Parking Eye

[reallymadwoman]

I've posted before about the parking situation at the apartment where I live - the basic problem is that to get to our car park we have to drive through a supermarket car park (we do have a right of way) controlled by Parking Eye. As anyone who is a regular on the forum might guess, this has caused no end of problems to both residents and visitors to the point that about 2 years ago one regular visitor made a claim against PE and the supermarket for harassment. I can't report the result as he signed a confidentiality agreement, but I got a slap up meal out of it in recognition of my assistance so draw your own conclusions.

 

I suspect that as a result of that action PE have been a little more circumspect about issuing their payment demands however this has recently changed and in the last 2 weeks we have had 2 guests receive charge notices. All the residents would like this situation resolved permanently, ideally with a court judgement in our favour. Both guests are very willing to be guinea pigs so their appeals at the moment are a straightforward denial of parking in the supermarket car park which is almost certain to be turned down.

 

I would like opinions on whether we continue with a straight denial with the appeal to POPLA? We want the appeal to be turned down so that PE issue proceedings but we don't want a judge asking why we didn't submit a proper appeal by explaining how they weren't parked in the supermarket car park when they were photographed apparently entering and leaving at widely separated times. Alternatively do we not bother with the POPLA appeal and just maintain a denial to PE?

[i hate bailiffs]

It is a lottery with parking eye and court I am at the stage payment in 14 days or legal action WILL be taken

That was nearly a month ago

 

There is no obligation to appeal to them or POPLA

 

I have done neither as there signage differ to there claims on there paperwork so confident in a win

[Homer67]

Pure incompetence by PE, straight forward letter from the invoice recipient to PE explaining that they were not parking but using the car park as the right of way to the residential area.

 

No further correspondence will be entered into without a guarantee of costs to be reimbursed by PE (I wouldn't give them the price of a stamp).

 

I can't imagine that even PE would be stupid enough to go to court on this one.

 

How on earth did someone design a residential area that can only be accessed by a supermarket car park? Beggars belief.

[ericsbrother]

Easements are common, having PE harassing you for having one isnt. I would take the matter up with the supermarket head office as they are ultimately responsible for the harassment. Also complain to the local council and the Information Commissioners Office about the misuse of the cameras and the data gathered by them. The ICO may offer "advice" to the supermarket co, which will add more sunstance to your complaints.

[reallymadwoman]

Supermarket have proved in the past that they simply aren't interested however misuse of the cameras is a most interesting idea which I shall be following up. It's surely a breach of my privacy for PE to record every time I go out in my car even if they don't issue an invoice to me.

[Surfer01]

Parking Eye are contractors for the LL so go for the jugular which is the supermarket and claim harassment. Forget the parking claims as that will be a bonus.

[reallymadwoman]

Having had a really good look at the 'invoices' issued by PE, in one of them I can clearly see and recognise the passenger. I can think of a few situations in which the driver of a vehicle might not want the registered keeper (partner, boss, parent?) to know where they were going, how long for and who with so this is an obvious breach of privacy, especially since both vehicles were photographed for no legitimate reason. I have already emailed the ICO for advice on how to tackle this.

 

There is also the issue of how they obtain RK details - presumably they've promised DVLA that it's because the vehicle was parked for too long in the supermarket car park, which is wrong on both counts, therefore they may well be misusing DVLA data without which of course they cannot operate. I'm drafting the DVLA letter at the moment.

 

We have gone after the supermarket in the past, they have been hit where it hurts since it was them who paid up not PE, and it's made no difference whatsoever except for that one visitor - he can come and go as he pleases! It might make a difference if we went after them for every visitor that got a ticket, but I simply don't have the stamina to pursue 5, 10 or even 15 cases before they give in.

 

The bottom line is that we want PE to pursue a case to court and get told in no uncertain terms that they're idiots. Ideally, we'd then like them to do it again, in front of the same judge, but even if it's just the once we'll all have a case number to quote at them every time they try it on and even PE must get the message eventually.

 

That said, is the general consensus that we don't have to appeal to POPLA?

[ericsbrother]

You could send a unilateral contract charging a fee for every time PE misuse your data. It would have the same legal standing as the parking company's demands for breach of contract so if you want you could then bill them for every demand from PE and counterclaim from PE the exact same amoubt they ask for as restitution for harassment. If you are going to write to the supermarket CEO then you need to ensure that you do keep to your word and take the necessary steps to get them to explain to a judge why this is happening and not just pass the buck

[reallymadwoman]

Still waiting for responses to the first round of letter tennis, but PE have now issued a ticket to a certain member of my family whom no one in their right mind would normally challenge. Stroppy doesn't even come close, and they are seriously annoyed already.

 

This person is also very high up in the legal profession.

 

I almost feel sorry for PE - they have no idea what they have let themselves in for.

[Tony P]

I hope that "very high up in the legal profession" includes being aware of this specific area of Law and procedures, having deep knowledge and effective delivery.

Not the same thing, sadly.

 

Oh - and have the motivation to avoid a quiet life and stay away from anything that could effect future progress to become even higher up.

They all want to become Judges but know they must beyond past reproach.

 

Keep updating, please.

[reallymadwoman]

I hope that "very high up in the legal profession" includes being aware of this specific area of Law and procedures, having deep knowledge and effective delivery.

Not the same thing, sadly.

 

They're actually involved in criminal law but have the resources and contacts to do this right.

 

Oh - and have the motivation to avoid a quiet life and stay away from anything that could effect future progress to become even higher up.

They all want to become Judges but know they must beyond past reproach.

 

No chance of going any higher regardless of what they do or don't do, nor any desire to, and no question that motivation should be an issue. They would have been absolutely fine if PE had backed off after the first or even possibly the second letter, but three is pushing too far. One of those people who is slow to wind up, but once there never backs down.

 

Keep updating, please.

 

Will be updating on all fronts as and when. We're really hoping the breach of privacy over the cameras proves to be a winning point.

[reallymadwoman]

Response received from ICO re cameras.

 

Useless waffle about CCTV that I could have copied from their website.

 

Seems the only option is to complain to PE and take it from there.

[reallymadwoman]

Is there any time limit for ParkingEye to respond to an appeal?

[esmerobbo]

Is there any time limit for ParkingEye to respond to an appeal?

 

It should be within 35 days!

[reallymadwoman]

It should be within 35 days!

 

Thanks. A few days to go yet then.

[reallymadwoman]

Parking charge for guest no 1 has been cancelled without needing to go to POPLA. I'm baffled since all we put was that he denied being parked in the supermarket car park, so they should have turned it down.

[ericsbrother]

Nice, but doesnt solve the problem in the long term. You should get your legal person to fire off a suitable letter about refraining and desisting etc etc and force them to reply so that they are under no illusion that theydont have any rights to harass visitors to the development. The same approach to the store CEO and hold them to account for theiractions in hiring these people and again, dont accept a wishy-washy reply promising to investigate or take things on board but a firm statement of what they are going to do about spying on their neighbours.

[reallymadwoman]

Volunteer number 2 has had their appeal refused, again just a straightforward denial, so I've just done the POPLA appeal which doesn't really go in to any more detail.

 

Something which has come to light. If you appeal to ParkingEye online one of the drop down boxes is for 'registered keeper', 'driver' or 'other', so I ticked other and did the appeal on behalf of the driver/keepr. All subsequent correspondence has been addressed to me, with no enquiry as to how or why I am involved. If this goes further, I wonder if they would issue proceedings against me, and wouldn't they look stupid if they did?

 

I wonder how clogged up the system would get if everyone got a friend to appeal for them?

[silverfox1961]

Hi

I know this may sound silly but have you raised this with the landowner?

 

Surely due to the stress PE are causing you and other residents/guests, the landowner could demand that PE move the camera so that it shows cars parking rather than just going in/out.

[reallymadwoman]

Hi

I know this may sound silly but have you raised this with the landowner?

 

Surely due to the stress PE are causing you and other residents/guests, the landowner could demand that PE move the camera so that it shows cars parking rather than just going in/out.

 

It is in fact the landowner that have had and dealt with previous harassment claims. Bottom line is they're just not interested even when hit in the pocket. They have contracts with PE across a huge number of sites so we're obviously just a very little fish that's not worth their notice.

[ericsbrother]

Then send another bill to the supermarket CEO and head it letter before action. The bill should represent compenasation for the amount of time you have spent preparing yourself for this farce at £18 per hour litigant in person rates. point out in letter that civil tort for harassment to both him and PE will be next