot understand how staying longer in a car park that is free anyway - has cost the landowner any money ?????

[renegadeimp]

It doesnt cost them anything. Its already been proven in court. Its nothing more than a speculative invoice

[renegadeimp]

Also all their 'costs' cannot be reclaimed through the motorist. Espcially if the car park is free. A court would simply ask why overstayers are charged but normal users arent.

 

THe costs they state are their normal costs that do t change and have no maintenance and cannot be attributed to overstayers.

 

IIrc there was a court case on pepipo where the judge came down on another company who tried this and threatened to jail their directors and legal team.

[SURFBOY]

It is good that they have put that to print should they ever try court!

Fools!

[dx100uk]

I find that quite funny really.

 

as everything listed

 

has solely been installed to 'manage' the speculative invoice production.

 

if the stuff were not there, there would be no cost at all!

 

and as its a free car park, with few abusers shall we say..

 

why put it in , in the first place!!

 

amazing

 

dx

[Crocdoc]

If the cost displayed on signage is a genuine pre estimate of loss, why is the charge reduced by a minimum of 40% if payed within 14 days.

 

This is intersting in as much as PE always evade the calculation question. I wonder if DRP have scripted this off their own back.

[steampowered]

I think the argument set out in that letter is very weak. Most of the 'costs' referred to have nothing to do with the breach of contract. The signage, number plate recognition system and membership fees are all fixed costs incurred regardless of whether your colleague (or any other motorist) is in breach of contract. The costs flowing from that breach of contract are essentially just the cost of paying someone to send a letter.

 

The letter also does not give any justification for the increase from 60 to 120 ... which is another penalty.

 

If it gives your colleague confidence, there is a county court judgment confirming this at http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?act=attach&type=post&id=4984. Not binding precedent unfortunately but still helpful.

 

If Parking Eye want to argue that the charge is a genuine pre-estimate of loss, then they should be expected to provide evidence of the amount of costs incurred and how the estimate has been calculated. The other arguments from the link in my signature still apply.

 

Your colleague could try making a POPLA appeal if he is in time? http://www.popla.org.uk/makinganappeal.htm

[Ell-enn]

Thanks for your input Steampowered, much appreciated. Apart from appealling to POPLA (the rejection letter came today from Debt Recovery, not Parking Eye with no info re an appeal to Popla. Should we wait and see if anything else arrives ? or is there a letter we can send in response ?

[Crocdoc]

No ref to POPLA, (Shocking) An urgent complaint to the BPA. Furthermore, how can they possibly justify adding charges for the efforts of debt collectors when the have clearly failed to meet their obligations under the Protection of Freedoms Act.

Edited July 5, 2013 by Crocdoc

[DBC]

The question of losses was fully covered last year during a retail "civil recovery" court case. The store tried to claim £100 for the security guard's wages when dealing with a shoplifter, even though it took him less than one hour.The judge ruled that the guard's time they were trying to claim for was part of his "core duties" ,and he would have been paid the same wages whether he had had to deal with the shoplifter of not.

Edited July 5, 2013 by DBC

[steampowered]

No worries Ell-enn. Apart from asking them for a code to make a POPLA appeal, I can't think of anything significant.

 

If it makes your colleague feel better he could write them a letter (1) explaining that most of the costs cited in the letter are fixed costs incurred regardless of any breach of contract, (2) no justification whatsoever has been provided for the increase from 60 to 120 which is also a penalty; and (3) stating he denies liability and any court action will be vigorously defended. Realistically I doubt he would get a substantial response so may take the view it is not worth the time to write and send such a letter. Could also add that claiming to have a legal team where no such separate team exists (given that Debt Recovery is not licensed as a law firm) has been held to constitute fraud in certain reported cases and meets the test for criminal contempt of court ... personally I would leave that bit out but up to you.

 

That said - although I certainly know my way round a courtroom I am not an expert in parking specifically - so it may be that someone else has another suggestion.

[Ell-enn]

Thanks again Steampowered, it just makes me mad to think that they are making a charge for a free car park. Some of the shops in the retail area are Asda, Netto, Home Bargains, Farmfoods and a carpet shop - if you were doing food shopping and also choosing a carpet you could easily go over the time allotted for parking.

[SURFBOY]

Thanks again Steampowered, it just makes me mad to think that they are making a charge for a free car park. Some of the shops in the retail area are Asda, Netto, Home Bargains, Farmfoods and a carpet shop - if you were doing food shopping and also choosing a carpet you could easily go over the time allotted for parking.

I think a complaint to the manager of the retail sore is called for in this instance.

Was an appeal made to Parking Eye at first?

[Ell-enn]

I think a complaint to the manager of the retail sore is called for in this instance.

Was an appeal made to Parking Eye at first?

 

Yes, we wrote to Parking Eye requesting a breakdown of their charge, confirmation that they have the right from the landlord to issue court proceedings and we also stated that given the amount of stores in the retail park it would be quite easy to exceed the time allowed. The reply we got was from Debt Recovery with no Popla reference.

 

I am trying to find out who the landlord is but not having much success at the moment.

[steampowered]

If you can't find the landlord's details perhaps complain direct to a couple of the stores? If it becomes obvious that PE are damaging their business they will raise this with the landlord.

[Ell-enn]

Good idea, we can complain to all the shops in the retail park.

[Peterbard]

Seems to me that these costs would have been incurred no matter what the drivers actions, to say that these represent consequential loss is a nonsense IMO.

[DBC]

You have got it in one. This just proves that the whole private parking "business model" is based on one big lie. If you look at it sensibly no PPC is ever going to make a profit if they only thing they can claim for is actual losses. They should be "cost neutral" . Anything above that would be considered an unfair penalty.

[steampowered]

I imagine landlords started using companies like Parking Eye because they are cheap. Due to the money collected from aggressive enforcement PE will always be able to undercut a less aggressive competitior.

 

PE will go out of business when landlords realise that the amount they save by using Parking Eye just isn't worth the loss of income from customers. It would also be very helpful to have a Court of Appeal decision on this issue and/or some sort of OFT investigation or legislative action.

[Ell-enn]

Exactly, these costs weren't incurred because of the driver being there, but in spite of him being there. If no one parked in the car park for a week, they would still have the same costs wouldn't they?

 

I could understand if a shop charged £1.00 to park and you don't pay, they have lost £1.00. But in a free car park they have lost nothing - except good will of course !

 

Perhaps time to get local MP's involved

[Surfer01]

Yes, we wrote to Parking Eye requesting a breakdown of their charge, confirmation that they have the right from the landlord to issue court proceedings and we also stated that given the amount of stores in the retail park it would be quite easy to exceed the time allowed. The reply we got was from Debt Recovery with no Popla reference.

 

I am trying to find out who the landlord is but not having much success at the moment.

 

Perhaps asking them for proof that they have a right from the LL to claim damages on behalf of the LL may help? Any one can say they have a £1m, but it means nothing unless they can prove it!

[Peterbard]

RLP tried A similar argument in order to quantify their damages for allegations of shoplifting. They had a better argument because the measures are there to prevent an actual tort.( However not a loss because "shrinkage" forms part of their operational costs).

 

No such rationale is available here, the signs are not there to deter trespass, their argument would be better served if they maintained it was a contractual relationship, although this too would ultimately fail, for the reasons shown earlier. IMO

[esmerobbo]

By their own argument if it costs them £1,000,000 to run their business, and no one ever committed a heinous parking infringement except one poor sod, they would need to sue them for £1,000,000.

[Crocdoc]

By their own argument if it costs them £1,000,000 to run their business, and no one ever committed a heinous parking infringement except one poor sod, they would need to sue them for £1,000,000.

 

I seem to recall that this point was touched upon in VCS v I bbotson.

[Ell-enn]

I seem to recall that this point was touched upon in VCS v I bbotson.

 

What was the result of that case ?